Luciane C Lopes1, Maribel Salas2,3, Claudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro4, Lisiane Freitas Leal5, Svetlana V Doubova6, Martín Cañás7,8, Anahi Dreser9, Angela Acosta10, Andre Oliveira Baldoni11, Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi1, Daniel Marques Mota12, Diana L Gómez-Galicia13, Dino Sepúlveda-Viveros14, Edgard Narvaez Delgado15, Elisangela da Costa Lima16, Felipe Vera Chandia17, Felipe Ferre18, Gustavo H Marin19, Ismael Olmos20, Ivan R Zimmermann21, Izabela Fulone1, Juan Roldán-Saelzer22, Juan Carlos Sánchez-Salgado23, Lucila I Castro-Pastrana24, Luiz Jupiter Carneiro de Souza25, Manuel Machado Beltrán26, Marcus Tolentino Silva1, María Belén Mena27, Marta Maria de França Fonteles28, Martín A Urtasun7,8, Mónica Tarapués27, Patricia Granja Hernández29, Natalia Medero20, Raquel Herrera-Comoglio30, Silvio Barberato-Filho1, Taís Freire Galvão31, Vera Lucia Luiza4, Yared Santa-Ana-Tellez32, Yesenia Rodríguez-Tanta33, Monique Elseviers34,35. 1. Pharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, Brazil. 2. Epidemiology, Cardiovascular, Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, USA. 3. CCEB/CPeRT, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA. 4. Department of Medicines Policy and Pharmaceutical Services, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Department of Epidemiology Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University/Centre for Clinical Epidemiology - Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, Canada. 6. Epidemiology and Health Services Research Unit CMN Siglo XXI, Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City, Mexico. 7. Institute of Health Sciences, Arturo Jauretche National University, Florencio Varela, Argentina. 8. Federación Médica de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, FEMEBA, La Plata, Argentina. 9. Centre for Health Systems Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico. 10. Departamento de Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad ICESI, Cali, Colombia. 11. Pharmaceutical Science Course, Federal University of São João Del-Rei, Divinópolis, Brazil. 12. Fifth Board of Directors, Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, Brasilia, Brazil. 13. PITC - Pharmacy of Faculty, Autonomous University of the State of Morelos, Cuernavaca, Mexico. 14. School of Medicine, Autonomous University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 15. Public Health, Self-employed, Managua, Nicaragua. 16. School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 17. Health Technology Assessment Unit, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 18. School of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 19. Faculty of Medicine, National University of La Plata - CONICET, La Plata, Argentina. 20. Unit of Clinical Pharmacology - Vilardebó Hospital, ASSE - State Health Services Administration, Montevidéu, Uruguay. 21. Department of Public Health, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil. 22. Pharmacovigilance Subdepartment, of the Department National Medicines Agency, Institute of Public Health of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 23. Scientific Department, Hypermedic MX, Mexico City, Mexico. 24. Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences, University of the Americas Puebla, Cholula, Mexico. 25. Research and Development, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Ministry of Health), Brasilia, Brazil. 26. Pharmaceutical Science, National University of Colombia, Bogota, Colombia. 27. Faculty of Medical Sciences, Central University of Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador. 28. Technological Development and Innovation in Medicines Graduate Course, Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza, Brazil. 29. Humanistic Organization for Social Change, HIVOS, Quito, Ecuador. 30. School of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba, Córdoba, Argentina. 31. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil. 32. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands. 33. Institute of Health and Technology Assessment and Research, ESSALUD - Social Security of Peru, Lima, Peru. 34. Centre for Research and Innovation in Care, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 35. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Ghent, Belgium, Centre for Research and Innovation in Care, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Drug utilization research (DUR) contributes to inform policymaking and to strengthen health systems. The availability of data sources is the first step for conducting DUR. However, documents that systematize these data sources in Latin American (LatAm) countries are not known. We compiled the potential data sources for DUR in the LatAm region. METHODS: A network of DUR experts from nine LatAm countries was assembled and experts conducted: (i) a website search of the government, academic, and private health institutions; (ii) screening of eligible data sources, and (iii) liaising with national experts in pharmacoepidemiology (via an online survey). The data sources were characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, sector of the data, sources and type of the data. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 125 data sources for DUR in nine LatAm countries. Thirty-eight (30%) of them were publicly and conveniently available; 89 (71%) were accessible with limitations, and 18 (14%) were not accessible or lacked clear rules for data access. From the 125 data sources, 76 (61%) were from the public sector only; 46 (37%) were from pharmacy records; 43 (34%) came from ambulatory settings and; 85 (68%) gave access to individual patient-level data. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple sources for DUR are available in LatAm countries, the accessibility is a major challenge. The procedures for accessing DUR data should be transparent, feasible, affordable, and protocol-driven. This inventory could permit a comparison of drug utilization between countries identifying potential medication-related problems that need further exploration.
PURPOSE: Drug utilization research (DUR) contributes to inform policymaking and to strengthen health systems. The availability of data sources is the first step for conducting DUR. However, documents that systematize these data sources in Latin American (LatAm) countries are not known. We compiled the potential data sources for DUR in the LatAm region. METHODS: A network of DUR experts from nine LatAm countries was assembled and experts conducted: (i) a website search of the government, academic, and private health institutions; (ii) screening of eligible data sources, and (iii) liaising with national experts in pharmacoepidemiology (via an online survey). The data sources were characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, sector of the data, sources and type of the data. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 125 data sources for DUR in nine LatAm countries. Thirty-eight (30%) of them were publicly and conveniently available; 89 (71%) were accessible with limitations, and 18 (14%) were not accessible or lacked clear rules for data access. From the 125 data sources, 76 (61%) were from the public sector only; 46 (37%) were from pharmacy records; 43 (34%) came from ambulatory settings and; 85 (68%) gave access to individual patient-level data. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple sources for DUR are available in LatAm countries, the accessibility is a major challenge. The procedures for accessing DUR data should be transparent, feasible, affordable, and protocol-driven. This inventory could permit a comparison of drug utilization between countries identifying potential medication-related problems that need further exploration.