ABSTRACT Objective To determine under which health conditions metamizole (dipyrone) is used as a single drug or as fixed-dose combination. Methods Two retrospective cohorts of Brazilian patients treated with metamizole between January 2015 and December 2017 were analyzed: a metamizole-based cohort (Cohort 1) and a symptoms-based cohort (Cohort 2). Anonymized patient data was obtained from Amil Clinical Data Warehouse. The number of patients with symptoms was described by age and sex. Results The sample size of the two cohorts consisted of 384,668 patients. In patients using metamizole (Cohort 1), the most common reason for medication was the treatment of some form of pain (81%), followed by fever (19%). Headache was the most common (19%) specified pain class, followed by sore throat (8%), muscular pain (6%), and abdominal pain (5%). In adult patients (n=276,279; 71.8%), metamizole was used as a monotherapy or associated with another drug, for any sort of pain, in over 88% of the patients. General pain was the main reason for metamizole use in children (61%). Conclusion Real world evidence to evaluate Brazilian patients’ therapeutic options is unusual and yet to be more explored using digital tools enabling better data registration. The present study confirmed that metamizole is widely used as a non-anti-inflammatory drug, and also showed the management of pain and fever as the most frequent indications in all age groups studied. Registry in Clinical Trials Database: REBEC Database: 10507

Resumo Fundamento: A segurança e a eficácia da varfarina dependem da qualidade do controle da anticoagulação. Estudos observacionais associam controle deficiente com aumento de morbidade, mortalidade e custos com saúde. Objetivos: Desenvolver um perfil de pacientes com fibrilação atrial não valvar (FANV) tratados com varfarina em ambiente ambulatorial e hospitalar privado brasileiro, avaliar a qualidade do controle da anticoagulação e sua associação com resultados clínicos e econômicos. Métodos: Este estudo retrospectivo, por meio de um conjunto de dados de seguros privados de saúde no Brasil, identificou pacientes com FANV tratados com varfarina entre 01 de maio de 2014 a 30 de abril de 2016, descreveu seu manejo da anticoagulação e quantificou os custos relacionados à doença. Foram recuperados dados demográficos, histórico clínico, medicação concomitante e tempo na faixa terapêutica (TTR) dos valores da razão normalizada internacional (RNI). Os pacientes foram agrupados em quartis de TTR, com um bom controle sendo definido como TTR ≥65% (método de Rosendaal). Sangramentos maiores e custos médicos diretos por todas as causas foram calculados e comparados entre subgrupos de controle bons e ruins. Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significantes. Resultados: A análise incluiu 1220 pacientes (mediana de seguimento: 1,5 anos; IIQ: 0,5-2,0). Em média, cada paciente recebeu 0,95 medidas mensais de RNI (RNI média: 2,60 ± 0,88, com 26,1% dos valores < 2 e 24,8% > 3), (mediana de TTR: 58%; IIQ: 47-68%), (TTR médio: 56,6% ± 18,9%). Apenas 31% dos pacientes estavam bem controlados (TTR médio: 78% ± 10%), com 1,6% apresentando grandes sangramentos na mediana do seguimento e custos médicos diretos por membro por ano (PMPY) de R$25.352 (± R$37.762). Pacientes com controle abaixo do ideal (69%) foram associados a 3,3 vezes mais sangramentos graves (5,3% vs. 1,6%; p <0,01) e custos 40% maiores (R$35.384 vs. R$25.352; p < 0,01). Conclusões: Mais de 60% dos pacientes estavam abaixo da meta desejada e os custos associados foram significativamente maiores nesta população.

Abstract Background: The safety and effectiveness of warfarin depend on anticoagulation control quality. Observational studies associate poor control with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Objectives: To develop a profile of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with warfarin in a Brazilian private ambulatory and hospital setting, evaluate the quality of anticoagulation control, and its association with clinical and economic outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study, through a private health insurance dataset in Brazil, identified NVAF patients treated with warfarin between 01 MAY 2014 to 30 APRIL 2016, described their anticoagulation management, and quantified disease-related costs. Data on demographics, clinical history, concomitant medication and time in therapeutic range (TTR) of international normalized ratio (INR) values were retrieved. Patients were grouped into TTR quartiles, with good control defined as TTR ≥ 65% (Rosendaal method). Major bleeds and all-cause direct medical costs were calculated and compared between good and poor control subgroups. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The analysis included 1220 patients (median follow-up: 1.5 years; IQR: 0.5-2.0). On average, each patient received 0.95 monthly INR measurements (mean INR: 2.60 ± 0.88, with 26.1% of values < 2 and 24.8% > 3), (median TTR: 58%; IQR: 47-68%), (mean TTR: 56.6% ± 18.9%). Only 31% of patients were well-controlled (mean TTR: 78% ± 10%), with 1.6% having major bleeds within median follow-up, and direct medical costs per member per year (PMPY) of R$25,352(± R$ 37,762). Poorly controlled patients (69%) were associated with 3.3 times more major bleeds (5.3% vs. 1.6%; p < 0.01) and 40% higher costs (R$35,384 vs. R$25,352; p < 0.01). Conclusions: More than 60% of the patients were below the desired target and the associated costs were higher.

OBJECTIVES: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives based on data from international registries have been reported previously; however, there is a lack of information on the impact on the costs of medical care associated with the use of these tools. METHODS: Patients admitted due to myocardial infarction (MI), included in the ACTION Registry® and CathPCI Registry®, in a private Brazilian hospital (i.e., the reference hospital) were analyzed. The costs of care of these patients were compared to the costs of MI admissions in nine similar hospitals not included in the same QI program. Regression models were used to analyze the cost change over time between the two groups of hospitals. Readmission rates were compared using logistic regression, adjusting for the same variables as in the cost model. RESULTS: Overall, the annual medical cost inflation in Brazil was higher than the annual cost trend in the reference hospital during the period of analysis. Moreover, the annual in-hospital costs indicate that the reference hospital has a statistically significant 6% lower cost trend for patients with acute MI, compared to patients with the same diagnostic code in the comparison hospitals group, in an adjusted analysis (p-value=0.041). Using multivariable analysis, the readmission rates were also found to be significantly lower in the reference hospital than in the comparison hospitals, with an odds ratio of 0.68 (p-value=0.042). CONCLUSION: The use of the NCDR® as a benchmark to guide QI programs outside the United States was associated with the positive impact of bending the cost curve to below that of national medical inflation and the comparison hospitals’ costs, with a lower incidence of hospital readmission.