A central aspect to the management of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension is promoting a healthy lifestyle, and nutritional therapy (NT) can support patients achieving glycemic control and blood pressure targets. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of NT in the management of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary care. Primary outcomes were HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Thirty-nine studies were included, thirty on T2DM and nine on hypertension. With a moderate quality of evidence, educational/counseling programs and food replacement programs in primary care likely reduce HbA1c on patients with T2DM (mean difference (MD): −0.37, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.17, 7437 patients, 27 studies; MD: −0.54, 95% CI: −0.75 to −0.32, 440 patients, 2 studies, respectively). Mediterranean diet for T2DM was accessed by one study, and no difference between the groups was found. Educational and counseling programs likely reduce DBP in patients with hypertension (MD: −1.79, 95% CI: −3.46, −0.12, 2840 patients, 9 studies, moderate quality of the evidence), but the effect in SBP was unclear due to risk of bias and imprecision. Nutritional therapy strategies (i.e., educational/counseling programs and food replacement programs) in primary care improved HbA1c in patients with T2DM and DBP in individuals with hypertension.

Background Clinical evidence supports the use of genetic counselling and BRCA1/2 testing for women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Currently, screen-and-treat strategies are not reimbursed in the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System (SUS). The aim of this modelling study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a gene-based screen-and-treat strategy for BRCA1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by preventive interventions compared with no screening. Methods Adopting the SUS perspective, a Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of healthy women aged 30 years that fulfilled the criteria for BRCA1/2 testing according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. For women who tested positive, preventive options included intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The Markov model comprised the health states ‘well’, ‘breast cancer’, ‘death’ and two post-cancer states. Outcomes were the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and the incremental costs per life-year gained (LYG). Data were mainly obtained by a literature review. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. Results In the base case, the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in additional costs of 3515 Brazilian reais (R$) (US$1698) and a gain of 0.145 QALYs, compared with no screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was R$24,263 (US$21,724) per QALY and R$27,258 (US$24,405) per LYG. Applying deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to the probability of a positive test result and the discount rate. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a willingness to pay of R$25,000 per QALY gained for the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in a probability of cost effectiveness of 80%. Conclusion Although there is no rigorous cost-effectiveness threshold in Brazil, the result of this cost-effectiveness analysis may support the inclusion of BRCA1/2 testing for women at high-risk of cancer in the SUS. The ICER calculated for the provision of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 approximates the cost-effectiveness threshold proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for low- and middle-income countries.

The implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) in emerging countries depends on the characteristics of the health care system and the needs of public health care. The objective of this survey was to investigate experts’ expectations for the development of HTA in Brazil and to derive measures to strengthen the impact of HTA in Brazil on health care decisions. Based on a scoping literature review, a questionnaire was developed proposing eight theses for seven domains of HTA: (i) capacity building, (ii) public involvement, (iii) role of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), (iv) institutional framework, (v) scope of HTA studies, (vi) methodology of HTA, and (vii) HTA as the basis for jurisdiction. Thirty experts responded in full to the survey and agreed to five of the eight theses proposed. Experts suggested several measures to promote HTA within the scope of each domain, thus addressing capacity building related to HTA, availability, and reliability of population data, and legal endowment of the HTA system. Finally, HTA processes in Brazil should also address public health issues (e.g., appraisal of interventions directed at chronic diseases).

The cost-effectiveness of genetic screen-and-treat strategies for women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer often depends on the women’s willingness to make use of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). To explore the uptake rates of RRM and RRSO applied in health economic modeling studies and the impact of uptake rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), we conducted a scoping literature review. In addition, using our own model, we conducted a value of information (VOI) analysis. Among the 19 models included in the review, the uptake rates of RRM ranged from 6% to 47% (RRSO: 10% to 88%). Fifty-seven percent of the models applied retrospective data obtained from registries, hospital records, or questionnaires. According to the models’ deterministic sensitivity analyses, there is a clear trend that a lower uptake rate increased the ICER and vice versa. Our VOI analysis showed high decision uncertainty associated with the uptake rates. In the future, uptake rates should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies. Prospective studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

Introduction Despite the increasing number of drugs available and various guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension, an expressive number of patients continue with these diseases uncontrolled. Nutrition therapy (NT) plays a fundamental role in the prevention and management of these comorbidities, as well as in the prevention of complications related to them. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of NT strategies in the management of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary care. The selected strategies did not substitute pharmaceutical treatment but instead focused on preventing a sedentary lifestyle and stimulating healthy nutrition. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic review according to Cochrane methodology of randomised controlled trials, wherein patients with T2DM and/or hypertension were allocated into one of the two groups: NT strategy, which may be of dietary quality or energy restriction, and conventional treatment. The primary outcomes will be glycaemic and blood pressure (BP) control, measured by final glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (%) and BP (mm Hg), respectively. Four general and adaptive search strategies have been created for the Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently select eligible studies, assess the risk of bias and extract data from the included studies. Similar outcomes measured in at least two trials will be plotted in the meta-analysis using Review Manager V.5.3. The quality of evidence of the effect estimate of the intervention will be generated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Ethics and dissemination As no primary data collection will be undertaken, formal ethical assessment is not required. We plan to present the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conferences and the popular press. PROSPERO registration number Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 20 December 2018 (Registration number CRD42018118117).