Assisted therapy model for dispensing immunobiological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis by the Brazilian Unified Health System: rational use of resources reduces expenses

Objective: The incorporation of immunobiological agents for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment at the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) represented a significant advance but had an important impact on the budget. As the current model of direct patient delivery had deficiencies, the CEDMAC model of assisted therapy was implemented to focus on rational use to minimize expenses and increase access. However, there is no data to compare the two models. Thus, this study aimed to compare the number of bottles effectively dispensed by the CEDMAC model to direct dispensing and assess its financial impact. Methods: Care of RA patients at CEDMAC in 2015, whose immunobiological drugs were provided by the Ministry of Health, were included. Drug and dose received, prescribed dose, the number of bottles, cancellations due to contraindication, and absences were recorded. As a comparison, the number of bottles that would be delivered by direct dispensing was estimated. The difference between the total number of bottles dispensed by the two systems and the financial impact of the purchase price in 2015 was calculated. Results: In 2015, CEDMAC provided 3,784 consultations for RA patients. The total number of bottles of immunobiological agents prescribed was 10,000 bottles, and 1,946 (19.5%) were not used for bottle optimization, contraindications, or absenteeism. Unused bottles reduced expenses by R$ 806,132.62. The expansion of the model to the entire SUS would reduce costs by R$ 121,110,388.27. Conclusion: The CEDMAC assisted therapy model considerably reduces the volume of dispensed bottles and can significantly reduce expenses in the supply of immunobiological agents for RA at SUS.

Guia prático de atualização em dermatite atópica - Parte II: abordagem terapêutica. Posicionamento conjunto da Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria / Updated practical guide on atopic dermatitis - Part II: treatment approach. Joint position paper of the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology and the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics

Nas últimas décadas o conhecimento sobre a etiopatogenia da dermatite atópica (DA) avançou muito. Além da identificação dos principais agentes desencadeantes e/ou agravantes envolvidos na expressão clínica da DA, verificou-se ser a integridade da barreira cutânea um dos pontos fundamentais para a manutenção da homeostase da pele. Assim, no tratamento do paciente com DA, além da evitação dos agentes desencadeantes e/ou irritantes, o uso de hidratantes é parte fundamental, e acredita-se que tenha ação preventiva de surtos agudos. Além disso, a aquisição de agentes anti-inflamatórios de uso tópico tem permitido o controle de pacientes com formas leves a moderadas da DA. Embora tenham uso mais restrito, os agentes imunossupressores sistêmicos também têm sido empregados no tratamento de pacientes com DA grave ou refratária aos procedimentos habituais. Comenta-se também a imunoterapia alérgeno-específica como tratamento adjuvante da DA para alguns pacientes, sobretudo alérgicos aos ácaros e com manifestações respiratórias associadas. A aquisição de novos agentes, os imunobiológicos, também são apresentados à luz das evidências científicas e clínicas atuais. O presente guia prático de atualização em dermatite atópica ­ abordagem terapêutica teve por objetivo rever os esquemas de tratamento disponíveis e empregados no acompanhamento de pacientes com DA, além de apresentar terapêuticas futuras, como os agentes imunobiológicos que em breve estarão à disposição para o tratamento de formas mais graves e/ou refratárias da DA.

Over the last few decades, knowledge of the etiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD) advanced greatly. The main triggering and/or aggravating factors involved in the clinical expression of AD have been identified, and cutaneous barrier integrity has been found to be key for the maintenance of skin homeostasis. Thus, when treating patients with AD, in addition to avoiding triggering and/ or irritating agents, recommending the use of skin moisturizers is paramount ­ and believed to have a preventive action against acute outbreaks. Moreover, topical anti-inflammatory agents have allowed AD control in patients with mild to moderate forms of the disease. Although more restricted, systemic immunosuppressive agents have also been used in the treatment of patients with severe or refractory AD. Specific allergen immunotherapy is presented as a possible adjunctive treatment for AD in some patients, especially those allergic to mites and presenting associated respiratory manifestations. Finally, the use of new immunobiological agents is discussed in the light of the scientific and clinical evidence currently available. The objectives of this updated practical guide on atopic dermatitis ­ treatment approach were to review the treatment regimens available and used in the follow-up of patients with AD and to present new therapies (e.g., immunobiological agents) that will soon be available for the treatment of more severe and/ or refractory forms of AD.

Vacinação contra febre amarela em pacientes com diagnósticos de doenças reumáticas, em uso de imunossupressores / Vaccination against yellow fever among patients on immunosuppressors with diagnoses of rheumatic diseases

A febre amarela é endêmica em alguns países. A vacina, único modo eficaz de proteção, é contra-indicada em pacientes imunocomprometidos. Nosso objetivo é relatar uma série de casos de pacientes reumatológicos, usuários de imunossupressores, vacinados contra a doença. Foi feito um estudo retrospectivo, por meio de questionário aplicado em pacientes reumatológicos medicados com imunossupressores, vacinados 60 dias antes da investigação. Foram avaliados 70 pacientes, com idade média de 46 anos, 90 por cento mulheres, portadores de artrite reumatóide (54), lupus eritematoso sistêmico (11), espondiloartropatias (5) e esclerose sistêmica (2). Os esquemas terapêuticos incluíam metotrexato (42), corticoesteróides (22), sulfassalazina (26), leflunomida (18), ciclofosfamida (3) e imunobiológicos (9). Dezesseis (22,5 por cento) pacientes relataram efeitos adversos menores. Dentre os 8 pacientes, em uso de imunobiológicos, apenas um apresentou efeito adverso, leve. Entre pacientes em uso de imunussopressores, reações adversas não foram mais freqüentes do que em imunocompetentes. Este é o primeiro estudo sobre o tema.

Yellow fever is endemic in some countries. The anti-yellow fever vaccine is the only effective means of protection but is contraindicated for immunocompromised patients. The aim of this paper was to report on a case series of rheumatological patients who were using immunosuppressors and were vaccinated against this disease. This was a retrospective study by means of a questionnaire applied to these patients, who were vaccinated 60 days before the investigation. Seventy patients of mean age 46 years were evaluated. Most of them were female (90 percent). There were cases of rheumatoid arthritis (54), systemic lupus erythematosus (11), spondyloarthropathy (5) and systemic sclerosis (2). The therapeutic schemes included methotrexate (42), corticosteroids (22), sulfasalazine (26), leflunomide (18), cyclophosphamide (3) and immunobiological agents (9). Sixteen patients (22.5 percent) reported some minor adverse effect. Among the eight patients using immunobiological agents, only one presented a mild adverse effect. Among these patients using immunosuppressors, adverse reactions were no more frequent than among immunocompetent individuals. This is the first study on this topic.