To describe the clinical characteristics, laboratory results, imaging findings, and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to Brazilian hospitals. Methods: A cohort study of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized from March 2020 to September 2020 in 25 hospitals. Data were collected from medical records using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tools. A multivariate Poisson regression model was used to assess the risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Results: For a total of 2,054 patients (52.6% male; median age of 58 years), the in-hospital mortality was 22.0%; this rose to 47.6% for those treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Hypertension (52.9%), diabetes (29.2%), and obesity (17.2%) were the most prevalent comorbidities. Overall, 32.5% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 12.1% required kidney replacement therapy. Septic shock was observed in 15.0%, nosocomial infection in 13.1%, thromboembolism in 4.1%, and acute heart failure in 3.6%. Age >= 65 years, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, C-reactive protein ! 100 mg/dL, platelet count < 100 Â 10 9 /L, oxygen saturation < 90%, the need for supplemental oxygen, and invasive mechanical ventilation at admission were independently associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality. The overall use of antimicrobials was 87.9%. Conclusions: This study reveals the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Brazil. Certain easily assessed parameters at hospital admission were independently associated with a higher risk of death. The high frequency of antibiotic use points to an over-use of antimicrobials in COVID-19 patients.

ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic literature review with indirect comparison of studies evaluating therapeutic efficacy and toxicity associated to visceral leishmaniasis (VL) therapy among HIV infected individuals.Main outcome measurementsThe outcomes of interest were clinical and parasitological cure, mortality, and adverse events.MethodsPRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and Cochrane manual were followed. Sources were MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge databases and manual search of references from evaluated studies. We included all studies reporting outcomes after VL treatment, regardless of their design. Study quality was evaluated systematically by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software v.2.2.048 was used to perform one-group meta-analysis of study arms with the same drug to estimate global rates of success and adverse events with each drug. These estimates were used, when possible, to indirectly compare treatment options, adjusted for CD4 count. Direct comparison was pooled when available.ResultsSeventeen studies reporting five treatment regimens and outcome of 920 VL episodes occurring in HIV infected individuals were included. The main outstanding difference in outcome among the treatment regimens was observed in mortality rate: it was around 3 times higher with high-dose antimony use (18.4%, CI 95% 13.3–25%), indirectly compared to lipid formulations of amphotericin B treatment (6.1%, CI 95% 3.9–9.4%). It was observed, also by indirect comparison, higher rates of clinical improvement in study arms using amphotericin B than in study arms using pentavalent antimonial therapy (Sbv). The parasitological cure, an outcome that presented some degree of risk of selection and verification bias, had rates that varied widely within the same treatment arm, with high heterogeneity, hampering any formal comparison among drugs. One direct comparison of amphotericin and antimoniate was possible combining results of two studies and confirming the superiority of amphotericin.ConclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that amphotericin is superior to antimony treatment. Death rate using antimoniate high dose is unacceptably high. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to compare different formulations and doses of amphotericin, alternative therapies and drug combinations.

Background SARS-CoV-2 predisposes patients to secondary infections; however, a better understanding of the impact of coinfections on the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients is still necessary. Aim To analyse death risk due to coinfections in COVID-19 patients. Methods We evaluated the Odds of death of 212 severely ill COVID-19 patients, with detailed focus on the risks for each pathogen, site of infection, comorbidities and length of hospitalization. Findings The mortality rate was 50.47%. Fungal and/or bacterial isolation occurred in 89 patients, of which 83.14% died. Coinfected patients stayed hospitalized longer and had an increased Odds of dying (OR = 13.45, R 2 =0.31). The risk of death was increased by bacterial (OR=11.28) and fungal (OR=5.97) coinfections, with increased levels of creatinine, leukocytes, urea and C-reactive protein. Coinfections increased the risk of death if patients suffer from cardiovascular disease (OR= 11.53), diabetes (OR=6.00) or obesity (OR=5.60) in comparison with patients with these comorbidities but without pathogen isolation. The increased risk of death was detected for negative-coagulase Staphylococcus (OR=25.39), Candida non- albicans (OR=11.12), S. aureus (OR=10.72), Acinetobacter spp. (OR=6.88), Pseudomonas spp. (OR=4.77) and C. albicans (OR=3.97). The high-risk sites of infection were blood, tracheal aspirate and urine. Patients with coinfection undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were 3.8 times more likely to die than those without positive cultures. Conclusions Severe COVID-19 patients with secondary coinfections required longer hospitalization and had higher risk of death. The early diagnosis of coinfections is essential to identify high-risk patients and to determine the right interventions to reduce mortality.

Objectives The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, our aim was to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients, and to compare this score with other existing ones. Methods Consecutive patients (≥18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March-July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August-September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Results Median (25th-75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48-72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, platelet count and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829 to 0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833 to 0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870 to 0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). Conclusions We designed and validated an easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation, for early stratification for in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19.

IntroductionThere are few drugs with proven efficacy in cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), and pentavalent antimonial derivatives are still the main first-line therapeutic agents worldwide, despite their recognized high toxicities. Randomized controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic modalities are of high priority, and the definition of the design of such trials raises debate about the use of placebo as a comparator. To support the use of placebo as a comparator, two main points need to be addressed: 1- the cure rate without any therapeutic intervention and 2- the damage caused by CL and its impact on patients.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically assess the spontaneous cure rate for American CL and to broaden the discussion about placebo use in CL trials.MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and the Cochrane manual were followed. The sources used were the PubMed and LILACS databases. Studies were included if they reported cure rates using placebo or no treatment in American CL.ResultsThirteen studies of a total of 352 patients were ultimately included in this review. The summarized global cure rates for all Leishmania species according to the intention-to-treat analyses performed at approximately three (“initial cure”) and nine (“definitive cure”) months after “no treatment” or placebo use were 26% (CI95%: 16 to 40%) and 26% (CI95%:16 to 38%), respectively. Notably, a significantly lower cure rate was observed for L. braziliensis infection (6.4%, CI95%:0.2 to 20%) than for L. mexicana infection (44%, CI95%:19 to 72%), p = 0.002. Of note, relapse occurred in 20% of patients with initial healing (CI95%:9.2 to 38.9%).ConclusionThese results clearly demonstrate a low spontaneous cure rate following no-treatment or placebo use, confirming that this strategy for the control group in CL studies expose patients to greater morbidity, especially for CL caused by L. braziliensis. Therefore, from this point, the crucial questionto consider regarding placebo use isthe seriousness of the suffering caused by this disease.