Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using drugs by filing lawsuits: is there clinical and laboratory monitoring?

• Autor(a) principal: Ferreira, Gustavo Costa
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Mendonça , Thays Santos, Silva, Eduardo Sérgio, Pereira, Mariana Linhares, Belo , Vinícius Silva, Ferreira, Vitor Costa, Baldoni, André de Oliveira
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Medicina de Família e Comunidade (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.rbmfc.org.br/rbmfc/article/view/2561
• topic: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Health’s Judicialization; Access to Information; Pharmaceutical Services; Universal Health Insurance; Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2; Judicialización de la Salud; Acceso a la Información; Servicios Farmacéuticos; Cobertura Universal del Seguro de Salud; Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2; Judicialização da Saúde; Acesso à Informação; Assistência Farmacêutica; Cobertura Universal do Seguro de Saúde

Introduction: The continuous increase in the number of health judicialization processes, the epidemiological relevance of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), the scarcity of resources used to monitor the investments of lawsuits, and their high cost to public health, that said there is a need for studies that analyze the profile of the judicialization of antidiabetics, which is the main class of drugs targeted by lawsuits. Objective: To analyze whether patients with DM2 attended by judicial system, are followed up and monitored in Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) before and after judicial proceedings. In addition to analyzing the profile of drugs legalized for the treatment of DM2. Methods: A retrospective observational study, which secondary database, medical records and judicial files, was conducted with 56 patients with DM2 who have acquired at least one of their medicines through lawsuits, in 2019, in a city in Minas Gerais. The data were analyzed 12 months before and 12 months after judicialization process. Results: Among the 56 lawsuits, 39% were concentrated in only three health units. Only 30 patients (53%) before and 29 (51%) after judicialization had appointments in SUS. Furthermore, only 15 (26%) and 13 (23%) patients, respectively before and after judicialization, had some laboratory test performed by SUS. The insulins Levemir Flex Pen® (13%), Novo Rapid® (11%), and Lantus® (7%) were the most judicialized drugs. Conclusion: It was observed that despite the SUS providing the high-cost therapeutic input through an unconventional gateway, there is no clinical and laboratory monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology, as recommended by clinical protocols and Brazilian laws about access to medicines.