Adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and postpartum women in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: By the fact that pregnant and postpartum women are currently using COVID-19 vaccines, ensure their safety is critical. So, more safety evidence is crucial to include this new technology to their vaccine's calendar and to develop public policies regarding the support and training of Health Care Personnel. This study aims to describe the adverse events (AE) of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and postpartum women in the early stage of vaccination campaign in Brazil. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study using data from the Brazilian surveillance information system to characterize the AE of COVID-19 vaccines (Sinovac/Butantan, Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Janssen) in Brazilian pregnant and postpartum women from April to August 2021. Frequency and incidence rate of AE for COVID-19 vaccines were assessed. RESULTS: 3,333 AE following immunization were reported for the study population. AE incidence was 309.4/100,000 doses (95% CI 297.23, 321.51). Within the vaccines available, Sinovac/Butantan had the lowest incidence (74.08/100,000 doses; 95% CI 63.47, 84.69). Systemic events were the most frequent notified (82.07%), followed by local (11.93%) and maternal (4.74%), being most of them classified as non-severe (90.65%). CONCLUSION: Our results corroborate the recommendation of vaccination for these groups. Even though, further studies appraising a longer observation time are still needed to provide a broader safety aspect for the vaccines currently under use for this population.

Adoption of new therapies in the treatment of Hepatitis: a verification of the accuracy of budget impact analysis to guide investment decisions.

OBJECTIVES: While there are good Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) guidelines, studies still register potential bias. To do this, we compared the results between theoretical and real-world evidence (RWE) expenditures for medicines for Hepatitis C: boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR). While both are not currently recommended in treatment guidelines following recent developments, this is an emblematic case because for 4 years these medicines consumed considerable resources. METHODS: Theoretical results and RWE expenditures were compared regarding the incorporation of BOC and TVR in 2013-2014 into the Brazilian Public Health System. Theoretical values were extracted from Commission for Technology Incorporation Report and RWE expenditures were extracted from the administrative data records using deterministic-probabilistic linkage. RESULTS: The estimated number of patients treated (BOC+TVR) was 13,012 versus 7,641 (real). The estimated purchase price for BOC was US$6.20 versus US$11.07 (real) and for TVR was US$42.21 versus US$84.09 (average/real). The estimated budget impact was US$285.16 million versus US$128.58 million (real). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates appreciable divergence (US$156.58 million) between the theoretical budget impact and RWE expenditures due to underestimated purchase prices and overestimated populations. The greater the degree of accuracy the more reliable and usable BIAs become for decision-making.

Budget impact analysis of medicines: estimated values versus real-world evidence and the implications.

OBJECTIVES: Budget Impact Analyses (BIA) of medicines helps managers in promoting health systems' sustainability when assessing the role and value of new medicines. However, it is not clear whether BIAs typically underestimate or overestimate the impact on real-world budgets. This retroactive analysis seeks to compare estimated values obtained by a BIA and Real-World Evidence (RWE) to guide discussions. METHODS: The estimated values were obtained through a BIA concerning the incorporation of adalimumab for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis into the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) carried out retroactively and per international guidelines. RWE data was extracted from SUS computerized systems. We subsequently compared the number of treatments, costs, and Incremental Budget Impact (IBI). RESULTS: - The total number of treatments was underestimated by 10% (6,243) and the total expenditure was overestimated by 463% (US$ 4.7 billion). In five years, the total difference between the estimated values and real IBI reached US$ 1.1 billion. A current expenditure of US$ 1.0 was observed for every US$ 5.60 of estimated expenditure. CONCLUSION: - The higher estimates from the BIA might cause decision makers to be more cautious with the introduction of a new medicine to reduce the opportunity costs for other interventions.