A incorporação do nusinersena no Sistema Único de Saúde: uma reflexão crítica sobre a institucionalização da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil

• Autor(a) principal: Rosângela Caetano
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Renata Curi Hauegen, Claudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Cadernos de Saúde Pública
• Texto Completo: https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/7001
• topic: Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde; Medicamento Órfão; Participação no Risco Financeiro; Sistema Único de Saúde

In April 2019, a ruling was signed for the incorporation of the drug nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Nusinersen is the most expensive drug ever incorporated by the SUS and is used to treat type I 5q spinal muscular atrophy. The incorporation has been described as a milestone in decision-making on new technologies in the SUS, enabled through a risk-sharing agreement. The article discusses the process involved in the incorporation of nusinersen, highlighting the context, timing, and technical issues, in addition to possible consequences for the institutionalization of health technology assessment (HTA) in the SUS. The study used an exploratory method, reviewing public information produced by the Commission for Incorporation of Technologies in the SUS (CONITEC) and searches in government databanks on prices and purchases. A timeline was produced, describing the key points in the process of incorporation. There were two formal requests for the drug’s incorporation. The first was submitted by the Division of Science, Technology, and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE) of the Brazilian Ministry of Health and was turned down unanimously in November 2018. This was followed by a petition by the head of the SCTIE to the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) to overrule the recommendation by the CONITEC plenary. The AGU recommended a new submission, made by the drug’s manufacturing company, which was approved unanimously in March 2019. The was no addition of new evidence or a price reduction to justify the change of decision. No elements were identified in the risk-sharing agreement. This suggests problems of transparency and accountability, as well as risks in the process of institutionalization of HTA that had been underway in the SUS.