Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine: off-label use in lawsuits in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil:

• Autor(a) principal: de Oliveira, Patricia
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Viana, Camila Cátia Vilela, Neto, Orozimbo Henriques Campos, Pereira, Giovana Gonçalves, Santos, André Soares, Zocratto, Keli Bahia Felicíssimo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/715
• topic: Judicialización de la salud; Bioética; Hidroxicloroquina; Cloroquina; Judicialização da saúde; Bioética; Hidroxicloroquina; Cloroquina; Health's judicialization; Bioethics; Hydroxychloroquine; Chloroquine

Objective: to analyze the lawsuits related to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, according to indications and records at the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) as well as in the Clinical Protocols and Therapeutic Guidelines (PCDT) considering the diseases that motivated the claims, under the view of the bioethics for off-label use. Methodology: a documentary, exploratory-descriptive, transversal, quantitative study. The hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine lawsuits in the last 20 years in Minas Gerais were analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed by considering the following variables: disease; ICD-10; medicines; year of incorporation into the specialized pharmaceutical assistance component (CEAF); and year of the lawsuit. SPSS® software version 19 was used to analyze the data. Results: the corpus of 155 processes analyzed, 148 (95.5%) presented demand for 400mg hydroxychloroquine and 7 (4.5%) for 250mg chloroquine. The analyzed drugs were registered with Anvisa and off-label use was found in 8.1% for hydroxychloroquine and 14.3% for chloroquine. Discussion: the judicial demands for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were related to their indications registered in the package leaflet and within the PCDT. However, the presence in the study of its off-label use demonstrated that the Judiciary grants the claims, bringing bioethical implications by impacting the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Conclusion: the judicialization of off-label medicine interferes in the planning, execution, and financing of public health policies, in addition to causing citizen exposure to unknown risks, when using medicines with indications not supported by scientific evidence, by Anvisa, and by the production industry itself of the medicine.