Background: In 2019, a new type of coronavirus emerged and spread to the rest of the world. Numerous drugs were identified as possible treatments. Among the candidates for possible treatment was azithromycin alone or in combination with other drugs. As a result, many clinicians in Brazil have prescribed azithromycin in an attempt to combat or minimize the effects of COVID19. Aim: This study analyzed the sales data of the main antibiotics prescribed in Brazil to verify the change in consumption trends of these drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This is an interrupted time series that analyzed antimicrobial sales data between January 2014 and July 2021, publicly accessible information obtained from the Brazilian government's website. Monthly means of "defined daily doses of DDDs" (DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day) of antibiotics were compared by analysis of variance, followed by the Dunnett Multiple Comparisons Test. Monthly trend changes in antibiotic use were verified using Joinpoint regression. Results: Amoxicillin (31.97%), azithromycin (18.33%), and cefalexin (16.61%) were the most sold antibiotics in Brazil during the evaluation period. Azithromycin consumption rose from 1.40 DDDs in February 2020 to 3.53 DDDs in July 2020. Azithromycin sales showed a significant increase in the pandemic period [Monthly Percent Change (MPC) 5.83%, 95% 1.80; 10.00], whereas there was a fall in amoxicillin sales (MPC −9.00%, 95% CI −14.70; −2.90) and cefalexin [MPC-2.70%, 95% (CI −6.30; −1.10)] in this same period. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the pattern of antibiotic consumption in Brazil, with a decrease in the use of amoxicillin and cefalexin and an increase in the consumption of azithromycin.
OBJETIVO Analisar o acesso e o perfil de utilização, por via judicial, de medicamentos biológicos para o tratamento de psoríase. MÉTODOS Estudo transversal descritivo. Foram entrevistados 203 pacientes com psoríase que demandaram medicamentos biológicos, por via judicial, ao Estado de São Paulo, entre 2004 e 2010. Informações sobre características sociodemográficas, médico-sanitárias e político-administrativas foram complementadas com dados obtidos das respectivas ordens de dispensação quanto a medicamento biológico para tratamento de psoríase e autos correspondentes. Os dados foram analisados em banco eletrônico e as variáveis sumarizadas por frequência simples. As prescrições contidas nos processos foram analisadas quanto aos preceitos legais contidos na lei. RESULTADOS Foram analisados 190 autos referentes aos medicamentos biológicos: adalimumabe, efalizumabe, etanercepte e infliximabe. Os proponentes obtiveram o medicamento por mandado de segurança (59,5%), sem nunca ter solicitado o medicamento biológico para outra instituição (86,2%), por sistema de saúde público ou privado. Utilizaram-se da prerrogativa de gratuidade de justiça (72,6%), embora fossem representados por advogado particular (91,1%) e atendidos em consultórios médicos privados (69,5%). Utilizaram o medicamento biológico por período >; 13 meses (66,0%) e 44,9% faziam uso do medicamento no momento da entrevista. Quase um terço daqueles que deixaram de usar os medicamentos abandonou o tratamento por piora do quadro (26,6%), efeitos adversos (20,5%), falta de eficácia ou suspensão pelo médico (13,8%). Nenhuma prescrição médica atendeu aos preceitos legais; 70,3% dos pacientes não haviam realizado exames laboratoriais (hemograma, função hepática e renal) para controle do tratamento. CONCLUSÕES Os demandantes recorreram à via judicial para obtenção de medicamentos biológicos por desconhecimento ou por dificuldades de acesso pelas vias institucionais do sistema público de saúde O acesso facilitado pela via judicial favorece o uso do medicamento por tempo prolongado por meio de prescrições não conformes, frequência elevada de efeitos adversos e monitoramento clínico inadequado. ; OBJECTIVE To analyze the access and utilization profile of biological medications for psoriasis provided by the judicial system in Brazil. METHODS This is a cross-sectional study. We interviewed a total of 203 patients with psoriasis who were on biological medications obtained by the judicial system of the State of Sao Paulo, from 2004 to 2010. Sociodemographics, medical, and political-administrative characteristics were complemented with data obtained from dispensation orders that included biological medications to treat psoriasis and the legal actions involved. The data was analyzed using an electronic data base and shown as simple variable frequencies. The prescriptions contained in the lawsuits were analyzed according to legal provisions. RESULTS A total of 190 lawsuits requesting several biological drugs (adalimumab, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab) were analyzed. Patients obtained these medications as a result of injunctions (59.5%) or without having ever demanded biological medication from any health institution (86.2%), i.e., public or private health services. They used the prerogative of free legal aid (72.6%), even though they were represented by private lawyers (91.1%) and treated in private facilities (69.5%). Most of the patients used a biological medication for more than 13 months (66.0%), and some patients were undergoing treatment with this medication when interviewed (44.9%). Approximately one third of the patients discontinued treatment due to worsening of their illness (26.6%), adverse drug reactions (20.5%), lack of efficacy, or because the doctor discontinued this medication (13.8%). None of the analyzed medical prescriptions matched the legal prescribing requirements. Clinical monitoring results showed that 70.3% of the patients had not undergone laboratory examinations (blood work, liver and kidney function tests) for treatment control purposes. CONCLUSIONS The plaintiffs resorted to legal action to get access to biological medications because they were either unaware or had difficulty in accessing them through institutional public health system procedures. Access by means of legal action facilitated long-term use of this type of medication through irregular prescriptions and led to a high rate of adverse drug reactions as well as inappropriate clinical monitoring.
