Free acquisition of psychotropic drugs by the Brazilian adult population and presence on the National List of Essential Medicines

Abstract The aims of the present study were to estimate the free-of-charge acquisition of psychotropic drugs among Brazilian adults; analyze the distribution of psychotropics according to their presence on the Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais (RENAME [National List of Essential Medicines]) and acquisition according to the source of funding (free of charge or direct payment); and estimate the proportion of free-of-charge psychotropic drugs according to therapeutic class and presence on the RENAME. This study involved the analysis of data from the 2014 National Survey on the Accessibility, Use and Promotion of the Rational Use of Medicines considering psychotropic drugs used by the adult population (≥20 years; n = 32,348). The prevalence of the acquisition of free-of-charge psychotropic drugs was 53.3% and 64.6% of these drugs were on the RENAME. Among the psychotropic drugs acquired by direct payment, 70.8% were not on the national list. Regarding free-of-charge acquisition according to the therapeutic class and presence on the RENAME, differences were found for antidepressants, anxiolytics and antipsychotics (p <0.05). In conclusion, the most used psychotropic medicines were listed in the RENAME, but free-of-charge acquisition was not provided for all of them

Added therapeutic value of new drugs approved in Brazil from 2004 to 2016 / Valor terapêutico acrescentado de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil de 2004 a 2016 / Valor terapéutico añadido de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil desde 2004 a 2016

Abstract: This study aimed to assess the level of therapeutic innovation of new drugs approved in Brazil over 13 years and whether they met public health needs. Comparative descriptive analysis of therapeutic value assessments performed by the Brazilian Chamber of Drug Market Regulation (CMED) and the French drug bulletin Prescrire for new drugs licensed in Brazil, from January 1st 2004 to December 31st 2016. The extent to which new drugs met public health needs was examined by: checking inclusions into government-funded drug lists and/or clinical guidelines; comparing Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) codes and drug indications with the list of conditions contributing the most to the national disease burden; and assessing new medicines aimed to treat neglected diseases. 253 new drugs were approved. Antineoplastics, immunossupressants, antidiabetics and antivirals were the most frequent. Thirty-three (14%) out of 236 drugs assessed by the Brazilian chamber and sixteen (8.2%) out of 195 assessed by the French bulletin Prescrire were considered innovative. Thirty-six drugs (14.2%) were selected for coverage by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), seven of which were therapeutically innovative, and none were aimed to treat neglected disease. About 1/3 of the drugs approved aimed to treat conditions among the top contributors to Brazil's disease burden. Few therapeutically innovative drugs entered the Brazilian market, from which only a small proportion was approved to be covered by the SUS. Our findings suggest a divergence between public health needs, research & development (R&D) and drug licensing procedures.

Resumo: O objetivo foi avaliar o nível de inovação terapêutica de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil ao longo de 13 anos e se eles atendem a necessidades de saúde pública. Foi feita uma análise comparativa descritiva da avaliação de valor terapêutico realizada pela Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) e pelo boletim de medicamentos francês Prescrire para novos medicamentos licenciados no Brasil entre 1º de janeiro de 2004 e 31 de dezembro de 2016. Examinamos em que medida os novos medicamentos atendem a necessidade de saúde pública por meio de: checagem da inclusão em listas de medicamentos financiados pelo governo e/ou diretrizes clínicas; comparação de códigos da Classificação Anatômica Terapêutica Química (ATC, em inglês) e indicações de medicamentos com a lista de condições que mais contribuem para a carga de doença nacional; e avaliação de se os novos medicamentos tinham por objetivo tratar doenças negligenciadas. Foram aprovados 253 novos medicamentos. Antineoplásicos, imunossupressores, antidiabéticos e antivirais foram os mais frequentes. Trinta e três (14%) dos 236 medicamentos avaliados pela Câmara brasileira e 16 (8,2%) dos 195 avaliados pelo boletim francês Prescrire foram considerados inovadores. Trinta e seis medicamentos (14,2%) foram selecionados para cobertura no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), sete dos quais eram inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico e nenhum dos quais tinha por objetivo tratar uma doença negligenciada. Em torno de 1/3 dos medicamentos aprovados tinha por objetivo o tratamento de doenças que figuram entre as principais contribuidoras da carga de doença no Brasil. Poucos medicamentos inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico entraram no mercado brasileiro, dos quais apenas uma pequena proporção foi aprovada para ser coberta pelo SUS. Nossos resultados sugerem uma divergência entre necessidades de saúde pública, pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) e procedimentos de licenciamento de medicamentos.

Resumen: El objetivo fue evaluar el nivel de innovación terapéutica de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil durante 13 años y si cumplen con las necesidades sanitarias. Llevamos a cabo un análisis comparativo descriptivo acerca del valor terapéutico presente en las evaluaciones realizadas por la Cámara de Regulación del Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) y la revista francesa Prescrire sobre los nuevos medicamentos autorizados en Brasil, desde el 1º de enero 2004 hasta el 31de diciembre de 2016. Su alcance, es decir, hasta qué punto los nuevos medicamentos cumplían con las necesidades de salud pública se comprobaron revisando las inclusiones en listas de medicamentos subvencionados por el gobierno y/o directrices clínicas; comparando los códigos de la Classificación Anatómicos Terapéuticos Químicos (ATC por sus siglas en inglés) y las indicaciones de los medicamentos respecto a la lista de enfermedades que contribuían a la mayor carga de morbilidad nacional; y asesorando si los nuevos medicamentos tenían como objetivo tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Se aprobaron 253 nuevos medicamentos. Los antineoplásicos, inmunosupresores, antidiabéticos y antivirales fueron los más frecuentes. Treinta y tres (14%), aparte de los 236 medicamentos evaluados por la Cámara Brasileña, y 16 (8,2%), aparte de los 195 evaluados por la revista francesa Prescrire, se consideraron innovadores. Treinta y seis medicamentos (14,2%) se seleccionaron para que tuvieran cobertura por el Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), siete de ellos eran terapéuticamente innovadores, y ninguno tenía como meta tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Alrededor de 1/3 de las medicinas aprobadas tenían como meta tratar problemas de salud entre las enfermedades con mayor carga de morbilidad en Brasil. Pocos medicamentos terapéuticamente innovadores accedieron al mercado brasileño y de éstos sólo una pequeña parte fueron aprobados para que fueran cubiertos por el SUS. Nuestros resultados sugieren una divergencia entre las necesidades públicas de salud, investigación & desarrollo (I&D) y los procedimientos para la autorización de medicamentos.

Insights from the WHO and National Lists of Essential Medicines: Focus on Pediatric Diabetes Care in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Access to essential medicines in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes is limited in resource-limited countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains two non-binding lists of essential medicines (EMLs) which are often used as a template for developing national EMLs. METHODS: We compared a previously published master list of medicines for pediatric endocrinology and diabetes with the WHO EMLs and national EMLs for countries within the WHO African region. To better understand actual access to medicines by patients, we focused on diabetes and surveyed pediatric endocrinologists from 5 countries and assessed availability and true cost for insulin and glucagon. RESULTS: Most medicines that are essential in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes were included in the national EMLs. However, essential medicines, such as fludrocortisone, were present in less than 30% of the national EMLs despite being recommended by the WHO. Pediatric endocrinologists from the 5 focus countries reported significant variation in terms of availability and public access to insulin, as well as differences between urban and rural areas. Except for Botswana, glucagon was rarely available. There was no significant relationship between Gross National Income and the number of medicines included in the national EMLs. CONCLUSIONS: Governments in resource-limited countries could take further steps to improve EMLs and access to medicines such as improved collaboration between health authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, patient groups, health professionals, and capacity-building programs such as Paediatric Endocrinology Training Centres for Africa.

Availability of essential medicines in primary health care of the Brazilian Unified Health System.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the availability of tracer medicines in pharmaceutical services in primary health care of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional and evaluative study, part of the Pesquisa Nacional Sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos - Serviços, 2015 (PNAUM - National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines - Services, 2015). To analyze the availability of medicines, we verified 50 items selected from the Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais (Rename - National List of Essential Medicines) of 2012. Observation scripts were applied to medicine dispensing services in the primary health care. Interviews were carried out with patients, health care professionals, and public managers, using semi-structured questionnaires. The availability index was presented as the percentage of health units where the medicines were available. For statistical analysis, absolute, relative, and mean frequencies were presented (with 95% confidence intervals). The comparison of groups was carried out by Pearson Chi-square tests or variance analysis, when needed. RESULTS: One thousand, one hundred, and seventy-five observation scripts were filled in a national representative sample composed by 273 cities. Statistically significant differences were observed regarding the type of unit, infrastructure, and presence of a pharmacist between regions of Brazil. The average availability of tracer medicines in primary health care was 52.9%, with differences between regions and sampling strata. This index increased to 62.5% when phytotherapic medicines were excluded. We found limited availability of medicines for treatment of chronic and epidemiological diseases, such as tuberculosis and congenital syphilis. CONCLUSIONS: The low availability of essential medicines purchased centrally by the Brazilian Ministry of Health indicates deficiencies in supply chain management. The different views on the availability of tracer medicines in SUS confirm the general availability verified in this study. Among patients, about 60% said they obtain medicines in SUS units, data consistent with the lack of medicines reported by medicine dispensers and in line with physicians' evaluations.

Characterization of the selection of medicines for the Brazilian primary health care.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the process of selection of medicines for primary health care in the Brazilian regions. METHODS: This article is part of the Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos - Serviços, 2015 (PNAUM - National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines - Services, 2015), a cross-sectional study that consisted of an information gathering in a sample of cities in the five regions of Brazil. The data used were collected by interviews with those responsible for pharmaceutical services (PS) (n = 506), professionals responsible for the dispensing of medicines (n = 1,139), and physicians (n = 1,558). To evaluate the difference between ratios, we adopted the Chi-square test for complex samples. The differences between the averages were analyzed in generalized linear models with F-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The analyses considered significant had p≤0.05. RESULTS: The professionals responsible for pharmaceutical services reported non-existence of a formally constituted Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (PTC) (12.5%). They claimed to have an updated (80.4%) list of Essential Medicines (85.3%) and being active participants of this process (88.2%). However, in the perception of respondents, the list only partially (70.1%) meets the health demands. Of the interviewed professionals responsible for the dispensing of medicines, only 16.6% were pharmacists; even so, 47.8% reported to know the procedures to change the list. From the perspective of most of these professionals (70.9%), the list meets the health demands of the city. Among physicians, only 27.2% reported to know the procedures to change the list, but 76.5% would have some claim to change it. Most of them reported to base their claims in clinical experiences (80.0%). For 13.0% of them, the list meets the health demands. CONCLUSIONS: As this is the first national survey of characterization of the process of selection of medicines within primary health care, it brings unpublished data for the assessment of policies related to medicines in Brazil.

The public production of medicines compared to the National Policy of Medicines and the burden of disease in Brazil.

: The public production of medicines in Brazil by Government Pharmaceutical Laboratories has once again become the object of incentives, and Industrial Development Partnerships are one of the mechanisms adopted for the production of strategic medicines for the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Considering that burden-of-disease studies have been used as a tool to define priority and essential medicines, the article compares the product portfolios of the country's Official Pharmaceutical Laboratories (OPL) and the list of strategic medicines for the SUS and burden of disease in Brazil in 2008. Of the 205 strategic medicines for the SUS and 111 from the portfolios, 73% and 89%, respectively, are on the National List of Essential Medicines (RENAME 2014). Some strategic medicines for the SUS are already produced by OPL and feature the selection of cancer drugs and biologicals. The current study contributes to the discussion on the public production of medicines in light of the country's current industrial policy and highlights the need to define priority drugs and the role of OPL in guaranteeing access to them.

Characterization of the selection of medicines for the Brazilian primary health care / Caracterização da seleção de medicamentos para a atenção primária no Brasil

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To characterize the process of selection of medicines for primary health care in the Brazilian regions. METHODS This article is part of the Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos - Serviços, 2015 (PNAUM - National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines - Services, 2015), a cross-sectional study that consisted of an information gathering in a sample of cities in the five regions of Brazil. The data used were collected by interviews with those responsible for pharmaceutical services (PS) (n = 506), professionals responsible for the dispensing of medicines (n = 1,139), and physicians (n = 1,558). To evaluate the difference between ratios, we adopted the Chi-square test for complex samples. The differences between the averages were analyzed in generalized linear models with F-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The analyses considered significant had p≤0.05. RESULTS The professionals responsible for pharmaceutical services reported non-existence of a formally constituted Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (PTC) (12.5%). They claimed to have an updated (80.4%) list of Essential Medicines (85.3%) and being active participants of this process (88.2%). However, in the perception of respondents, the list only partially (70.1%) meets the health demands. Of the interviewed professionals responsible for the dispensing of medicines, only 16.6% were pharmacists; even so, 47.8% reported to know the procedures to change the list. From the perspective of most of these professionals (70.9%), the list meets the health demands of the city. Among physicians, only 27.2% reported to know the procedures to change the list, but 76.5% would have some claim to change it. Most of them reported to base their claims in clinical experiences (80.0%). For 13.0% of them, the list meets the health demands. CONCLUSIONS As this is the first national survey of characterization of the process of selection of medicines within primary health care, it brings unpublished data for the assessment of policies related to medicines in Brazil.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Caracterizar o processo de seleção de medicamentos na atenção primária à saúde, nas regiões brasileiras. MÉTODOS Artigo integrante da Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos - Serviços 2015, um estudo transversal que envolveu o levantamento de informações numa amostra de municípios das cinco regiões do Brasil. Os dados utilizados foram coletados por meio de entrevistas com os responsáveis pela assistência farmacêutica (n = 506), profissionais que realizam a dispensação de medicamentos (n = 1.139) e médicos (n = 1.558). Para avaliar a diferença entre as proporções foi adotado o teste do qui-quadrado para amostras complexas. As diferenças entre as médias foram analisadas em modelos lineares generalizados, com teste F com correção de Bonferroni para comparações múltiplas. Foram significativas as análises com valores de p ≤ 0,05. RESULTADOS Os responsáveis da assistência farmacêutica relataram não haver Comissão de Farmácia e Terapêutica formalmente constituída (12,5%). Eles afirmaram possuir uma Lista de Medicamentos Essenciais (85,3%) atualizada (80,4%), e serem participantes deste processo (88,2%). Contudo, na percepção dos entrevistados a Lista atende apenas parcialmente (70,1%) as demandas de saúde. Dos profissionais que realizam a dispensação de medicamentos entrevistados, apenas 16,6% eram farmacêuticos, mesmo assim, 47,8% referiram conhecer os procedimentos para mudança da lista. Na perspectiva da maior parte desses profissionais (70,9%), a lista atende as demandas de saúde do município. Dentre os médicos apenas 27,2% declararam ter conhecimento dos procedimentos para mudança da lista, mas 76,5% teriam alguma reivindicação de alteração. A maior parte reporta que baseia suas reivindicações em experiências clínicas (80,0%); para 13,0% deles, a lista atende às demandas de saúde. CONCLUSÕES Por tratar-se da primeira pesquisa nacional de caracterização do processo de seleção de medicamentos no âmbito da atenção primária à saúde, traz dados inéditos para a avaliação das políticas relacionadas com medicamentos no Brasil.

Availability of essential medicines in primary health care of the Brazilian Unified Health System / Disponibilidade de medicamentos essenciais na atenção primária do Sistema Único de Saúde

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To characterize the availability of tracer medicines in pharmaceutical services in primary health care of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). METHODS This is a cross-sectional and evaluative study, part of the Pesquisa Nacional Sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos - Serviços, 2015 (PNAUM - National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines - Services, 2015). To analyze the availability of medicines, we verified 50 items selected from the Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais (Rename - National List of Essential Medicines) of 2012. Observation scripts were applied to medicine dispensing services in the primary health care. Interviews were carried out with patients, health care professionals, and public managers, using semi-structured questionnaires. The availability index was presented as the percentage of health units where the medicines were available. For statistical analysis, absolute, relative, and mean frequencies were presented (with 95% confidence intervals). The comparison of groups was carried out by Pearson Chi-square tests or variance analysis, when needed. RESULTS One thousand, one hundred, and seventy-five observation scripts were filled in a national representative sample composed by 273 cities. Statistically significant differences were observed regarding the type of unit, infrastructure, and presence of a pharmacist between regions of Brazil. The average availability of tracer medicines in primary health care was 52.9%, with differences between regions and sampling strata. This index increased to 62.5% when phytotherapic medicines were excluded. We found limited availability of medicines for treatment of chronic and epidemiological diseases, such as tuberculosis and congenital syphilis. CONCLUSIONS The low availability of essential medicines purchased centrally by the Brazilian Ministry of Health indicates deficiencies in supply chain management. The different views on the availability of tracer medicines in SUS confirm the general availability verified in this study. Among patients, about 60% said they obtain medicines in SUS units, data consistent with the lack of medicines reported by medicine dispensers and in line with physicians' evaluations.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Caracterizar a disponibilidade física de medicamentos traçadores nos serviços de assistência farmacêutica na atenção primária do Sistema Único de Saúde. MÉTODOS Estudo transversal de natureza avaliativa, integrante da Pesquisa Nacional Sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos - Serviços, 2015. Para a análise da disponibilidade física, foram verificados 50 itens selecionados da Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais 2012. Roteiros de observação foram aplicados nos serviços de dispensação de medicamentos na atenção primária. Foram realizadas entrevistas com usuários, profissionais de saúde e gestores municipais, por meio de questionários semiestruturados. O índice de disponibilidade foi apresentado como o percentual de unidades de saúde onde os medicamentos estavam disponíveis. Para a análise estatística foram apresentadas frequências absolutas, relativas e médias (com intervalos de 95% de confiança). A comparação de grupos foi realizada por meio dos testes Qui-quadrado de Pearson ou análise de variância, quando adequados. RESULTADOS Foram preenchidos 1.175 roteiros de observação em amostra nacional representativa composta por 273 municípios. Observaram-se diferenças estatisticamente significantes em relação ao tipo de unidade, infraestrutura e presença do profissional farmacêutico entre as regiões do Brasil. A disponibilidade média dos medicamentos traçadores na atenção primária foi de 52,9%, com diferenças entre regiões e estratos amostrais. Quando analisados todos os medicamentos, exceto os fitoterápicos, o índice elevou para 62,5%. Verificou-se disponibilidade inadequada de medicamentos para o tratamento de doenças crônicas e para doenças epidemiologicamente importantes, como a tuberculose e a sífilis congênita. CONCLUSÕES A baixa disponibilidade de medicamentos de aquisição centralizada indica possíveis deficiências na gestão da cadeia logística. As diferentes percepções sobre a disponibilidade dos medicamentos traçadores no SUS corroboram com os índices de disponibilidade geral verificados pelo estudo. Dentre os usuários, aproximadamente 60% afirmaram obter os medicamentos que necessitaram nas unidades do SUS, informação coerente com a falta de medicamentos relatada pelos responsáveis pela dispensação de medicamentos e com a avaliação dos médicos.

The public production of medicines compared to the National Policy of Medicines and the burden of disease in Brazil / A produção pública de medicamentos frente à Política Nacional de Medicamentos e à carga de doenças no Brasil / La producción pública de medicamentos frente a la Política Nacional de Medicamentos y a la carga de enfermedades en Brasil

Abstract: The public production of medicines in Brazil by Government Pharmaceutical Laboratories has once again become the object of incentives, and Industrial Development Partnerships are one of the mechanisms adopted for the production of strategic medicines for the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Considering that burden-of-disease studies have been used as a tool to define priority and essential medicines, the article compares the product portfolios of the country's Official Pharmaceutical Laboratories (OPL) and the list of strategic medicines for the SUS and burden of disease in Brazil in 2008. Of the 205 strategic medicines for the SUS and 111 from the portfolios, 73% and 89%, respectively, are on the National List of Essential Medicines (RENAME 2014). Some strategic medicines for the SUS are already produced by OPL and feature the selection of cancer drugs and biologicals. The current study contributes to the discussion on the public production of medicines in light of the country's current industrial policy and highlights the need to define priority drugs and the role of OPL in guaranteeing access to them.

Resumo: A produção pública de medicamentos no Brasil pelos Laboratórios Farmacêuticos Oficiais (LFO) retornou a ser alvo de incentivo e as Parcerias de Desenvolvimento Produtivo são um dos instrumentos adotados para a produção de medicamentos estratégicos para o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Tendo em vista que os estudos de carga de doença vêm sendo utilizados como ferramenta para definição de medicamentos prioritários e essenciais, este artigo relaciona os portfólios dos LFO e a lista de medicamentos estratégicos para o SUS com a carga de doença no Brasil 2008. Dos 205 medicamentos estratégicos para o SUS e 111 dos portfolios, 73% e 89% estão na RENAME 2014. Alguns medicamentos estratégicos para o SUS já são produzidos pelos LFO e destaca-se a seleção de medicamentos para câncer e oriundos de rota biológica. O presente estudo contribui para a discussão da produção pública de medicamentos frente a atual política industrial e destaca a necessária definição de medicamentos prioritários e o papel dos laboratórios farmacêuticos oficiais na garantia de seu acesso.

Resumen: La producción pública de medicamentos en Brasil por los Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Oficiales (LFO) volvió a ser objetivo de incentivos, así como las Colaboraciones de Desarrollo Productivo que son uno de los instrumentos adoptados para la producción de medicamentos estratégicos para el Sistema Único de Salud (SUS). Teniendo en vista que los estudios de carga de enfermedad está siendo utilizados como herramienta para la definición de medicamentos prioritarios y esenciales, este artículo relaciona los portafolios de los LFO y la lista de medicamentos estratégicos para el SUS con la carga de enfermedad en Brasil 2008. De los 205 medicamentos estratégicos para el SUS y 111 de los portafolios, 73% y 89% están en la RENAME 2014. Algunos medicamentos estratégicos para el SUS ya son producidos por los LFO y se destaca la selección de medicamentos para cáncer y los provenientes de ruta biológica. El presente estudio contribuye a la discusión de la producción pública de medicamentos, frente a la actual política industrial, y destaca la necesaria definición de medicamentos prioritarios y el papel de los laboratorios farmacéuticos oficiales en la garantía a su acceso.

LIME: Listado Institucional de Medicamentos Esenciales / LIME: Institutional Listing of Essential Medicines

Definir los medicamentos esenciales para brindar una atención de calidad a la población usuaria de los establecimientos que conforman la red del MINSAL, detallando las regulaciones necesarias para lograr un uso razonado y eficiente de los mismos. El Listado Institucional de Medicamentos Esenciales ha sido elaborado mediante un proceso técnico científico con amplia participación de los profesionales responsables en la gestión, tomando como referencia las mejores evidencias disponibles para asegurar la calidad e independencia de la información. Con la divulgación y aplicación de este listado, se pretende orientar al personal sanitario sobre las especialidades farmacéuticas que estarán disponibles en los diferentes establecimientos del MINSAL, describiendo concentración, forma farmacéutica, vía de administración, prioridad y nivel de uso, favoreciendo así el uso razonado. Se presenta la clasificación Anatómica, Terapéutica, Química (ATQ) de acuerdo con estándares internacionales. Además se presenta el Catálogo de Medicamentos con Código SINAB para los procesos de gestión administrativa del suministro.

Availability of medicines in public sector health facilities of two North Indian States.

BACKGROUND: Access to free essential medicines is a critical component of universal health coverage. However availability of essential medicines is poor in India with more than two-third of the people having limited or no access. This has pushed up private out-of-pocket expenditure due to medicines. The states of Punjab and Haryana are in the process of institutionalizing drug procurement models to provide uninterrupted access to essential medicines free of cost in all public hospitals and health centres. We undertook this study to assess the availability of medicines in public sector health facilities in the 2 states. Secondly, we also ascertained the quality of storage and inventory management systems in health facilities. METHODS: The present study was carried out in 80 public health facilities across 12 districts in Haryana and Punjab states. Overall, within each state 1 MC, 6 DHs, 11 CHCs and 22 PHCs were selected for the study. Drug procurement mechanisms in both the states were studied through document reviews and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. Stock registers were reviewed to collect data on availability of a basket of essential medicines -92 at Primary Health Centre (PHC) level, 132 at Community Health Centre (CHC) level and 160 at tertiary care (District Hospital/Medical College) level. These essential medicines were selected based on the Essential Medicine List (EML) of the Department of Health (DOH). RESULTS: Overall availability of medicines was 45.2% and 51.1% in Punjab and Haryana respectively. Availability of anti-hypertensives was around 60% in both the states whereas for anti-diabetics it was 44% and 47% in Punjab and Haryana respectively. Atleast one drug in each of the categories including analgesic/antipyretic, anti-helminthic, anti-spasmodic, anti-emetic, anti-hypertensive and uterotonics were nearly universally available in public sector facilities. On the contrary, medicines such as thrombolytics, anti-cancer and endocrine medicines were available in less than 30% in public sector facilities. Among the medicines which were not available at the time of survey in Haryana, nearly 60% of them were out of stock for 3-6 months whereas 8% of them were out of stock for more than 6 months. CONCLUSION: Health system needs to be strengthened by making essential medicines available for patients. Ensuring access to free medicines is likely to reduce private expenditure on medicines, which is a long-term, sustainable way to towards universal health coverage in India.

[The list of drugs in the Popular Pharmacy Program and the Brazilian National Pharmaceutical Care Policy]. / Elenco de medicamentos do Programa Farmácia Popular do Brasil e a Política de Nacional Assistência Farmacêutica.

This study aimed to analyze the list of drugs in the Popular Pharmacy Program in Brazil (PFPB) in relation to the country's pharmaceutical care policy. The list of drugs in the PFPB was compared to the Brazilian and international reference lists of essential medicines, the components of pharmaceutical care in Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), and drug production by the country's government pharmaceutical laboratories. The PFPB list includes 119 drugs, of which 19.3% and 47.1% were not selected on the Brazilian and international reference lists, respectively; 16.8% are not used in primary care, and 40.3% are not produced by the country's government laboratories. A revision of the PFPB list based on the essential medicines concept (World Health Organization), alignment of pharmaceutical care policies, and production by government laboratories are essential to improve quality of health care, management, training of prescribers, and information for the population.

Elenco de medicamentos do Programa Farmácia Popular do Brasil e a Política de Nacional Assistência Farmacêutica / The list of drugs in the Popular Pharmacy Program and the Brazilian National Pharmaceutical Care Policy / Lista de medicamentos del Programa Farmacia Popular de Brasil y la Política Brasileña de Asistencia Farmacéutica

O objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar o elenco de medicamentos do Programa Farmácia Popular do Brasil (PFPB) frente à política de assistência farmacêutica vigente no país. O elenco de medicamentos do PFPB foi comparado com listas de referência de medicamentos essenciais (nacional e internacional), com os componentes da assistência farmacêutica no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) e com a produção pública de medicamentos nos Laboratórios Farmacêuticos Oficiais do Brasil (LFOB). O PFPB contém 119 medicamentos, dos quais 19,3% e 47,1% não foram selecionados nas listas de referência nacional e internacional, respectivamente; 16,8% não são utilizados na atenção primária e 40,3% não são produzidos por LFO. A revisão do elenco do PFPB com base na concepção de medicamentos essenciais da Organização Mundial da Saúde, o alinhamento às políticas de assistência farmacêutica e à produção pelos LFO são fundamentais para melhorar a qualidade da atenção à saúde, a gestão, a capacitação dos prescritores e a informação aos cidadãos.

This study aimed to analyze the list of drugs in the Popular Pharmacy Program in Brazil (PFPB) in relation to the country's pharmaceutical care policy. The list of drugs in the PFPB was compared to the Brazilian and international reference lists of essential medicines, the components of pharmaceutical care in Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), and drug production by the country's government pharmaceutical laboratories. The PFPB list includes 119 drugs, of which 19.3% and 47.1% were not selected on the Brazilian and international reference lists, respectively; 16.8% are not used in primary care, and 40.3% are not produced by the country's government laboratories. A revision of the PFPB list based on the essential medicines concept (World Health Organization), alignment of pharmaceutical care policies, and production by government laboratories are essential to improve quality of health care, management, training of prescribers, and information for the population.

El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar la lista de medicamentos del Programa Farmacia Popular de Brasil (PFPB), en contraste con la política de la asistencia farmacéutica, en vigor en el país. El catálogo de medicamentos del PFPB se comparó con las listas de referencias de medicamentos esenciales (nacionales e internacionales), así como con la lista de financiación de los componentes de la asistencia farmacéutica del sistema de salud pública, y la producción pública de medicamentos por Laboratorios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de Brasil (LOFB). El PFPB contiene 119 medicamentos de los que un 19,3% y un 47,1% no fueron seleccionados en las listas de referencias nacionales e internacionales, respectivamente; un 16,8% no se utilizan en la atención primaria y un 40,3% no son producidos por los LOFB. La revisión del catálogo de PFPB, basado en la concepción de medicamentos esenciales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el alineamiento político de la asistencia farmacéutica, y la producción por los LOFB es fundamental para mejorar la calidad de la asistencia de salud, la gestión, la formación de los prescriptores y la información a los ciudadanos.

Policies and programs to facilitate access to targeted cancer therapies in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Increasing access to clinically beneficial targeted cancer medicines is a challenge in every country due to their high cost. We describe the interplay of innovative policies and programs involving multiple stakeholders to facilitate access to these medicines in Thailand, as well as the utilization of selected targeted therapies over time. METHODS: We selected two medicines on the 2013 Thai national list of essential medicines (NLEM) [letrozole and imatinib] and three unlisted medicines for the same indications [trastuzumab, nilotinib and dasatinib]. We created timelines of access policies and programs for these products based on scientific and grey literature. Using IMS Health sales data, we described the trajectories of sales volumes of the study medicines between January 2001 and December 2012. We compared estimated average numbers of patients treated before and after the implementation of policies and programs for each product. RESULTS: Different stakeholders implemented multiple interventions to increase access to the study medicines for different patient populations. During 2007-2009, the Thai Government created a special NLEM category with different coverage requirements for payers and issued compulsory licenses; payers negotiated prices with manufacturers and engaged in pooled procurement; pharmaceutical companies expanded patient assistance programs and lowered prices in different ways. Compared to before the interventions, estimated numbers of patients treated with each medicine increased significantly afterwards: for letrozole from 645 (95% CI 366-923) to 3683 (95% CI 2,748-4,618); for imatinib from 103 (95% CI 72-174) to 350 (95% CI 307-398); and for trastuzumab from 68 (95% CI 45-118) to 412 (95% CI 344-563). CONCLUSIONS: Government, payers, and manufacturers implemented multi-pronged approaches to facilitate access to targeted cancer therapies for the Thai population, which differed by medicine. Routine monitoring is needed to assess clinical and economic impacts of these strategies in the health system.

The evolution of Reference Drug Lists and Clinical Practice Guidelines in the public health system of a middle-income country.

AIMS: The aims were to analyze the dynamics of the medicines formulary in a middle-income country and to analyze the concordance of the included medicines with the national Clinical Practices Guidelines (CPG). METHODS: Medicines and their indications of use included in the Mexican Reference Drug List (Mex-RDL) from 1996 to 2013 were analyzed. The top 10 indications with the highest number of medicines in 2013 were analyzed retrospectively until 1996 in order to identify the increase in the number of medicines to treat each one, as well as the progressive specificity of the indication according to the International statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). The concordance between the CPG and medicines approved for the top 10 indications was studied. RESULTS: The number of medicines included in the Mex-RDL kept constantly growing from 454 drugs in 1996 to 811 in 2013. Up to 26.3% of these medicines were approved to treat only 10 indications (1.5% of all possible indications of use). Many of these new medicines had been approved for more and more specific indications, while the oldest ones had been approved for general indications. Up to 27.6% of the medicines approved for these top 10 indications do not appear in the updated recommendations of the specific CPG for those indications. CONCLUSIONS: During the last 18 years, the new medicines and indications included in the Mex-RDL were redundant and concentrated into few similar clinical conditions. This is a factor that promotes an irrational use of these medicines and, thus, unnecessarily raises the price of health care, undermines the quality of the health system and probably increases the uncertainty of treatments.

Essential medicines are more available than other medicines around the globe.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) promotes the development of national Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) in order to improve the availability and use of medicines considered essential within health care systems. However, despite over 3 decades of international efforts, studies show an inconsistent pattern in the availability of essential medicines. We evaluated and compared the availability of essential medicines, and medicines not included in national EMLs, at global and regional levels. METHODS: Medicine availability in the public and private sector were calculated based on data obtained from national and provincial facility-based surveys undertaken in 23 countries using the WHO/HAI methodology. The medicines were grouped according to their inclusion ('essential') or exclusion (termed 'non-essential') in each country's EML current at the time of the survey. Availability was calculated for originator brands, generics and any product type (originator brands or generics) and compared between the two groups. Results were aggregated by WHO regions, World Bank country income groups, a wealth inequality measure, and therapeutic groups. FINDINGS: Across all sectors and any product type, the median availability of essential medicines was suboptimal at 61·5% (IQR 20·6%-86·7%) but significantly higher than non-essential medicines at 27·3% (IQR 3·6%-70·0%). The median availability of essential medicines was 40·0% in the public sector and 78·1% in the private sector; compared to 6·6% and 57·1% for non-essential medicines respectively. A reverse trend between national income level categories and the availability of essential medicines was identified in the public sector. INTERPRETATION: EMLs have influenced the provision of medicines and have resulted in higher availability of essential medicines compared to non-essential medicines particularly in the public sector and in low and lower middle income countries. However, the availability of essential medicines, especially in the public sector does not ensure equitable access.

Where are we now: assessing the price, availability and affordability of essential medicines in Delhi as India plans free medicine for all.

BACKGROUND: Inequitable access to medicines is a major weakness in the Indian health care system. Baseline data needed to develop effective public health policy and provide equitable access to essential medicines. The present survey was conducted to investigate the price, availability, and affordability of fifty essential medicines in the public and private sector in Delhi, India using standardized WHO/HAI methodology. METHODS: Data on procurement price and availability was collected (July-October 2011) from three public healthcare providers: the federal (central) government, state government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Data on price and availability of medicines was collected from private retail and chain pharmacies of a leading corporate house. Prices were compared to an international reference price (expressed as median price ratio-MPR). RESULTS: The procurement price of surveyed medicines was 0.53-0.82 times the international reference price-IRP. However, the overall mean availability of surveyed medicines in facilities under state government and MCD was 41.3% and 23.2%, respectively. The overall mean availability of medicines in three tertiary care facilities operated by the federal government was 49.3%. Availability of generic medicines was much higher in the private sector. Off-patented medicines, like diazepam, diclofenac, and doxycycline had the highest MPRs. The price ratio between procurement and retail was as high as 28 (range 11-28) for certain medicines. Seven-day treatment with a popular brand of amoxicillin+clavulanic acid or one inhaler each of budesonide and salbutamol cost 2.3 and 1.4 days' wages for the lowest paid government worker. A majority of India's population cannot afford these prices. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that procurement prices of surveyed medicines were reasonable in comparison to IRP. However, variation in procurement prices of certain medicines by different public procurement agencies was noted. Availability of medicines was very poor in public sector facilities, which are the primary source of free medicines for a majority of India's low-income population. Availability of medicines is better in private retail pharmacies but affordability remains a big challenge for a majority of the population. These data have significant policy implications that could help in amending policies to increase the access to essential medicines for India's population.