Resumo No Sistema Único de Saúde os medicamentos do grupo 1 do Componente Especializado da Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF) são financiados pela União e adquiridos de forma centralizada (grupo 1A) ou por cada Unidade Federativa (UF) (grupo 1B). Diferentemente de outros países onde se negocia um preço fixo a ser praticado no sistema público, no Brasil as aquisições são realizadas por licitação, o que pode levar a diferentes preços. Para permitir a comparação de preços, foi pactuada a obrigatoriedade de registro das aquisições públicas no Banco de Preços em Saúde (BPS). O estudo teve como objetivo analisar a variabilidade dos preços de medicamentos do grupo 1B adquiridos pelas UF do Brasil em 2021. Foram obtidas as aquisições de medicamentos do grupo 1B realizadas pelas Secretarias de Estado das 27 UF por consulta ao BPS excluindo-se os medicamentos sem preço de ressarcimento estabelecido em dezembro/2021. Foi obtido do Sistema de Informações Ambulatoriais o ressarcimento para cada UF. Verificou-se grande variabilidade dos preços de aquisição para cada medicamento entre as UF e dentro da mesma UF. O estudo demonstrou potencial iniquidade de acesso ao CEAF, privilegiando com menores preços UF mais favorecidas (maior população e riqueza).

Abstract In the Brazilian Health System (SUS), drugs covered by the Specialized Pharmaceutical Scheme (CEAF) receive federal funding and can be procured either centrally (Group 1A) or by individual states (Federal Units - UF) (Group 1B). Unlike other countries where national procurement prices are negotiated centrally by the government, public procurement in Brazil follows a public auction procedure, potentially resulting in varying purchase prices. To facilitate price comparisons, it is a legal requirement to register public acquisitions in the Health Prices Registry (BPS). This study aimed to assess the variability in the procurement prices for Group 1B drugs across the 27 Brazilian states during 2021. Data on the acquisitions of Group 1B drugs by the 27 Health Secretariats were obtained from the BPS. Drugs with no reported reimbursement prices as of December 2021 were excluded from the analysis. The total reimbursement amount for each state was sourced from the SUS Ambulatory Information System. The findings revealed significant variability in drug procurement prices both across and within states. The study underscored a potential disparity in CEAF access, favoring wealthier states (those with larger populations and higher economic status) by securing lower drug prices.

Abstract In the Brazilian Health System (SUS), drugs covered by the Specialized Pharmaceutical Scheme (CEAF) receive federal funding and can be procured either centrally (Group 1A) or by individual states (Federal Units - UF) (Group 1B). Unlike other countries where national procurement prices are negotiated centrally by the government, public procurement in Brazil follows a public auction procedure, potentially resulting in varying purchase prices. To facilitate price comparisons, it is a legal requirement to register public acquisitions in the Health Prices Registry (BPS). This study aimed to assess the variability in the procurement prices for Group 1B drugs across the 27 Brazilian states during 2021. Data on the acquisitions of Group 1B drugs by the 27 Health Secretariats were obtained from the BPS. Drugs with no reported reimbursement prices as of December 2021 were excluded from the analysis. The total reimbursement amount for each state was sourced from the SUS Ambulatory Information System. The findings revealed significant variability in drug procurement prices both across and within states. The study underscored a potential disparity in CEAF access, favoring wealthier states (those with larger populations and higher economic status) by securing lower drug prices.

Resumo No Sistema Único de Saúde os medicamentos do grupo 1 do Componente Especializado da Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF) são financiados pela União e adquiridos de forma centralizada (grupo 1A) ou por cada Unidade Federativa (UF) (grupo 1B). Diferentemente de outros países onde se negocia um preço fixo a ser praticado no sistema público, no Brasil as aquisições são realizadas por licitação, o que pode levar a diferentes preços. Para permitir a comparação de preços, foi pactuada a obrigatoriedade de registro das aquisições públicas no Banco de Preços em Saúde (BPS). O estudo teve como objetivo analisar a variabilidade dos preços de medicamentos do grupo 1B adquiridos pelas UF do Brasil em 2021. Foram obtidas as aquisições de medicamentos do grupo 1B realizadas pelas Secretarias de Estado das 27 UF por consulta ao BPS excluindo-se os medicamentos sem preço de ressarcimento estabelecido em dezembro/2021. Foi obtido do Sistema de Informações Ambulatoriais o ressarcimento para cada UF. Verificou-se grande variabilidade dos preços de aquisição para cada medicamento entre as UF e dentro da mesma UF. O estudo demonstrou potencial iniquidade de acesso ao CEAF, privilegiando com menores preços UF mais favorecidas (maior população e riqueza).

Abstract In the Brazilian Health System (SUS), drugs covered by the Specialized Pharmaceutical Scheme (CEAF) receive federal funding and can be procured either centrally (Group 1A) or by individual states (Federal Units - UF) (Group 1B). Unlike other countries where national procurement prices are negotiated centrally by the government, public procurement in Brazil follows a public auction procedure, potentially resulting in varying purchase prices. To facilitate price comparisons, it is a legal requirement to register public acquisitions in the Health Prices Registry (BPS). This study aimed to assess the variability in the procurement prices for Group 1B drugs across the 27 Brazilian states during 2021. Data on the acquisitions of Group 1B drugs by the 27 Health Secretariats were obtained from the BPS. Drugs with no reported reimbursement prices as of December 2021 were excluded from the analysis. The total reimbursement amount for each state was sourced from the SUS Ambulatory Information System. The findings revealed significant variability in drug procurement prices both across and within states. The study underscored a potential disparity in CEAF access, favoring wealthier states (those with larger populations and higher economic status) by securing lower drug prices.

Resumo No Sistema Único de Saúde os medicamentos do grupo 1 do Componente Especializado da Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF) são financiados pela União e adquiridos de forma centralizada (grupo 1A) ou por cada Unidade Federativa (UF) (grupo 1B). Diferentemente de outros países onde se negocia um preço fixo a ser praticado no sistema público, no Brasil as aquisições são realizadas por licitação, o que pode levar a diferentes preços. Para permitir a comparação de preços, foi pactuada a obrigatoriedade de registro das aquisições públicas no Banco de Preços em Saúde (BPS). O estudo teve como objetivo analisar a variabilidade dos preços de medicamentos do grupo 1B adquiridos pelas UF do Brasil em 2021. Foram obtidas as aquisições de medicamentos do grupo 1B realizadas pelas Secretarias de Estado das 27 UF por consulta ao BPS excluindo-se os medicamentos sem preço de ressarcimento estabelecido em dezembro/2021. Foi obtido do Sistema de Informações Ambulatoriais o ressarcimento para cada UF. Verificou-se grande variabilidade dos preços de aquisição para cada medicamento entre as UF e dentro da mesma UF. O estudo demonstrou potencial iniquidade de acesso ao CEAF, privilegiando com menores preços UF mais favorecidas (maior população e riqueza).

Abstract In the Brazilian Health System (SUS), drugs covered by the Specialized Pharmaceutical Scheme (CEAF) receive federal funding and can be procured either centrally (Group 1A) or by individual states (Federal Units - UF) (Group 1B). Unlike other countries where national procurement prices are negotiated centrally by the government, public procurement in Brazil follows a public auction procedure, potentially resulting in varying purchase prices. To facilitate price comparisons, it is a legal requirement to register public acquisitions in the Health Prices Registry (BPS). This study aimed to assess the variability in the procurement prices for Group 1B drugs across the 27 Brazilian states during 2021. Data on the acquisitions of Group 1B drugs by the 27 Health Secretariats were obtained from the BPS. Drugs with no reported reimbursement prices as of December 2021 were excluded from the analysis. The total reimbursement amount for each state was sourced from the SUS Ambulatory Information System. The findings revealed significant variability in drug procurement prices both across and within states. The study underscored a potential disparity in CEAF access, favoring wealthier states (those with larger populations and higher economic status) by securing lower drug prices.

Resumo No Sistema Único de Saúde os medicamentos do grupo 1 do Componente Especializado da Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF) são financiados pela União e adquiridos de forma centralizada (grupo 1A) ou por cada Unidade Federativa (UF) (grupo 1B). Diferentemente de outros países onde se negocia um preço fixo a ser praticado no sistema público, no Brasil as aquisições são realizadas por licitação, o que pode levar a diferentes preços. Para permitir a comparação de preços, foi pactuada a obrigatoriedade de registro das aquisições públicas no Banco de Preços em Saúde (BPS). O estudo teve como objetivo analisar a variabilidade dos preços de medicamentos do grupo 1B adquiridos pelas UF do Brasil em 2021. Foram obtidas as aquisições de medicamentos do grupo 1B realizadas pelas Secretarias de Estado das 27 UF por consulta ao BPS excluindo-se os medicamentos sem preço de ressarcimento estabelecido em dezembro/2021. Foi obtido do Sistema de Informações Ambulatoriais o ressarcimento para cada UF. Verificou-se grande variabilidade dos preços de aquisição para cada medicamento entre as UF e dentro da mesma UF. O estudo demonstrou potencial iniquidade de acesso ao CEAF, privilegiando com menores preços UF mais favorecidas (maior população e riqueza).

Abstract Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as “the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care”. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Resumen La farmacia y las ciencias farmacéuticas abarcan una serie de disciplinas diferentes. La Farmacia Asistencial se ha definido como “la disciplina científica que estudia los diferentes aspectos de la práctica de la farmacia y su impacto en los sistemas de atención de la salud, el uso de medicamentos y la atención al paciente”. Por lo tanto, los estudios de Farmacia Asistencial abarcan tantos elementos de farmacia clínica como de farmacia social. Como cualquier otra disciplina científica, la práctica de la farmacia clínica y social difunde los resultados de la investigación utilizando revistas científicas. Los editores de revistas de farmacia clínica y farmacia social tienen un papel en la promoción de la disciplina al mejorar la calidad de los artículos publicados. Como ha ocurrido en otras áreas del cuidado de la salud (es decir, medicina y enfermería), un grupo de editores de revistas de práctica farmacéutica clínica y social se reunió en Granada, España, para discutir cómo las revistas pueden contribuir a fortalecer la práctica farmacéutica como disciplina. El resultado de esa reunión se compiló en estas Declaraciones de Granada, que comprenden 18 recomendaciones reunidas en seis temas: el uso apropiado de la terminología, los resúmenes con impacto, la necesidad de la revisión por pares, la dispersión de revistas, el uso más eficaz y más inteligente de los indicadores bibliométricos y la selección por parte de los autores de la revista de práctica farmacéutica más adecuada para presentar su trabajo.

Resumen La farmacia y las ciencias farmacéuticas abarcan una serie de disciplinas diferentes. La farmacia práctica se ha definido como "la disciplina científica que estudia los diferentes aspectos de la práctica de la farmacia y su impacto en los sistemas sanitarios, el uso de los medicamentos y la atención al paciente". Así pues, los estudios sobre la farmacia práctica abarcan tanto elementos de farmacia clínica como de farmacia social. Como cualquier otra disciplina científica, la farmacia práctica clínica y social difunde los resultados de la investigación mediante revistas científicas. Los editores de revistas de farmacia clínica y farmacia social tienen un papel en la promoción de la disciplina mediante la mejora de la calidad de los artículos publicados. Al igual que ha ocurrido en otras áreas sanitarias (medicina y enfermería), un grupo de editores de revistas de farmacia práctica clínica y social se reunió en Granada, España, para debatir cómo las revistas podrían contribuir a fortalecer la farmacia práctica como disciplina. El resultado de esa reunión se recogió en esta Declaración de Granada, que comprende 18 recomendaciones agrupadas en seis temas: el uso adecuado de la terminología, los resúmenes con impacto, las revisiones por pares requeridas, la dispersión de revistas, un uso más eficaz y prudente de los indicadores bibliométricos de revistas y artículos, y la selección por parte de los autores de la revista de farmacia práctica más adecuada para presentar sus trabajos.

Abstract Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as “the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care”. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors’ selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.

Resumo Objetivo Estimar a prevalência de níveis inadequados de vitamina D e seus fatores associados para mulheres em idade fértil no Brasil. Métodos Uma revisão sistemática foi realizada (última atualização em maio de 2020). As meta-análises foram realizadas usando o inverso da variância para o modelo fixo com cálculo de proporção sumarizada por transformação arco-seno duplo de Freeman-Tukey. A qualidade metodológica e de reporte foi avaliada usando a ferramenta do Joanna Briggs Institute para estudos de prevalência. Resultados Nossa revisão identificou 31 estudos, compreendendo 4.006 participantes. Todos os estudos apresentaram pelo menos uma limitação, principalmente devido ao uso de amostra de conveniência e tamanho amostral pequeno. As prevalências gerais de deficiência, insuficiência e deficiência de vitamina D foram 35% (intervalo de confiança, IC 95%: 34-37%), 42% (IC 95%: 41-44%) e 72% (IC 95%: 71-74%), respectivamente. Conclusão Embora a magnitude da prevalência de níveis inadequados de vitamina D seja incerta, a evidência sugere que presença de deficiência ou insuficiência de vitamina D em mulheres em idade reprodutiva pode causar problemas moderados a graves.

Abstract Objective To estimate the prevalence of inadequate vitamin D level and its associated factors for women of childbearing age in Brazil. Methods A systematic reviewwas conducted (last updatedMay 2020).Meta-analyses were performed using the inverse-variance for fixed models with summary proportion calculation by Freeman-Tukey double arcsine. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for prevalence studies. Results Our review identified 31 studies, comprising 4,006 participants. All the studies had at least one weakness, mainly due to the use of convenience sampling and small sample size. The overall prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, insufficiency, and both deficiency and insufficiency were 35% (confidence interval, 95%CI: 34-37%), 42% (95%CI: 41-44%), and 72% (95%CI: 71-74%), respectively. Conclusion Although the magnitude of the prevalence of inadequate levels of vitamin D is uncertain, the evidence suggests that presence of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in women of reproductive age can cause moderate to severe problems.

Abstract Pharmacists acting in pharmacies and drugstores stores are some of the most accessible healthcare providers and the last to intervene before the patient takes their medicine. This puts the pharmacist in a position of authority that should be harnessed for the benefit of health. Thus, this professional is strategic for performing pharmacovigilance. Our objective of this study was to interrogate the practice of pharmacists in relation to pharmacovigilance activities, and to identify difficulties and possible stimuli for the improvement these activities in pharmacies and drugstores. The information was collected through an online questionnaire via Survey Monkey®. The data were analyzed statistically using SPSS software. Responses were received from 5174 pharmacists: mostly young women within five years of graduation and experience in pharmaceutical retail. 81% of them reported having identified suspected substandard medicines, but only 16% used the Brazilian notification system Notivisa. More than 85% of pharmacists agreed with the importance of pharmacovigilance and the recognition of reporting services as part of pharmacist duties and pharmaceutical care. The main barriers to making notifications were the lack of access and knowledge about Notivisa. Pharmacists agreed that simplifying the system would be a stimulus for notifications, and requested more feedback from notifications, as well as material and courses to understand the notification process. Pharmacists have important data to feed into pharmacovigilance systems, recognize their responsibilities and are willing to contribute, but still demonstrate low compliance. Simplification of the system and training on it are likely to increase notifications.

Abstract The delivery of clinical pharmacy services has been growing in Brazilian community pharmacies, and it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the topic. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of Brazilian studies about clinical pharmacy services in community pharmacies. Original research articles, with no restriction of time, study design, or patient’s health condition, were included. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Scielo, and Lilacs. Two reviewers conducted the screening, full-text reading, and data extraction independently. ROB and ROBINS-I were used for the assessment of quality. Charts and tables were built to summarise the data. Seventy-two articles were included. A diversity of study designs, number of participants, terms used, and outcomes was found. São Paulo and Sergipe States had the highest number of studies (n=10). Pharmacists’ interventions were not fully reported in 65% of studies, and most studies presented an unclear risk of bias. Studies were very diverse, impairing the comparisons between the results and hindering their reproducibility. This review suggests using guidelines and checklists for better structuration of pharmacists’ interventions as well as reporting results and measuring fidelity in future research.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Despite the several options available for supplements containing vitamins C and E, evidence regarding the prevalence of deficiency or insufficiency of these vitamins is weak. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of deficiency or insufficiency of vitamins C and E and associated factors among women of childbearing age, in Brazil. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted at a Brazilian public university. METHODS: A search from index inception until May 2020 was conducted. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance for fixed models, with summary proportions calculation using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine (base case). Reporting and methodological quality were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for prevalence studies. RESULTS: Our review identified 12 studies, comprising 1,316 participants, especially breastfeeding women. There was at least one quality weakness in all studies, mainly regarding sampling method (i.e. convenience sampling) and small sample size. The prevalence of vitamin C deficiency ranged from 0% to 40%. Only vitamin E deficiency was synthetized in meta-analyses, with mean prevalences of 6% regardless of the alpha-tocopherol cutoff in plasma, and 5% and 16% for cutoffs of < 1.6-12.0 mmol/l and < 16.2 mmol/l, respectively. The cumulative meta-analysis suggested that a trend to lower prevalence of vitamin E deficiency occurred in recent studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the studies identified in this systematic review had poor methodological and reporting quality, mild-moderate vitamin C and E deficiencies were identified, especially in breastfeeding women. Thus, designing and implementing policies does not seem to be a priority, because the need has not been properly dimensioned among women of childbearing age in Brazil. REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO: CRD42020221605.

Resumo A artrite reumatóide (AR) está entre as doenças autoimunes e inflamatórias crônicas mais prevalentes no mundo. O objetivo deste estudo foi estabelecer uma estimativa conjunta da prevalência da AR na América do Sul por meio de uma meta-análise dos estudos epidemiológicos disponíveis. Buscas sistemáticas nas bases de dados PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus e Web of Science (atualizado em maio de 2019) foram seguidas por uma busca sistemática na literatura cinzenta para identificar artigos e relatórios de pesquisa originais, publicados após 2000, fornecendo dados de prevalência de AR em qualquer país da América do Sul. Foi realizada uma meta-análise da proporção de dados agrupados ponderados, com heterogeneidade entre experimentos avaliada pelo índice relativo de inconsistência. Análises de sensibilidade e de subgrupos também foram realizadas. Foram incluídos um total de 25 artigos, representando 27 estudos de base populacional. A prevalência agrupada de AR resultou em 0,48% com 591.981 casos em uma população de 114.537.812 indivíduos (I2=99%). Brasil e Colômbia apresentaram as menores taxas de prevalência de AR 0,22% e 0,24%, respectivamente. A prevalência da AR na população indígena foi maior 1,45%, e estudos pelo método COPCORD relataram também as maiores taxas 1,07%.

Abstract Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is among the most prevalent chronic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The aim of this study was to establish a pooled estimate of the RA prevalence in South America by means of a meta-analysis of the available epidemiologic studies. Systematic searches in PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (updated May 2019) were done followed by a systematic grey literature search to identify original research articles and reports, published after 2000, providing data of RA prevalence in any South American country. Proportion meta-analysis of weighted pooled was performed, with between-trial heterogeneity assessed by the inconsistency relative index. Sensitivity analyses and sub-group analyses were also done. A total of 25 articles, representing 27 population-based studies were included. Pooled prevalence of RA resulted in 0.48% with 591,981 cases in a population of 114,537,812 individuals (I2=99%). Brazil and Colombia presented the lowest rates of RA prevalence 0.22%, and 0.24%, respectively. RA prevalence in indigenous population was higher 1.45%, and studies using COPCORD method reported also the highest rates 1.07%.

Resumo A artrite reumatóide (AR) está entre as doenças autoimunes e inflamatórias crônicas mais prevalentes no mundo. O objetivo deste estudo foi estabelecer uma estimativa conjunta da prevalência da AR na América do Sul por meio de uma meta-análise dos estudos epidemiológicos disponíveis. Buscas sistemáticas nas bases de dados PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus e Web of Science (atualizado em maio de 2019) foram seguidas por uma busca sistemática na literatura cinzenta para identificar artigos e relatórios de pesquisa originais, publicados após 2000, fornecendo dados de prevalência de AR em qualquer país da América do Sul. Foi realizada uma meta-análise da proporção de dados agrupados ponderados, com heterogeneidade entre experimentos avaliada pelo índice relativo de inconsistência. Análises de sensibilidade e de subgrupos também foram realizadas. Foram incluídos um total de 25 artigos, representando 27 estudos de base populacional. A prevalência agrupada de AR resultou em 0,48% com 591.981 casos em uma população de 114.537.812 indivíduos (I2=99%). Brasil e Colômbia apresentaram as menores taxas de prevalência de AR 0,22% e 0,24%, respectivamente. A prevalência da AR na população indígena foi maior 1,45%, e estudos pelo método COPCORD relataram também as maiores taxas 1,07%.

Abstract Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is among the most prevalent chronic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The aim of this study was to establish a pooled estimate of the RA prevalence in South America by means of a meta-analysis of the available epidemiologic studies. Systematic searches in PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (updated May 2019) were done followed by a systematic grey literature search to identify original research articles and reports, published after 2000, providing data of RA prevalence in any South American country. Proportion meta-analysis of weighted pooled was performed, with between-trial heterogeneity assessed by the inconsistency relative index. Sensitivity analyses and sub-group analyses were also done. A total of 25 articles, representing 27 population-based studies were included. Pooled prevalence of RA resulted in 0.48% with 591,981 cases in a population of 114,537,812 individuals (I2=99%). Brazil and Colombia presented the lowest rates of RA prevalence 0.22%, and 0.24%, respectively. RA prevalence in indigenous population was higher 1.45%, and studies using COPCORD method reported also the highest rates 1.07%.

Resumen Antecedentes: A pesar de las políticas actuales de yodación de la sal, la deficiencia de yodo sigue siendo un problema de salud pública mundial, especialmente en las mujeres. Hasta ahora, se han sugerido pruebas contradictorias sobre la prevalencia de la deficiencia de yodo en Brasil. Objetivo: Estimar la prevalencia de deficiencia de yodo y factores asociados en mujeres en edad fértil, en Brasil. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática, buscando en PubMed, LILACS, OMS, Scopus y la base de datos de disertaciones y tesis de Capes desde el inicio hasta mayo de 2020. Se realizaron metanálisis de proporciones utilizando la variancia inversa para el modelo fijo. La calidad de información y metodológica se evaluó utilizando la herramienta del Institute Joanna Briggs para estudios de prevalencia. Resultados: Nuestra revisión identificó siete estudios publicados entre 2002 y 2017, incluyendo 1354 participantes, especialmente mujeres embarazadas. Todos los estudios presentaron al menos una limitación de calidad, principalmente con respecto al método de muestreo (es decir, la conveniencia) y el pequeño tamaño de la muestra. La prevalencia de la deficiencia de yodo varió entre los estudios del 16% y el 62%, mientras que el metanálisis identificó una prevalencia media del 40% (intervalo de confianza del 95%, IC 37%-43%) para las mujeres embarazadas y del 13% (IC del 95% 4%-24%) para mujeres no embarazadas. El metanálisis acumulativo sugiere una tendencia a una mayor prevalencia de deficiencia de yodo a partir de 2018 en mujeres embarazadas. Conclusiones: Si bien esta revisión sistemática identificó estudios con mala calidad metodológica y de reporte, se identificó una alta prevalencia de deficiencia de yodo en mujeres embarazadas, lo que refuerza la importancia de las políticas nutricionales nacionales para monitorear el estado de yodo en esta población. Los estudios futuros deben considerar el muestreo probabilístico aleatorio, el tamaño de muestra apropiado y el análisis de subgrupos predefinidos para informar adecuadamente la prevalencia de la deficiencia de yodo y los factores asociados en mujeres en edad fértil y para respaldar las políticas de salud.

Abstract Background: Despite current policies of salt iodination, iodine deficiency is still a global public health problem, especially in women. So far, conflicting evidence has been suggested for the prevalence of iodine deficiency in Brazil. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of iodine deficiency and associated factors in women of childbearing age in Brazil. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using databases (PubMed, LILACS, WHO, Scopus, and Capes’ dissertation and thesis), from inception to May 2020. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using the variance inverse for the fixed model. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to prevalence studies. Results: Our review identified seven studies published between 2002 e 2017, including 1354 participants, especially pregnant women. All studies presented at least one quality limitation, mainly regarding the sampling method (i.e., convenience) and small sample size. The prevalence of iodine deficiency ranged among studies from 16% to 62%. In contrast, the meta-analysis identified a mean prevalence of 40% (95% confidence interval, CI 37%-43%) for pregnant women and 13% (95% CI 4%-24%) for non-pregnant women. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests a tendency of higher iodine deficiency prevalence from 2018 in pregnant women. Conclusions: Although this systematic review identified studies with poor methodological and reporting quality, a high prevalence of iodine deficiency was identified in pregnant women, reinforcing the importance of national nutritional policies for monitoring iodine status in this population. Future studies should consider random probabilistic sampling, appropriate sample size, and pre-defined subgroup analysis to adequately inform the prevalence of iodine deficiency and associated factors in women of childbearing age and support health policies.

In the past years, several factors such as evidence-based healthcare culture, quality-linked incentives, and patient-centered actions, associated with an important increase of financial constraints and pressures on healthcare budgets, resulted in a growing interest by policy-makers in enlarging pharmacists' roles in care. Numerous studies have demonstrated positive therapeutic outcomes associated with pharmaceutical services in a wide array of diseases. Yet, the evidence of the economic impact of the pharmacist in decreasing total health expenditures, unnecessary care, and societal costs relies on well-performed, reliable, and transparent economic evaluations, which are scarce. Pharmacoeconomics is a branch of health economics that usually focuses on balancing the costs and benefits of an intervention towards the use of limited resources, aiming at maximizing value to patients, healthcare payers and society through data driven decision making. These decisions can be guide by a health technology assessment (HTA) process that inform governmental players about medical, social, and economic implications of development, diffusion, and use of health technologies – including clinical pharmacy interventions. This paper aims to provide an overview of the important concepts in costing in healthcare, including studies classification according to the type of analysis method (e.g. budget-impact analysis, cost-minimization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis), types of costs (e.g. direct, indirect and intangible costs) and outcomes (e.g. events prevented, quality adjusted life year - QALY, disability adjusted life year - DALY). Other key components of an economic evaluation such as the models' perspective, time horizon, modelling approaches (e.g. decision trees or simulation models as the Markov model) and sensitivity analysis are also briefly covered. Finally, we discuss the methodological issues for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs and benefits of pharmacy services, and suggest some recommendations for future studies, including the use of Value of Assessment Frameworks.

Scholarly publishing is in a crisis, with the many stakeholders complaining about different aspects of the system. Authors want fast publication times, high visibility and publications in high-impact journals. Readers want freely accessible, high-quality articles. Peer reviewers want recognition for the work they perform to ensure the quality of the published articles. However, authors, peer reviewers, and readers are three different roles played by the same group of individuals, the users of the scholarly publishing system—and this system could work based on a collaborative publishing principle where “nobody pays, and nobody gets paid”.