Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines.

This study aims to compare the differences between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of non-communicable disease (NCDs) were included. CPG methodological quality and transparency was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using the AGREE II. CPGs were rated as high, moderate, and low quality (ranging from A to C). Twenty-six CPGs were assessed for quality. MoH CPGs were published more recently, and were of better quality than the others: 6/6 (100%) were rated as Moderate-A. Although CPGs presented a wide range of methodological quality and transparency, MoH CPGs presented better consistency in the preparation method. To avoid confusion and to improve the quality of care within finite resources in Brazil, and to avoid potential bias, conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should be developed by Conitec with partners who have no conflict of interest.

Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines / Comparação da qualidade metodológica e transparência das guias de prática clínica brasileiras

Abstract This study aims to compare the differences between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of non-communicable disease (NCDs) were included. CPG methodological quality and transparency was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using the AGREE II. CPGs were rated as high, moderate, and low quality (ranging from A to C). Twenty-six CPGs were assessed for quality. MoH CPGs were published more recently, and were of better quality than the others: 6/6 (100%) were rated as Moderate-A. Although CPGs presented a wide range of methodological quality and transparency, MoH CPGs presented better consistency in the preparation method. To avoid confusion and to improve the quality of care within finite resources in Brazil, and to avoid potential bias, conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should be developed by Conitec with partners who have no conflict of interest.

Resumo O objetivo deste estudo é comparar as diferenças entre as guias de prática clínica (GPCs) do Ministério da Saúde (MS) e as de outras instituições de saúde brasileiras. Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática das GPCs brasileiras. Foram incluídas GPCs com recomendações para o tratamento farmacológico de doenças crônicas não transmissíveis elencadas (DCNTs). A qualidade metodológica e a transparência das GPCs foram avaliadas de forma independente por 2 revisores utilizando o AGREE II. As GPCs foram classificadas como alta, moderada e baixa qualidade (variando de A a C). Vinte e seis GPCs foram avaliadas quanto à qualidade. As GPCs do MS foram publicadas mais recentemente, e apresentaram melhor qualidade do que as outras: 6/6 (100%) foram classificadas como Moderada-A. Embora as GPCs tenham apresentado uma ampla gama de qualidade metodológica e transparência, as GPCs do MS apresentaram melhor consistência no desenvolvimento. Para evitar confusão e melhorar a qualidade do cuidado com os recursos limitados no Brasil e, para evitar viés, conflitos de interesse, GPCs nacionais usadas no SUS devem ser desenvolvidas, sobretudo, pela Conitec e parceiros sem conflitos de interesse.

The appropriate use of human albumin in a Brazilian University Hospital: therapeutic indication and dosage regimen

The objective of the study was to evaluate the use of human albumin in a Brazilian university hospital, in compliance with the institutional protocol and other clinical guidelines, taking into account the therapeutic indications and the dosage regimens. Data was obtained from the pharmacy dispensing records of human albumin, the requests for use it and, when available, the patient's records between January and October 2017. After evaluation the therapeutic indications and the dosage regimens were classified as "appropriate" and "inappropriate". The analysis of 98 requests showed that, when compared to the institutional protocol, 54 (55.1%) requests had an inappropriate therapeutic indication. However, when a comparison was made between 25 medical records (54 requests) and other clinical guidelines, it was observed that the therapeutic indication had none classified as inappropriate. In addition, 16 (29.7%) requests were considered inappropriate in relation to dosage regimens. From these results, it was possible to conclude that although the use of human albumin in the hospital was associated to a clinical protocol, it was outdated. Thus, it is possible to affirm that not only the adoption of a clinical protocol, but its periodical updating is an important strategy to promote the rational use of drugs.