RESUMO
Introdução: No cotidiano dos profissionais de saúde, principalmente no enfrentamento à pandemia do SARS-CoV-2, as máscaras são artigos de suma importância, porém não existe programa de controle de pós-comercialização para tais produtos. Objetivo: Avaliar os eventos adversos (EA) e as queixas técnicas (QT) de máscaras dos tipos cirúrgicas e respiradores, a fim de elencar e categorizar os problemas de saúde pública envolvendo o produto. Método: Estudo transversal, descritivo, retrospectivo, documental com abordagem quantitativa, englobando dados de janeiro de 2010 a maio de 2020 disponibilizados no sistema Notivisa. Os dados analisados tiveram abrangência nacional que foram reclassificados, quando necessário, acerca da sua categoria (EA ou QT). Resultado: Incluiu-se 443 notificações no estudo, que continham no total 519 reclamações (EA e QT). A distribuição dos dados na década analisada apresentou acentuado decréscimo, sendo a Região Sudeste do país a com maior prevalência de notificações no Brasil. A maior parte das empresas notificantes foram estabelecimentos de saúde, valendo destacar que a maior prevalência de eventos de saúde encontrados para este produto foram EA relacionados a problemas que afetavam o usuário nas tiras de fixação e clipe nasal dos produtos (como desprendimento do clipe nasal e rompimento das tiras de fixação durante o uso) indicando graves indícios de problemas de biossegurança em sua utilização. Conclusões: A pesquisa caracterizou os EA e as QT de máscaras com enfoque na promoção da saúde, indicando a necessidade da implantação do monitoramento sanitário dos produtos.
Introduction: In the daily routine of Health Professionals, mainly in the midst of the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic, facemasks are important devices; however, there is no post market control for these products. Objective: Evaluate the Adverse Events (AE) and Technical Complaints (TC) related to facemasks and respirators, to list and categorize the public health problems involving these products. Method: Cross-sectional, descriptive, retrospective and documental study with a quantitative approach, including data from January 2010 to May 2020 available in the Notivisa system. The analyzed data had national coverage and were reclassified, when necessary, according to their category (EA or QT). Results: 443 notifications were included in the study containing 519 claims (AE and TC). The data distribution on the analized decade presented an accentuated decrease; the Southeast region had the highest prevalence of claims in Brazil. Most of the notifying companies were health establishments and the highest prevalence of health events found were Adverse Events that affected the user when fixing strips and nose clips (such as detachment of the nose clip and breaking of the fixation straps during use), indicating serious biosecurity problems. Conclusions: This study characterized the Adverse Events and the Technical Complaints in facemasks focusing on health promotion and indicating the necessity of sanitary monitoring improvement of the products.
RESUMO
An antigen (LMS) prepared from Leishmania major-like promastigotes was used in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the diagnosis of human and dog visceral leishmaniasis. The results were compared with those from the indirect immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT). A total of 1822 canine sera were tested, including sera from dogs with visceral leishmaniasis, transmissible venereal tumors, ehrlichiosis, rickettsiosis, or Chagas' disease and sera from healthy dogs. The antigen was also tested with 227 samples of human sera, including sera from patients with visceral, cutaneous, or diffuse cutaneous leishmaniasis and from noninfected individuals, as well as sera from patients with Chagas' disease, toxoplasmosis, rickettsiosis, hepatitis B, schistosomiasis, ascaridiasis, malaria, rheumatoid factor, leprosy and rheumatoid factor, tuberculosis, or leprosy. All dogs and all human patients had a clinical and/or serological and/or parasitological diagnosis. For detecting antibodies in sera from dogs with leishmaniasis, the antigen showed a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 95%, and concordance of 93% and when used for detecting antibodies in human sera presented a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 100%, and concordance of 92%. Comparison between ELISA and IFAT demonstrated that ELISA using the LMS antigen yielded more reliable results than IFAT. The LMS antigen displayed no cross-reactivity with sera from patients or dogs that had any of the other diseases tested.
