Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) became the deadliest pandemic of the new millennium. One year after it became a pandemic, the current COVID-19 situation in Brazil is an example of how the impacts of a pandemic are beyond health outcomes and how health, social, and political actions are intertwined. We aimed to provide an overview of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, from a social and political point of view, and to discuss the perspectives from now on. This is a narrative review using official, scientific (PubMed, Medline, and SciELO databases) and publicly available data. Press articles were also used that contain important information not found in these databases. We address the impacts of COVID-19 in different regions of Brazil, on indigenous populations, health care workers, and how internal social contrasts impacted the pandemics advance across the country. We also discuss key points that culminated in the countrys failed management of the COVID-19 spread, such as poor management of the public health care system, disparities between public and private health care infrastructure, lack of mass testing and viral spread tracking, lack of preparedness and planning to implement strict isolation and social distancing measures, and, most importantly, political instability, a deteriorating Health Ministry and sabotaging attitudes of the countrys president, including anti-scientific actions, underplaying COVID-19 severity, spreading and powering fake news about the pandemic, promoting knowingly inefficient medications for COVID-19 treatment, and interference in collective health policies, including the countrys vaccination plan. After one year of COVID-19 and a disastrous management of the disease, Brazil has more than 11 million cases, 270,000 deaths, and the highest number of daily deaths due to COVID-19 in the world, most of which could have been avoided and can be credited to negligence of municipal, state, and federal authorities, especially President Jair Messias Bolsonaro. Unfortunately, the country is an example of what not to do in a pandemic setting.

Brazil is one of the epicenters of COVID-19 pandemic and faces several hindrances to make his COVID-19 vaccination plan efficient.The Brazilian COVID-19 vaccination plan was evaluated and the hindr...

The Human Development Index measures a region’s development and is a step for development debate beyond the traditional, economic perspective. It can also determine the success of a country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly affecting the case fatality rate among severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to associate the Human Development Index with the case fatality rate due to COVID-19 in each Brazilian state and the Federal District, taking into account comorbidities and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. We also evaluated the influence of the GINI index, number of intensive care unit beds, and occupied households in subnormal clusters on the case fatality rate. We performed an ecological study including two populations: COVID-19 individuals that did not require the mechanical ventilation protocol; and COVID-19 individuals under invasive mechanical ventilation. We performed a Pearson correlation test and a univariate linear regression analysis on the relationship between Human Development Index, Human Development Index—Education Level, Human Development Index—Life Expectancy, and Human Development Index—Gross National Income per capita and COVID-19 deaths. The same analyses were performed using the other markers. We grouped the patients with COVID-19 according to comorbidities and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Alpha = 0.05. We included 848,501 COVID-19 individuals, out of which 153,710 needed invasive mechanical ventilation and 314,164 died, and 280,533 COVID-19 individuals without comorbidity, out of which 33,312 needed invasive mechanical ventilation and 73,723 died. We observed a low negative Pearson correlation between the Human Development Index and death and a moderate negative Pearson correlation between the Human Development Index and deaths of individuals on invasive mechanical ventilation, with or without comorbidity. The univariate linear analysis showed the case fatality rate depends on at least 20–40% of the Human Development Index. In Brazil, regions with a low Human Development Index demonstrated a higher case fatality rate due to COVID-19, mainly in individuals who needed invasive mechanical ventilation, than regions with a higher Human Development Index. Although other indexes studied, such as intensive care unit beds and GINI, were also associated with the COVID-19 case fatality rate, they were not as relevant as the Human Development Index. Brazil is a vast territory comprising cultural, social, and economic diversity, which mirrors the diversity of the Human Development Index. Brazil is a model nation for the study of the Human Development Index’s influence on aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as its impact on the case fatality rate.

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P—hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I—use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C—placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O—mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T—phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs’ respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.