Risk of bias assessment of clinical trials referenced in the technical notes on direct-acting oral anticoagulants available on e-NatJus / Avaliação do risco de viés dos ensaios clínicos referenciados nas notas técnicas sobre os anticoagulantes orais diretos disponíveis no e-NatJus

Objective: Assess and classify the risks of bias in the clinical trials (CTs) that make up the technical notes (TNs) referring to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) requests. Methods: The TNs related to the DOAC requests of apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban were selected on the e-NatJus website and, after excluding duplicate references, an analysis of the CT used for their writing was carried out. The CT risk of bias (low, high, or uncertain bias) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the results were added to Review Manager 5.4. Results: 181 TNs were selected, 236 articles were analyzed and after applying the inclusion criteria, 28 CTs were analyzed in full. None of the CTs were free of bias. Most CTs, 71% (20/28), had a low risk of bias regarding attrition bias and reporting bias. In contrast, 61% (17/28) of the studies did not control for selection, performance, and detection bias, as they present uncertainties and a high risk of bias. In addition, it was observed that 21% (6/28) of the CTs had a high risk of bias for conflict of interest. Conclusion: The biases present in the CT cited as a reference for the TN referring to the DOAC request are significant and compromise their quality (AU).

Objetivo: Avaliar e classificar os riscos de vieses dos ensaios clínicos (EC) que compõem as NTs referentes à solicitação dos DOAC. Métodos: As NTs relacionadas à solicitação dos DOAC apixabana, dabigatrana, edoxabana e rivaroxabana foram selecionadas no website e-NatJus e, após exclusão das referências duplicadas, foi realizada uma análise dos EC utilizados para a redação das mesmas. O risco de viés dos EC (baixo, alto ou viés incerto) foi avaliado utilizando a ferramenta Cochrane Risk of Bias e os resultados foram adicionados no Review Manager 5.4. Resultados: Foram selecionadas 181 NTs, analisados 236 artigos e após aplicação dos critérios de inclusão, resultou em 28 EC analisados na íntegra. Nenhum dos EC ficou isento de viés. A maioria dos EC, 71% (20/28), apresentou baixo risco de viés em relação ao viés de atrito e viés de relato. Por outro lado, 61% (17/28) dos estudos não controlaram o viés de seleção, performance e detecção, uma vez que apresentam incertezas e alto risco de viés. Além disso, foi observado que 21% (6/28) dos EC apresentaram alto risco de viés para conflito de interesses. Conclusão: Os vieses presentes nos EC citados como referência das NT referentes a solicitação dos DOAC são significativos e comprometem a sua qualidade (AU).

Quality indicators of hospitalized children influenced by clinical pharmacist services: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Care for children who are hospitalized can be optimized if the pharmacist, in conjunction with the multidisciplinary team, promotes the rational use of medicines. In this sense, the evaluation of the quality of these clinical services through indicators is important in the planning, decision making of pharmacists and managers of these services. OBJECTIVE: To characterize which health indicators were influenced by the pharmaceutical clinical services for the care of children in hospitals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed. The search for data was made on the bases: Cochrane, Embase, Lilacs, Pubmed and Web of Science. Then, the search included studies in which evaluated the impact of pharmaceutical clinical services on clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes. RESULTS: The search resulted in 11 included studies. In this review, four pharmaceutical clinical services were found: pharmacotherapy review, multiprofessional team interventions, antimicrobial stewardship program and pharmaceutical services at discharge hospital. The most influenced outcome indicators were length of hospital stay, with average time in the group that received the pharmacotherapy review service, and interventions multiprofessional team with a 6.45-day vs. 10.83 days in the control group; hospital readmissions with a significant reduction of non-scheduled readmission of 30 days in the ntimicrobial stewardship program; reduction of hospital costs and caregiver satisfaction. CONCLUSION: In this study, we can highlight that pharmacotherapy review, multiprofessional team interventions and Antimicrobial Stewardship Program that significantly reduced the clinical results of length of hospital stay and hospital readmission, as well as a significant reduction of hospital costs.