Evidence syntheses to support decision-making related to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic generated a large volume of scientific productions with different quality levels. The speed with which knowledge was produced and shared worldwide imposed on health management the challenge of seeking ways to identify the best available evidence to support its decisions. In response to this challenge, the Department of Science and Technology of the Brazilian Ministry of Health started offering a service to produce and provide scientific knowledge addressing priority public health issues in the pandemic scenario. Drug treatments, non-pharmacological measures, testing, reinfection and immunological response, immunization, pathophysiology, post-COVID syndrome and adverse events are among the topics covered. In this article, we discuss the strengths and lessons learned, as well as the challenges and perspectives that present a real example of how to offer the best scientific evidence in a timely manner in order to assist the decision-making process during a public health emergency.

Sínteses de evidências para apoio à tomada de decisões relacionadas à pandemia de covid-19 / Evidence syntheses to support decision-making related to the Covid-19 pandemic

A pandemia de covid-19 gerou um numeroso volume de produções científicas com diferentes níveis de qualidade. A velocidade com que o conhecimento era produzido e compartilhado a nível mundial impôs à gestão em saúde o desafio de buscar meios de identificar as melhores evidências disponíveis para subsidiar suas decisões. Em resposta a este desafio, o Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia do Ministério da Saúde do Brasil estabeleceu um serviço para elaborar e disponibilizar conhecimento científico abordando questões prioritárias de saúde pública no cenário da pandemia. Entre os temas abordados estão tratamentos medicamentosos, medidas não farmacológicas, testagem, reinfecção e resposta imunológica, imunização, fisiopatologia, síndrome pós-covid e eventos adversos. Neste artigo, discute-se os pontos fortes e lições aprendidas, bem como os desafios e perspectivas que fornecem um exemplo real sobre como disponibilizar as melhores evidências científicas, em tempo hábil e de forma oportuna, para auxiliar o processo decisório durante uma emergência em saúde pública.

Pharmacological therapies for patients with human coronavirus infections: a rapid systematic review. / Terapia medicamentosa para infecções por coronavírus em humanos: revisão sistemática rápida.

This work aimed to evaluate the effects of drug therapies for coronavirus infections. Rapid systematic review with search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases. Thirty-six studies evaluating alternative drugs against SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS were included. Most of the included studies were conducted in China with an observational design for the treatment of COVID-19. The most studied treatments were with antimalarials and antivirals. In antimalarial, the meta-analysis of two studies with 180 participants did not identify the benefit of hydroxychloroquine concerning the negative viral load via real-time polymerase chain reaction, and the use of antivirals compared to standard care was similar regarding outcomes. The available scientific evidence is preliminary and of low methodological quality, which suggests caution when interpreting its results. Research that evaluates comparative efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, with adequate follow-up time and with the methods properly disclosed and subject to scientific peer review is required. A periodic update of this review is recommended.

Terapia medicamentosa para infecções por coronavírus em humanos: revisão sistemática rápida / Pharmacological therapies for patients with human coronavirus infections: a rapid systematic review

Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar efeitos de tratamentos medicamentosos para infecções por coronavírus. Revisão sistemática rápida com buscas nas bases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov e International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Foram incluídos 36 estudos avaliando alternativas medicamentosas contra SARS, SARS-CoV-2 e MERS. A maioria dos estudos incluídos foi conduzida na China com delineamento observacional para tratamento da COVID-19. Os tratamentos mais estudados foram antimaláricos e antivirais. Nos antimaláricos, a metanálise de dois estudos com 180 participantes não identificou benefício da hidroxicloroquina em relação à negativação da carga viral via reação em cadeia de polimerase em tempo real e o uso de antivirais comparado ao cuidado padrão foi similar em relação aos desfechos. As evidências científicas disponíveis são preliminares e de baixa qualidade metodológica, o que sugere cautela na interpretação dos dados. Pesquisas que avaliem a eficácia comparativa em ensaios clínicos randomizados, controlados, com tempo de acompanhamento adequado e com os métodos devidamente divulgados e sujeitos à revisão científica por pares são necessárias. Recomenda-se atualização periódica da presente revisão.

Abstract This work aimed to evaluate the effects of drug therapies for coronavirus infections. Rapid systematic review with search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases. Thirty-six studies evaluating alternative drugs against SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS were included. Most of the included studies were conducted in China with an observational design for the treatment of COVID-19. The most studied treatments were with antimalarials and antivirals. In antimalarial, the meta-analysis of two studies with 180 participants did not identify the benefit of hydroxychloroquine concerning the negative viral load via real-time polymerase chain reaction, and the use of antivirals compared to standard care was similar regarding outcomes. The available scientific evidence is preliminary and of low methodological quality, which suggests caution when interpreting its results. Research that evaluates comparative efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, with adequate follow-up time and with the methods properly disclosed and subject to scientific peer review is required. A periodic update of this review is recommended.

Public engagement in health technology assessment in Brazil: the case of the Trastuzumab public consultation.

BACKGROUND: Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasing worldwide. There are several forms of public engagement and it is not always possible to determine which stakeholders participate in the HTA process and how they contribute. Our objective was to investigate which types of social representatives contributed to the public consultation on the incorporation of Trastuzumab for early-stage breast cancer treatment within the public health system in Brazil, held in 2012 by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used to analyze social representativeness and the composition of the corpus from the public consultation, which consisted of 127 contributions. Three types of analysis were performed using IRaMuTeQ software: classic lexical analysis, descending hierarchical classification and specificities analysis. The contributions were clustered according to the main categories of discourse observed, into four social representation categories: 1) patient representation/advocacy; 2) pharmaceutical industry/advocacy; 3) healthcare professionals; and 4) individual contributions. RESULTS: Category 1 contained words related to increased survival due to use of the drug and a low score for words pertaining to studies on Trastuzumab. The word "safety" obtained a positive score only in category 2, which was also the only category that exhibited a negative score for the word "risk". Category 3 displayed the lowest scores for "diagnosis" and "safety". The word "efficacy" had a negative score only in category 4. CONCLUSIONS: Each category exhibited different results for words related to health systems and to key concepts linked to HTA. Our analysis enabled the identification of the most prominent contributions for each category. Despite the promising results obtained, further research is needed to validate this software for use in analyzing public contributions.

Mais Médicos (More Doctors) Program: its contribution in view of WHO recommendations for provision of doctors. / A contribuição do Programa Mais Médicos: análise a partir das recomendações da OMS para provimento de médicos.

In order to examine whether Brazil's Mais Médicos (More Doctors) Programme (PMM) reflected World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations for improved attraction, retention and recruitment of health workers in remote and rural areas, this descriptive, qualitative study drew on document analysis in order to compare the WHO recommendations published in 2010 with Brazil's Law No. 12,871/13, which instituted the PMM. Of the 16 WHO recommendations systematised here, the PMM met 37.5%. Recommendations not incorporated into the PMM include career development programmes and public recognition strategies. Although reflecting WHO recommendations and already in place elsewhere in the SUS prior to announcement of the PMM, the National Retention Grant Programme and multi-professional teams (as in the Family Health Strategy) were not implemented by the PMM. The programme contains innovative components such as a new curriculum for medical schools and compulsory medical service. On the other hand, the PMM could have invested more in personal and professional support.

A contribuição do Programa Mais Médicos: análise a partir das recomendações da OMS para provimento de médicos / Mais Médicos (More Doctors) Program: its contribution in view of WHO recommendations for provision of doctors

Resumo Este estudo tem como objetivo analisar se o Programa Mais Médicos (PMM) contemplou as recomendações da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) relacionadas ao aprimoramento da atração, do recrutamento e da retenção de profissionais de saúde em áreas remotas e rurais. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, qualitativo, baseado em análise documental, no intuito de comparar se as recomendações publicadas em 2010 pela OMS foram contempladas na Lei 12.871/13, que instituiu o PMM. Ao total, foram sistematizadas 16 recomendações da OMS, para as quais o PMM atendeu a 37,5%. Entre as recomendações não contempladas, encontram-se a ausência de programas de desenvolvimento da carreira e de medidas de reconhecimento público. Algumas recomendações que não foram atendidas pela PMM já estavam sendo desenvolvidas, tais como o Programa Nacional de Bolsa Permanência para estudantes de nível superior e a inserção de diferentes profissionais de saúde no SUS (Estratégia Saúde da Família). O programa apresenta fatores inovadores, como a mudança curricular do curso de medicina e o serviço médico obrigatório, entretanto, poderia ter feito mais investimentos na categoria de apoio pessoal e profissional.

Abstract In order to examine whether Brazil's Mais Médicos (More Doctors) Programme (PMM) reflected World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations for improved attraction, retention and recruitment of health workers in remote and rural areas, this descriptive, qualitative study drew on document analysis in order to compare the WHO recommendations published in 2010 with Brazil's Law No. 12,871/13, which instituted the PMM. Of the 16 WHO recommendations systematised here, the PMM met 37.5%. Recommendations not incorporated into the PMM include career development programmes and public recognition strategies. Although reflecting WHO recommendations and already in place elsewhere in the SUS prior to announcement of the PMM, the National Retention Grant Programme and multi-professional teams (as in the Family Health Strategy) were not implemented by the PMM. The programme contains innovative components such as a new curriculum for medical schools and compulsory medical service. On the other hand, the PMM could have invested more in personal and professional support.