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

Comparison of antibiotics included in national essential medicines lists of 138 countries using the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) classification: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines classified antibiotics into Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) categories for the treatment of 31 priority bacterial infections as a tool to facilitate antibiotic stewardship and optimal use. We compared the listing of antibiotics on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) to those in the 2019 WHO Model List and the AWaRe classification database to determine the degree to which NEMLs are in alignment with the AWaRe classification framework recommended by WHO. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we obtained up-to-date (data after 2017) NEMLs from our Global Essential Medicines (GEM) database, WHO online resources, and individual countries' websites. From the 2019 WHO Model List we extracted, as a reference standard, a list of 37 antibiotics (44 unique antibiotics after accounting for combination drugs or therapeutically equivalent drugs as specified by WHO) that were considered essential in treating 31 of the most common and severe clinical infectious syndromes (priority infections). From the WHO AWaRe Classification Database, which contains commonly used antibiotics globally, we extracted a list of 122 AWaRe antibiotics listed by at least one country in the GEM database. We then assessed individual countries' NEMLs for listing of the 44 essential and 122 commonly used antibiotics, overall and according to AWaRe classification group. We also evaluated and summarised the listing of both first-choice and second-choice treatments for the 31 priority infections. A total coverage score was calculated for each country by assigning a treatment score of 0-3 for each priority infection on the basis of whether first-choice and second-choice treatments, according to the 2019 WHO Model List, were included in the country's NEML. Coverage scores were then compared against the score of the 2019 WHO Model List and across World Bank income groups and WHO regions. FINDINGS: As of July 7, 2020, we had up-to-date NEMLs for 138 countries. Of the 44 unique essential antibiotics, 24 were Access, 15 were Watch, and five were Reserve. The median number of total essential antibiotics listed across the 138 NEMLs was 26 (IQR 21-32). 102 (74%) countries listed at least 22 (50%) of the 44 essential antibiotics. The median number of total AWaRe antibiotics listed by the 138 countries was 35 (IQR 29-46), of Access antibiotics was 18 (16-21), of Watch antibiotics was 16 (11-22), and of Reserve antibiotics was one (0-2). 56 (41%) countries did not list any essential Reserve antibiotics. 131 (95%) countries had coverage scores of at least 60, equivalent to at least 75% of the score of the 2019 WHO Model List, which was 80. Nine (7%) countries listed fewer than 12 of 24 essential Access antibiotics, and seven (5%) did not list sufficient first-choice and second-choice treatments for priority infections (ie, they had coverage scores lower than 60). Of the 31 priority infections, acute neonatal meningitis and high-risk febrile neutropenia did not have enough listed treatments, with 82 (59%) countries listing no treatment for acute neonatal meningitis and 84 (61%) countries listing only a first-choice treatment, only a second-choice treatment, or no treatment for high-risk febrile neutropenia. Coverage scores differed between countries on the basis of World Bank income groups (p=0·025). INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight potential changes to the antibiotics included in NEMLs that would increase adherence to international guidance aimed at effectively treating infectious diseases while addressing antimicrobial resistance. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.

Aplicación del Sistema de Clasificación Biofarmacéutica al Cuadro Básico de Medicamentos de Cuba: ¿bioequivalencia in vivo o disolución in vitro? / Application of the Biopharmaceutical Classification System to the Basic Table of Medicines of Cuba: bioequivalence in vivo or dissolution in vitro?

El siguiente trabajo tiene como objetivos clasificar los ingredientes farmacéuticos activos (IFAs) de los sólidos orales de liberación inmediata del Cuadro Básico de Medicamentos de Cuba (CBM) que son producidos nacionalmente, según el Sistema de Clasificación Biofarmacéutica (SCB), y proponer aquellos que podrían demostrar su intercambiabilidad terapéutica a través de ensayos de disolución in vitro. Para ello se utilizó el listado de medicamentos del CBM de Cuba del 2019 y se realiza una clasificación biofarmacéutica provisional consenso, a partir de diferentes clasificaciones biofarmacéuticas publicadas y de una extensiva revisión de la literatura. Se identificó que aproximadamente el 48% de los IFAs del CBM presentan polimorfismo y que el 12,3% de las formas sólidas orales del CBM de Cuba tienen un estrecho margen terapéutico, por lo que no pueden ser bioexonerados mediante estudios de bioequivalencia in vitro basados en el SCB. Se constató que un 50,8% de los IFAs de formas sólidas orales de liberación inmediata del CBM de Cuba han sido clasificados según el SCB por la OMS. La aplicación conjunta de diversas metodologías de clasificación biofarmacéutica permitió clasificar provisionalmente todos los IFAs de las formas sólidas orales del CBM, demostrando que el 66,1% pertenece a las clases I, III y I/III del SCB, por lo que podrían ser bioexonerados de ensayos de bioequivalencia in vivo en humanos

The goals of the present work are to classify the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) of the oral solids of immediate release of the Essential List of Medicines of Cuba (CBM) that are produced nationally, according to the Biopharmaceutical Classification System (BCS), and to propose those that could demonstrate their therapeutic interchangeability through in vitro dissolution tests. For this was used the Cuban CBM drug list of 2019, and a provisional consensus biopharmaceutical classification is proposed, based on different published biopharmaceutical classifications and an extensive review of the literature. It was identified that approximately 48% of the CBM IFAs present polymorphism and that 12.3% of the oral solid forms of CBM in Cuba have a narrow therapeutic margin, for which reason they cannot be bioexonerated through in vitro bioequivalence studies based on BCS. It was found that 50.8% of the oral solid forms of CBM in Cuba have been classified according to SCB by WHO. The joint application of diverse methodologies of biopharmaceutical classification allowed to provisionally classify all the IFAs of the oral solid forms of CBM, demonstrating that 66.1% belongs to classes I, III and I/III of the SCB, reason why they could be biowaivered from in vivo bioequivalence assays in humans

Added therapeutic value of new drugs approved in Brazil from 2004 to 2016.

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.

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.

Integrating theoretical and experimental permeability estimations for provisional biopharmaceutical classification: Application to the WHO essential medicines.

The accuracy of the provisional estimation of the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) is heavily influenced by the permeability measurement. In this study, several theoretical and experimental models currently employed for BCS permeability classification have been analysed. The experimental models included the in situ rat intestinal perfusion, the ex vivo rat intestinal tissue in an Ussing chamber, the MDCK and Caco-2 cell monolayers, and the parallel artificial membrane (PAMPA). The theoretical models included the octanol-water partition coefficient and the QSPeR (Quantitative Structure-Permeability Relationship) model recently developed. For model validation, a dataset of 43 compounds has been recompiled and analysed for the suitability for BCS permeability classification in comparison with the use of human intestinal absorption and oral bioavailability values. The application of the final model, based on a majority voting system showed a 95.3% accuracy for predicting human permeability. Finally, the present approach was applied to the 186 orally administered drugs in immediate-release dosage forms of the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. The percentages of the drugs that were provisionally classified as BCS Class I and Class III was 62.4%, suggesting that in vivo bioequivalence (BE) may potentially be assured with a less expensive and more easily implemented in vitro dissolution test, ensuring the efficiency and quality of pharmaceutical products. The results of the current study improve the accuracy of provisional BCS classification by combining different permeability models.

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.

Biopharmaceutical optimization in neglected diseases for paediatric patients by applying the provisional paediatric biopharmaceutical classification system.

AIMS: Unavailability and lack of appropriate, effective and safe formulations are common problems in paediatric therapeutics. Key factors such as swallowing abilities, organoleptic preferences and dosage requirements determine the need for optimization of formulations. The provisional Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) can be used in paediatric formulation design as a risk analysis and optimization tool. The objective of this study was to classify six neglected tropical disease drugs following a provisional paediatric BCS (pBCS) classification adapted to three paediatric subpopulations (neonates, infants and children). METHODS: Albendazole, benznidazole, ivermectin, nifurtimox, praziquantel and proguanil were selected from the 5th edition of the Model List of Essential Medicines for Children from the World Health Organization. Paediatric drug solubility classification was based on dose number calculation. Provisional permeability classification was based on log P comparison versus metoprolol log P value, assuming passive diffusion absorption mechanisms and no changes in passive membrane permeability between paediatric patients and adults. pBCS classes were estimated for each drug, according to different doses and volumes adapted for each age stage and were compared to the adult classification. RESULTS: All six drugs were classified into provisional pBCS in the three paediatric subpopulations. Three drugs maintained the same classification as for adults, ivermectin and benznidazole changed solubility class from low to high in neonates and proguanil changed from low to high solubility in all age stages. CONCLUSION: Provisional pBCS classification of these six drugs shows potential changes in the limiting factors in oral absorption in paediatrics, depending on age stage, compared to the adult population. This valuable information will aid the optimization of paediatric dosing and formulations and can identify bioinequivalence risks when comparing different formulations and paediatric populations.

Essential medicines for emergency care in Africa.

OBJECTIVES: Essential medicines lists (EMLs) are efficient means to ensure access to safe and effective medications. The WHO has led this initiative, generating a biannual EML since 1977. Nearly all countries have implemented national EMLs based on the WHO EML. Although EMLs have given careful consideration to many public health priorities, they have yet to comprehensively address the importance of medicines for treating acute illness and injury. METHODS: We undertook a multistep consensus process to establish an EML for emergency care in Africa. After a review of existing literature and international EMLs, we generated a candidate list for emergency care. This list was reviewed by expert clinicians who ranked the medicines for overall inclusion and strength of recommendation. These medications and recommendations were then evaluated by an expert group. Medications that reached consensus in both the online survey and expert review were included in a draft emergency care EML, which underwent a final inperson consensus process. RESULTS: The final emergency care EML included 213 medicines, 25 of which are not in the 2017 WHO EML, but were deemed essential for clinical practice by regional emergency providers. The final EML has associated recommendations of desirable or essential and is subdivided by facility level. Thirty-nine medicines were recommended for basic facilities, an additional 96 for intermediate facilities (eg, district hospitals) and an additional 78 for advanced facilities (eg, tertiary centres). CONCLUSION: The 25 novel medications not currently on the WHO EML should be considered by planners when making rational formularies for developing emergency care systems. It is our hope that these resource-stratified lists will allow for easier implementation and will be a useful tool for practical expansion of emergency care delivery in 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.

[The essentiality and rationality of the Brazilian national listing of essential medicines]. / Essencialidade e racionalidade da relação nacional de medicamentos essenciais do Brasil.

One strategy to implement the rational use of medicines is the adoption of an 'essential medicines list'. The objective of this study was to analyze the list of medicines contained in the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines (Rename, 2013) in terms of essentiality and rationality. Essentiality was determined by comparing this list to the 18th Essential Medicines List (EML) published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Drugs which were part of the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines but not included in the EML were assessed using the classification described in La revue Prescrire to detect medications without added therapeutic value. It was discovered that the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines contains 190 medications not included in the EML, of which 63 have no added therapeutic value. In addition, discrepancies were identified between the recommendations of the WHO and the drugs included in the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines. It is concluded that drugs that are non-essential and provide no added therapeutic value should not be included in a list of essential medicines funded by the three Brazilian federal entities.

Essencialidade e racionalidade da relação nacional de medicamentos essenciais do Brasil / The essentiality and rationality of the Brazilian national listing of essential medicines

Resumo A adoção de listas de medicamentos essenciais, compostas por produtos selecionados, é uma das estratégias para seu uso racional. Neste estudo, objetivou-se analisar o elenco de fármacos da Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais (Rename) do ano de 2013 quanto aos critérios de essencialidade e de racionalidade. O conjunto de fármacos da Rename foi comparado à 18ª lista modelo de medicamentos essenciais (EML) da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) para a verificação de sua essencialidade. Os fármacos presentes na Rename, mas inexistentes na EML, foram avaliados quanto à racionalidade utilizando-se a classificação descrita em La revue Prescrire para detectar aqueles sem valor terapêutico agregado. Detectou-se que a Rename possui 413 fármacos, dos quais 190 não constam na EML e 63 não apresentam valor terapêutico agregado. Além disso, foram identificadas discrepâncias entre as recomendações da OMS e a seleção de fármacos da Rename. Fármacos não essenciais e sem valor terapêutico agregado não deveriam constar em uma lista de medicamentos financiada pelos três entes federativos.

Abstract One strategy to implement the rational use of medicines is the adoption of an 'essential medicines list'. The objective of this study was to analyze the list of medicines contained in the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines (Rename, 2013) in terms of essentiality and rationality. Essentiality was determined by comparing this list to the 18th Essential Medicines List (EML) published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Drugs which were part of the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines but not included in the EML were assessed using the classification described in La revue Prescrire to detect medications without added therapeutic value. It was discovered that the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines contains 190 medications not included in the EML, of which 63 have no added therapeutic value. In addition, discrepancies were identified between the recommendations of the WHO and the drugs included in the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines. It is concluded that drugs that are non-essential and provide no added therapeutic value should not be included in a list of essential medicines funded by the three Brazilian federal entities.

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.