Implementação de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil: análise de orientações federais para o sistema público de saúde / Implementation of health technologies in Brazil: analysis of federal guidelines for the public health system

Resumo O objetivo foi identificar o arcabouço regulatório e as orientações federais que sustentam o processo de implementação de tecnologias em saúde no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), por meio da análise de documentos e legislações relacionados à Política Nacional de Gestão de Tecnologias de Saúde, publicados entre 2009 e 2021. Foi realizada busca e seleção dos documentos e posterior extração de dados, agrupados por três categorias: normativas estruturantes, recomendações na avaliação de tecnologias e recomendações nas diretrizes clínicas. Em 38,8% das normativas, foram identificadas citações à implementação relacionadas principalmente às diretrizes clínicas do SUS, mas nenhum documento dedicado a orientar as ações de implementação. As recomendações relacionadas às implementações foram identificadas em 27,1% dos relatórios e em 66,1% das diretrizes, mas sem padronização e, de modo geral, pouco detalhadas, com foco em recursos e ações necessárias para a disponibilização da tecnologia, ao invés de métodos e intervenções para implementação. Os resultados confirmam a existência de uma lacuna de diretrizes formais para guiar o processo de implementação no Brasil, o que se constitui em oportunidade para o desenvolvimento de modelos alinhados à realidade do SUS.

Abstract This study aimed to identify the regulatory framework and federal guidelines that support the process of implementing health technologies in the Unified Health System (SUS) through analysis of documents and legislation related to the National Health Technology Management Policy, published between 2009 and 2021. The search and selection of documents and subsequent data extraction were carried out. The documents were grouped into three categories: structural regulatory documents, recommendations on evaluation of technologies, and recommendations on clinical guidelines. In 38.8% of the regulatory documents, citations to implementation related mainly to SUS clinical guidelines were identified; however, no document dedicated to guiding implementation actions was identified. Recommendations related to implementations were identified in 27.1% of the reports and 66.1% of the guidelines, although without standardization and, in general, in little detail, focusing on resources and actions needed for making technology available rather than on methods and interventions for its implementation. The results evidence a gap in formal guidelines to guide the implementation process in Brazil, representing an opportunity for the development of models aligned with the reality of the SUS.

Mucosal leishmaniasis: the experience of a Brazilian referral center

Abstract INTRODUCTION Pentavalent antimonials (Sbv) are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), despite their high toxicity and only moderate efficacy. The aim of this study was to report therapeutic responses with different available options for ML. METHODS This study was based on a review of clinical records of 35 patients (24 men and 11 women) treated between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS The median age of patients was 63 years, and the median duration of the disease was 24 months. Seventeen patients received Sbv, while nine patients were treated with liposomal amphotericin B (AmB), and another nine patients were treated with fluconazole. Patients treated with AmB received a total median accumulated dose of 2550mg. The mean duration of azole use was 120 days, and the daily dose ranged from 450 to 900mg. At the three-month follow-up visit, the cure rate was 35%, 67%, and 22% for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups, respectively. At the six-month follow-up visit, the cure rates for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups were 71%, 78%, and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS There is a scarcity of effective ML treatment alternatives, and based on our observations, fluconazole is not a valid treatment option.

Towards a standard protocol for antimony intralesional infiltration technique for cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment

BACKGROUND Despite its recognised toxicity, antimonial therapy continues to be the first-line drug for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment. Intralesional administration of meglumine antimoniate (MA) represents an alternative that could reduce the systemic absorption of the drug and its side effects. OBJECTIVES This study aims to validate the standard operational procedure (SOP) for the intralesional infiltration of MA for CL therapy as the first step before the assessment of efficacy and safety related to the procedure. METHODS The SOP was created based on 21 trials retrieved from the literature, direct monitoring of the procedure and consultation with experts. This script was submitted to a formal computer-aided inspection to identify readability, clarity, omission, redundancy and unnecessary information (content validation). For criterion and construct validations, the influence of critical condition changes (compliance with the instructions and professional experience) on outcome conformity (saturation status achievement), tolerability (pain referred) and safety (bleeding) were assessed. FINDINGS The median procedure length was 12 minutes and in 72% of them, patients classified the pain as mild. The bleeding was also classified as mild in 96.6% of the procedures. Full compliance with the SOP was observed in 66% of infiltrations. Despite this, in 100% of the inspected procedures, lesion saturation was observed at the end of infiltration, which means that it tolerates some degree of modification in its execution (robustness) without prejudice to the result. CONCLUSIONS The procedure is reproducible and can be used by professionals without previous training with high success and safety rates.

Meglumine antimoniate intralesional infiltration for localised cutaneous leishmaniasis: a single arm, open label, phase II clinical trial

BACKGROUND Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a world-wide health problem which currently lacks effective, affordable and easy to use therapy. Recently, the meglumine antimoniate (MA) intralesional infiltration was included among the acceptable therapies for New World leishmaniasis. While this approach is attractive, there is currently little evidence to support its use in Americas. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to provide information about effectiveness and safety of a standardised MA intralesional infiltration technique for the treatment of CL. METHODS It is a single-arm phase II clinical trial conducted at a Brazilian referral centre. CL cases with parasitological confirmation presenting a maximum of three CL-compatible skin lesions were treated with weekly MA intralesional infiltration by using a validated technique, up to a maximum of eight infiltrations. RESULTS A total of 53 patients (62 lesions) were included. Overall, patients received a median of seven infiltrations (IQR25-75% 5-8) over a median treatment period of 43 days (IQR25-75% 28-52 days). The definitive cure rate at D180 was 87% (95% CI:77-96%). The majority of adverse events were local, with mild or moderate intensity. Bacterial secondary infection of the lesion site was observed in 13% of the treated patients, beside two intensity-three adverse events (hypersensitivity reactions).

Intralesional meglumine antimoniate for the treatment of localised cutaneous leishmaniasis: a retrospective review of a Brazilian referral centre

Although intralesional meglumine antimoniate (MA) infiltration is considered an option for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) therapy and is widely used in the Old World, there have been few studies supporting this therapeutic approach in the Americas. This study aims to describe outcomes and adverse events associated with intralesional therapy for CL. This retrospective study reviewed the experience of a Brazilian leishmaniasis reference centre using intralesional MA to treat 31 patients over five years (2008 and 2013). The median age was 63 years (22-86) and the median duration time of the lesions up to treatment was 16 weeks. In 22 patients (71%), intralesional therapy was indicated due to the presence of contraindications or previous serious adverse events with systemic MA. Other indications were failure of systemic therapy or ease of administration. Intralesional treatment consisted of one-six infiltrations (median three) for a period of up to 12 weeks. The initial (three months) and definitive (six months) cure rates were 70.9% and 67.7%, respectively. Most patients reported mild discomfort during infiltration and no serious adverse events were observed. In conclusion, these results show that the intralesional MA efficacy rate was very similar to that of systemic MA treatment, and reinforce the need for further studies with adequate design to establish the efficacy and safety of this therapeutic approach.