Clinical pharmacy services in Brazil, particularly cardiometabolic diseases: a systematic scoping review and meta-analyses

Main Article Content


Pharmaceutical Services, Community Pharmacy Services, Pharmacies, Medication Therapy Management, Pharmacists, Cardiovascular Diseases, Hypertension, Metabolic Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Process Assessment, Health Care, Quality of Life, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Brazil


Objective: To map the clinical pharmacy services conducted in Brazil, their characteristics, outcomes, and process measures in general population, as well as the assessment of the clinical impact on people with cardiometabolic diseases (cardiovascular diseases and metabolic diseases).

Methods: A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis were conducted. The electronic searches were re-run in March 2020. To the clinical impact assessment, meta-analyses of cardiometabolic outcomes (i.e., change of systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), triglycerides, total cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting glycemia, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol) were led. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tools.

Results: 71 studies were identified (7,402 patients), being the majority quasi-experimental studies (n=41) and published by research groups of Southeast Brazil (n=33). Medication therapy management (n=62) was the most frequent clinical pharmacy service, performed on outpatient setting (n=45), with adults or elderly people (n=58) with hypertension (n=18) or diabetes (n=10). Process measures (n=58) (e.g. resolution of drug related-problem) were widely used as indicator, followed by clinical (n=44) (e.g. change in SBP), humanistic (n=12) (e.g. change in quality-of-life score assessed by Short-Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire), and economic outcomes (n=3) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for reduction in HbA1c). Regarding the assessment of clinical impact of the services, 20 studies were included in meta-analyses, showing improvement in most cardiometabolic outcomes when considered individual studies. However, the evidence presents high risk of bias, high heterogeneity (median 67-90%) and imprecision, contributing to wide prediction intervals and low reliability.

Conclusions: A predominance of studies on cardiometabolic diseases, process measures, and clinical outcomes were identified. Considering the assessment of the clinical impact of clinical pharmacy services in cardiometabolic diseases, an improvement in most cardiometabolic outcomes was showed, however, with low confidence and wide prediction interval. Therefore, development of larger studies with low risk of bias and major homogeneity is necessary for a better comprehension of clinical pharmacy service characteristics, benefits, and the population groups most benefited.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 813 | pdf Downloads 492


1. Van der Linden L, Hias J, Walgraeve K, Flamaing J, Tournoy J, Spriet I. Clinical Pharmacy Services in Older Inpatients: An Evidence-Based Review. Drugs Aging. 2020;37(3):161-174.
2. Tan EC, Stewart K, Elliott RA, George J. Pharmacist services provided in general practice clinics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10(4):608-622.
3. Jameson JP, VanNoord GR. Pharmacotherapy consultation on polypharmacy patients in ambulatory care. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35(7-8):835-840.
4. Jacobs M, Sherry PS, Taylor LM, Amato M, Tataronis GR, Cushing G. Pharmacist Assisted Medication Program Enhancing the Regulation of Diabetes (PAMPERED) study. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2012;52(5):613-621.
5. Borenstein JE, Graber G, Saltiel E, Wallace J, Ryu S, Archi J, Deutsch S, Weingarten SR. Physician-pharmacist comanagement of hypertension: a randomized, comparative trial. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23(2):209-216.
6. Okamoto MP, Nakahiro RK. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of a pharmacist-managed hypertension clinic. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21(11):1337-1344.
7. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M; Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
8. May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, Gask L, MacFarlane A, Murray E, Rapley T, Rogers A, Treweek S, Wallace P, Anderson G, Burns J, Heaven B. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148.
9. Ferreira SRG, Chiavegatto Filho ADP, Lebrão ML, Duarte YAO, Laurenti R. Cardiometabolic diseases. Doenças cardiometabólicas. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2019;21Suppl 02(Suppl 02):e180008.
10. Ministério da Saúde. [National survey about access, utilization, and rational use of medicines promotion in Brazil]. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2016.
11. Lucchetta RC, Forgerini M, Mastroianni PC. Pharmacist-led interventions in Brazil: a scoping review protocol. Rev Ciênc Farm Básica Apl. 2018;39:e627.
12. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0. Available at: (accessed Aug 18, 2020).
13. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Adelaide:JBI;2015.
14. Tricco AC, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473.
15. Lucchetta R. Clinical pharmacy services in Brazil: a systematic scoping review and meta-analysis. Available at: (accessed Aug 18, 2020).
16. Wickham H, Hester J, François R. Readr: Read rectangular tet data. R package version 1.1.1. Available at: (accessed Aug 17, 2020).
17. Schwarzer G. Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40-45.
18. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48.
19. IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010247.
20. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-159.
21. Rao G, et al. Methodological Standards for Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic Reviews of Cardiac Prevention and Treatment Studies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(10):e172-e194.
22. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
23. Sterne JA, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
24. Atkins D, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
25. Neto PR, Marusic S, de Lyra Júnior DP, Pilger D, Cruciol-Souza JM, Gaeti WP, Cuman RK. Effect of a 36-month pharmaceutical care program on the coronary heart disease risk in elderly diabetic and hypertensive patients. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2011;14(2):249-263.
26. Zubioli A, Angélica M, Covas R, Tasca RS, Curi R, Bazotte RB. Pharmaceutical consultation as a tool to improve health outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2013;49(1):85-94.
27. Bonetti AF, Della Rocca AM, Lucchetta RC, Tonin FS, Fernandez-Llimos F, Pontarolo R. Mapping the characteristics of meta-analyses of pharmacy services: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020;42(5):1252-1260.
28. Conselho Federal de Farmácia. [Pharmaceutical services focused on the patient, the family and the community: contextualization and foundaments]. Basilia: CFF; 2016.
29. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Resolução CNE/CES n. 2, de 19 de fevereiro de 2002. Diário Oficial da União. 2002;(4-mar):9.
30. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Resolução n. 6. Diário Oficial da União. 2017;(20-oct):30.
31. Brasil. Lei n. 11.129,. Diário Oficial da União. 2005;(1-jul):2005.
32. Conselho Federal de Farmácia. Resolução n. 499. Diário Oficial da União. 2008;23-dec):164.
33. Conselho Federal de Farmácia. Resolução n. 505. Diário Oficial da União. 2009;(16-jul):75.
34. Conselho Federal de Farmácia. Resolução n. 585. Diário Oficial da União. 2013;(25-sep):186.
35. Conselho Federal de Farmácia. Resolução n. 586. Diário Oficial da União. 2013;(26-sep):136.
36. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria n. 1.214, Diário oficial da União. 2012;(14-jun):29-30.
37. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, Clarke M, Gargon E, Gorst S, Harman N, Kirkham JJ, McNair A, Prinsen CAC, Schmitt J, Terwee CB, Young B. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.
38. Martínez-Mardones F, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI, Ahumada-Canale A, Plaza-Plaza JC, S Tonin F, Garcia-Cardenas V. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Medication Reviews Conducted by Pharmacists on Cardiovascular Diseases Risk Factors in Ambulatory Care. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(22):e013627.
39. Xavier HT, Izar MC, Faria Neto JR, Assad MH, Rocha VZ, Sposito AC, Fonseca FA, dos Santos JE, Santos RD, Bertolami MC, Faludi AA, Martinez TL, Diament J, Guimarães A, Forti NA, Moriguchi E, Chagas AC, Coelho OR, Ramires JA. V Diretriz Brasileira de Dislipidemias e Prevenção da Aterosclerose [V Brazilian Guidelines on Dyslipidemias and Prevention of Atherosclerosis]. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2013;101(4 Suppl 1):1-20.

Most read articles by the same author(s)