Hipoglicemiantes orais para diabetes mellitus tipo 2: comparação de preços no Brasil e em outros sistemas universais de saúde

• Autor(a) principal: Gustavo Laine Araújo de Oliveira
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Jans Bastos Izidoro, Felipe Ferré, Samuel Rodrigues Almeida e Sousa, Francisco de Assis Acúrcio
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFMG
• Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2018.01.008; http://hdl.handle.net/1843/71359
• topic: Pharmaceutical services; Diabetes mellitus; Type 2; Hypoglycemic agents; Health systems; Drug price; Hipoglicemiantes; Preço de medicamento; Assistência farmacêutica; Sistema Único de Saúde

Objectives: To estimate the average price of oral hypoglycemic agents provided by the Brazilian health system (SUS) and to compare them to other public health systems. Methods: Cross-sectional study about drug prices purchased by Belo Horizonte (municipal level), Minas Gerais (state level) and federal institutions in January and February of 2014. Average prices were calculated by defined daily dosage (DDD) and were compared to the management levels and the program "Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular" (ATFP). For international comparison, reimbursement values from Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Canada (Province of Quebec) were used. Results: Belo Horizonte had higher average prices than Minas Gerais. In general, essential oral hypoglycemic agents purchased by the SUS had lower prices than ATFP. For example, glibenclamide 5 mg was 1.023% more expensive. Metformin purchased by ATFP was more expensive than by SUS. Eight drugs purchased by SUS had average values above the respective Brazilian price ceiling. As an international comparison, SUS had lower average prices for glibenclamide and metformin. In ATFP, metformin was more expensive than in other countries, while glibenclamide was cheaper than Portugal only. Conclusion: The municipal management level had higher average prices than state level. Oral hypoglycemic agents purchased by SUS are predominantly cheaper than ATFP. Average prices paid by SUS are lower, while the prices paid by ATFP are higher than the reimbursed amounts from other countries.