https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-4194
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Systemic arterial hypertension (SAH), a global public health problem and the primary risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, has a significant financial impact on health systems. In Brazil, the prevalence of SAH is 23.7%, which caused 203,000 deaths and 3.9 million DALYs in 2015.
Objective
To estimate the cost of SAH and circulatory system diseases attributable to SAH from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system in 2019.
Methods
A prevalence-based cost-of-illness was conducted using a top-down approach. The population attributable risk (PAR) was used to estimate the proportion of circulatory system diseases attributable to SAH. The direct medical costs were obtained from official Ministry of Health of Brazil records and literature parameters, including the three levels of care (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Deterministic univariate analyses were also conducted.
Results
The total cost of SAH and the proportion of circulatory system diseases attributable to SAH was Int$ 581,135,374.73, varying between Int$ 501,553,022.21 and Int$ 776,183,338.06. In terms only of SAH costs at all healthcare levels (Int$ 493,776,445.89), 97.3% were incurred in primary care, especially for antihypertensive drugs provided free of charge by the Brazilian public health system (Int$ 363,888,540.14). Stroke accounted for the highest cost attributable to SAH and the third highest PAR, representing 47% of the total cost of circulatory diseases attributable to SAH. Prevalence was the parameter that most affected sensitivity analyses, accounting for 36% of all the cost variation.
Citation: Curado DdSP, Gomes DF, Silva TBC, Almeida PHRF, Tavares NUL, Areda CA, et al. (2021) Direct cost of systemic arterial hypertension and its complications in the circulatory system from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system in 2019. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063
Editor: Rosa Maria Urbanos Garrido, University Complutense of Madrid, SPAIN
Received: November 30, 2020; Accepted: May 28, 2021; Published: June 10, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Curado et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) also known as high blood pressure (≥140/90 mmHg) [1–3] is a public health problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [4,5]. It is considered the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases [6–9]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), if left untreated, SAH can cause dementia, kidney failure and blindness [10].
In 2015, the prevalence of SAH was 24.1% in men and 20.1% in women, affecting around 1.13 billion people worldwide [11]. In that same year, an overall prevalence of SAH of 32.3% was found in LMICs [12]. In Brazil, studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 indicate that the prevalence of SAH in adults ranges between 21.4% and 32.3%, depending on the methodology used to identify and measure blood pressure [13–15]. Due to the increasing prevalence of high blood pressure, it will be difficult for LMICs to reach the world goal of a 25% reduction by 2025 [11], as recommended by the WHO [16]. Estimates suggest that high blood pressure caused around 7.8 million deaths and 143 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide in 2015, since it is a risk factor primarily for ischemic heart disease and hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. In Brazil, there were an estimated 203,000 deaths and 3.9 million DALYs in 2015 [9]. Although the control of SAH has improved in high-income countries [17,18], it has declined slightly in LMICs [19].
In addition to human suffering, SAH has important financial consequences for health systems [10,20,21]. In the USA, where the prevalence of SAH is 36.9%, it is estimated that in 2018 the annual medical costs of hypertensive patients were US$ 131 billion higher than those of non-hypertensive patients [22]. In 2014, the costs attributable to SAH for the British health system were estimated at £ 2.1 billion, considering an SAH prevalence of 30% [23]. In Canada, with an SAH prevalence of 23%, the estimated direct medical cost for the public health system in 2020 was C$ 20.5 billion attributable to SAH [24].
The estimated annual direct cost of SAH for the Brazilian public and private health systems was US$ 671.6 million, which represented 0.08% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005 and 1.1% of total health costs [25]. Another Brazilian study estimated only the direct costs for public health, finding a cost attributable to SAH of BRL 2.03 billion (US$ 523.7 million) in 2018 [26]. Neither study conducted a comprehensive analysis of primary care costs in the public health system, including the free provision of antihypertensive drugs, and consultations with physicians and non-physician health workers (NPHWs) at health units and home visits.
The aim of this study was to estimate the cost of SAH and SAH-related circulatory system diseases to the Brazilian public health system (SUS acronym in Portuguese) in 2019, including the costs of primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare.
Methods
Study setting
The 1988 Federal Constitution established health as a universal right and the obligation of the state. This led to the creation of the Unified Health System (SUS), adhering to the principles of universality, integrality and community participation [27]. The SUS is publicly funded by the federal, state, and municipal governments. The health services are free of charge [28]. SUS users have access to a wide range of health services, including primary, secondary, and tertiary care. In primary care, patients have access to Family Health Strategy (FHS) teams, consisting of physicians, nurses, nurse technicians and community health agents [29]. These teams promote the prevention and control of chronic (including SAH) and infectious diseases, as well as health surveillance. In addition, the SUS provides essential medication based on a national drug catalog (including antihypertensives, such as hydrochlorothiazide, losartan, captopril, enalapril, atenolol, amlodipine, propranolol, furosemide and nifedipine) [30] free of charge at public and private pharmacies accredited in the Brazilian Popular Pharmacy Program (PFPB) [31]. The PFPB was created to broaden access to essential drugs, subsidized by the Ministry of Health of Brazil. Thus, essential drugs for SAH, diabetes and asthma are provided at no cost [32–34]. Although there is a legal obligation to provide drugs free of charge, the population has faced barriers to access to medication in Brazil, not achieving full coverage [35]. In addition, Family Health Support Centers (NASF) act in an integrated manner with NPHWs in primary care. This allows joint assessment of cases, shared care among professionals and the creation of therapeutic plans that optimize locally-adopted interventions. Staff at these centers include mental health, rehabilitation, nutrition, maternal and child care, pharmacy and social assistance professionals [36]. In secondary specialized care, examinations, consultations with specialists and hospitalizations for low-severity cases are provided. This specialized care is generally offered in medical clinics (Emergency Care Units–UPAs). Tertiary care involves highly complex and technologically advanced procedures provided in a hospital setting. Currently, 75% of Brazilians depend exclusively on the SUS for healthcare [37].
Study design
A prevalence-based cost-of-illness was conducted to estimate the direct medical-hospital costs of SAH and circulatory system diseases for which this condition is considered a risk factor, using the Population Attributable Risk (PAR). The top-down approach was used, based on Ministry of Health of Brazil records, to identify, measure and quantify primary, secondary, and tertiary care costs. This study followed national and international recommendations for cost-of-illness studies [38,39].
Costs were estimated based on the prevalence of SAH in Brazil, including all the people treated in the SUS, irrespective of the severity and time since disease onset [15]. Moreover, only the adult population was considered (≥20 years of age) in analysis [40], which was obtained from the main national survey [15]. This study was conducted from the perspective of the SUS and costs were adjusted to 2019 prices. Thus, non-medical direct costs (patient transport, caregiver payments), indirect costs (absenteeism, presenteeism and premature death) and intangible costs (pain/suffering) were not considered. The costs were collected in BRL and later adjusted for purchasing-power parity (PPP) in 2018 (Int$ 1 = BRL 2.20), the latest year available from the World Bank [41].
SAH costs
The costs of SAH includes the services provided by the three healthcare levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Primary care was included because the main SUS strategies for prevention, diagnosis and control of SAH occur at this level [42].
The costs of SAH in secondary and tertiary care were obtained from the Outpatient Information System (SIA/SUS) and Hospital Information System (SIH/SUS). Both systems are national and provide the values reimbursed by the Ministry of Health of Brazil to the health services that performed the medium- and high-complexity procedures, including medical consultations, NPHW care, drugs administered at health units, hospitalizations, surgeries, support care, complementary procedures and laboratory and imaging exams. The data were extracted using the 10th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) in terms of SAH (I10). The data were analyzed using TabWin software, created by the Ministry of Health of Brazil [43].
The costs of SAH in primary care include expenses on medical and NPHW consultations and antihypertensive drugs. The number of medical and NPHW consultations for SAH was obtained from the Health Information System for Primary Care (SISAB/SUS) [44]. A value of Int$ 4.54 was used for medical consultations and Int$ 2.86 for NPHW consultations; Int$ 1.43 was added for home visits [45].
There is no public national registry of the number of drugs dispensed to hypertensive patients in primary care. Thus, our estimate was based on epidemiological data and public access to the National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines (PNAUM) [15,46]. For each drug, the daily defined dose (DDD) [47] was multiplied by 365 days in order to obtain annual intake. The cost per pharmaceutical unit was obtained from i) the Health Prices Database (BPS) [48] for drugs dispensed in public pharmacies (hydrochlorothiazide, losartan, captopril, enalapril, atenolol, amlodipine, propranolol, furosemide and nifedipine), accessed on 07/24/2020, and ii) the reference price for drugs dispensed in private pharmacies of the PFPB (hydrochlorothiazide, losartan, captopril, enalapril, atenolol and propranolol) [49]. The BPS is a mandatory registry system that allows public access to government purchases of drugs and other health-related products in Brazil. The weighted average of the price of each drug was obtained from this database, the weight factor being the number of drugs acquired up to 07/24/2020. Since the drugs amlodipine, furosemide, and nifedipine are not available in PFPB, the prices charged at public pharmacies were used. The number of hypertensive individuals under drug treatment was obtained from the literature [15]. The distribution of antihypertensive drugs in use by the population in the SUS was calculated based on the primary data of the PNAUM [46]. We considered the cases in which patients used up to three drugs concomitantly. Thus, the distribution was as follows: 54.7% of hypertensive patients under drug treatment used only one; 37.4% two and 7.9% three antihypertensive drugs. Based on the same study [46], it was also possible to identify the distribution of each drug used by hypertensive patients, stratified by the number (1, 2 or 3 drugs). The complete description of the parameters used in the analysis can be found in S1–S4 Tables.
Costs of SAH-related circulatory system diseases
To calculate the cost of SAH-related circulatory system diseases, the PAR was applied to the costs obtained after consulting the SIA/SUS and SIH/SUS. The PAR was calculated using the following formula [38,50]:
P = Prevalence of people with SAH in Brazil
RR = Measure of effect size (Relative Risk, Odds Ratio or Hazard Ratio) of individuals with SAH who developed circulatory system diseases versus those without SAH
The prevalence of SAH in Brazil (23.7%) was obtained from the PNAUM [15]. The PNAUM was a national population-based cross-sectional study that assessed the use of drugs, including by hypertensive patients [51].
The literature reports that SAH is a risk factor for circulatory system diseases [9]. In order to obtain the measures of effect size (Relative Risk, Odds Ratio or Hazard Ratio) of circulatory system diseases, an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis indexed in international electronic databases was conducted (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase and PubMed), with no restriction for language or year of publication. The following eligibility criteria were adopted: systematic reviews or pooled analysis studies that related SAH with the selected diseases, and that provided measures of effect size. The eligible articles were screened by two pairs of researchers (DSPC and PHRFA; TBCS and DFG). The article selection process, including the search strategy used, can be found in S5 Table and S1 Fig. After the potential eligible articles were identified, two independent researchers (DSPC and TBCS) assessed the quality of the articles selected using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) [52] (S6 Table).
Based on the overview performed, we included the following diseases: coronary artery disease (I25.1), heart failure (I50), subarachnoid hemorrhage (I60), intracerebral hemorrhage (I61), stroke (I64), carotid atherosclerosis (I65.2 and I70.8), abdominal aortic aneurysm (I71.3 and I71.4), and peripheral artery disease (I73.9).
The SIA/SUS and SIH/SUS were used to obtain direct costs between January and December 2019, in relation to the ICD-10 codes of circulatory system diseases attributable to SAH. These costs were multiplied by the PAR, resulting in the costs of SAH-related circulatory system diseases.
Sensitivity analysis of the estimated costs
Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the uncertainties of the parameters that could affect the cost estimates of SAH and circulatory system diseases attributable to the condition in the SUS in 2019 [53]. The selection of the parameters assessed was based on the literature (prevalence and measures of effect size of diseases associated with SAH) and the presence of a variation in the data on the use of drugs in primary care (distribution of the use of antihypertensives and their respective costs).
For the prevalence of SAH in Brazil, the upper and lower limits (32.3 and 21.4%, respectively) of another Brazilian study [13] were used in order to explore the discrepancies in the literature regarding this prevalence in Brazil. The variation in prevalence affects the population using antihypertensives in primary care, the number of medical consultations and treatments by NPHWs of hypertensives in primary care and the PAR of all diseases associated with SAH. The variation in the distribution of antihypertensives in primary care was based on the 95% confidence intervals of the PNAUM data analyzed (S4 Table) and influences the total costs of antihypertensives in primary care. The costs of public pharmacy drugs were varied using the 1st to 3rd quartiles of the BPS [48] for each of the antihypertensive drugs, in order to avoid discrepant values. In the case of the PFPB, the minimum and maximum reference values reimbursed to the Brazilian states were used [49]. The cost variations of both supply sources (public pharmacies and PFPB) affect only the costs of antihypertensives in primary care. The measures of effect size were varied based on their 95% confidence intervals reported in the same articles used for the case base, affecting the PAR and consequently, the costs of circulatory system diseases attributable to SAH. The results of deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were summarized and presented in a tornado diagram.
Ethical aspects
Given that this study used only secondary data available in public databases, approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the National Research Ethics Commission (CEP/CONEP) was not required [54].
Results
SAH costs
Fig 1 presents the estimated number of hypertensive Brazilian adults ≥20 years of age in 2019, stratified by type of drug supply, the number of concomitant antihypertensives and type of drug in use. The hypertensive Brazilian population using antihypertensive drugs was estimated at 28,118,310 individuals in 2019. Of these, an estimated 74.3% obtained antihypertensives free of charge from the public health system. The populations calculated for each stratum are exhibited in S1 and S4 Tables.
The cost of antihypertensives at public pharmacies was around Int$ 169.7 million, and approximately Int$ 194.2 million in the PFPB in 2019. With respect to clinical services, 70.9% (n = 19,864,881) of the consultations/care of hypertensive patients in primary care were conducted by physicians in Brazil in 2019. These medical consultations represented a cost of approximately Int$ 91.5 million. In the case of NPHW care, the cost in 2019 was around Int$ 24.9 million. In outpatient and hospital treatments in secondary and tertiary care, the costs of SAH were approximately Int$ 4.7 million and Int$ 8.8 million, respectively (Table 1).
Brazil, 2019.
Costs of SAH-related circulatory system diseases
Table 2 presents the measures of effect size of the association between SAH and circulatory system diseases identified in the overview conducted in the present study, the corresponding ICD-10 codes and the PAR calculated for each of the diseases. The complication that had the greatest measure of effect size related to SAH and consequent highest PAR value was intracerebral hemorrhage, followed by stroke and subarachnoid hemorrhage. The other complications of SAH exhibited similar PAR values (Table 2).
Table 3 presents the costs of SAH-related circulatory system diseases, stratified by the type of care (outpatient or hospital). The costs of these diseases are concentrated in hospital care, where highly complex treatment is commonly provided. In addition, the associated disease that incurred the highest costs for the SUS was stroke, in both outpatient and hospital care. Finally, the total estimated cost of diseases attributable to SAH in Brazil, considering both types of care, was approximately Int$ 87.4 million. This value represents 15% of the total cost of SAH and circulatory system diseases attributable to the condition in 2019, of Int$ 581,135,374.73.
Brazil, 2019.
Intracerebral hemorrhage was the disease with the highest PAR related to SAH (Table 2). However, the disease associated with the highest cost attributable to SAH was stroke, with the second highest PAR value (Tables 2 and 3). Stroke accounted for 47% of the total cost of SAH-related circulatory system diseases. In addition, despite exhibiting the lowest PAR, heart failure incurred the second highest cost attributable to SAH (Tables 2 and 3).
Sensitivity analysis of estimated costs
The tornado diagram (Fig 2) presents the decreasing order of the variation in parameters that affected the total cost of SAH and circulatory system diseases attributable to this condition. A large part of the variation in total costs is concentrated on the right side of the graph, that is, above the base case value of Int$ 581 million. The values varied between Int$ 501.5 million, the lower limit cost of antihypertensives in primary care, and Int$ 776.2 million, the upper limit cost of SAH prevalence in Brazil. Prevalence was the parameter that most varied in sensitivity analysis, representing approximately 36% of the total cost variation of SAH and its complications in the SUS in 2019.
Discussion
This study estimated that 20,891,905 hypertensive patients were using antihypertensive drugs supplied by the SUS in 2019. The total cost of SAH and the proportion of circulatory system diseases attributable to SAH in Brazil in 2019 was Int$ 581,135,374.73, representing 0.35% of total public spending on health in 2019 [63]. This amount varied between Int$ 501,553,022.21 and Int$ 776,183,338.06 in sensitivity analyses. Assessment of only SAH costs at all healthcare levels (Int$ 493,776,445.89) revealed that 97.3% were in primary care, primarily due to antihypertensive drugs provided free of charge by the SUS (Int$ 363,888,540.14).
One Brazilian study estimated that in 2005 the direct annual cost of SAH was approximately US$ 389.9 million (BRL 947.46 million) for the SUS [25]. However, the study considered a decision tree that simulated the resources used based on Brazilian guidelines for SAH [64] and the opinion of specialists. Moreover, drug costs do not reflect the real values paid for public purchases [25]. On the other hand, our study was based on real world evidence of Brazilian primary care, in terms of the number of medical consultations conducted and the values paid by the SUS. In addition, the present study was based on the usage frequency estimates of antihypertensive drugs available in the SUS obtained in a national survey conducted with 41,433 individuals [51]. Another study that estimated the costs attributable to SAH in Brazil found a value of BRL 2.03 billion (Int$ 923 million) in 2018 [26]. However, it considered more diseases associated with SAH than in our investigation, based on a single study that performed meta-analyses of SAH-related mortality [65]. With respect to primary care, the authors included only the PFPB costs of SAH [26].
A systematic review identified 18 studies that analyzed the economic burden of SAH in LMICs, indicating a median monthly cost of Int$ 22.00 per hypertensive patient [66]. Our study showed an average monthly cost of Int$ 1.97 per hypertensive in the SUS. This difference can be explained by large-scale savings in the SUS, a universal comprehensive public health system, and due to the heterogeneity of the methods and populations of the studies included in the review. Furthermore, while public health spending of a majority of LMICs is proportionally lower [67], Brazil’s health system has been predominantly public for over 30 years [68]. Our results are influenced mainly by the cost of primary care, in which patients with low therapeutic complexity predominate. However, our study indicates that the cost per episode of outpatient and hospital care in the SUS is Int$ 10.49 and Int$ 166.77, respectively.
In Brazil, the creation of a national SAH registry and the expanded access to essential drugs provided free of charge, including antihypertensives, demonstrated the concern of the SUS with SAH. SAH became the main protagonist in Brazilian primary care with the Family Health Strategy (FHS), considered an example of the global strategy to prevent and manage noncommunicable diseases [69]. The FHS has been associated with a decrease in primary care-related hospitalizations, including SAH, and a decline in mortality throughout the country [70–73]. This concern of addressing SAH in primary care has also been observed in other LMICs, as demonstrated in a scoping review [74]. Healthcare service organization was the most frequent strategy used by the countries analyzed in the review, including organization and equipping healthcare, self-management by education and self-monitoring, and continuity and coordination of actions. Controlled clinical trials have shown that community health interventions involving NPHWs and family physicians were more effective than the usual care provided in LMICs, demonstrating a satisfactory reduction in the blood pressure and cardiovascular risk of hypertensive patients [75–77]. Moreover, community health interventions aimed at SAH are cost saving in both high-income and LMICs [78,79].
In addition to acting in the FHS, providing drugs free of charge is important for managing SAH in Brazilian primary care. Since its expansion to accredited private pharmacies, the PFPB has broadened access to essential drugs, resulting in fewer hospitalizations and death from SAH between 2003 and 2016 [80]. Nevertheless, the Program has been criticized, especially with respect to its costs [34]. One study found higher PFPB drug costs in a Brazilian state capital, with an average difference of 279.8% when compared to the acquisition values of public pharmacies. In relation to drugs for SAH, the difference in costs varied between 119.2% for propranolol and 1,389.4% for captopril [81], and higher in the PFPB. In the present study, these differences ranged between 131.0% for propranolol and 448.4% for enalapril. It is important to underscore that the difference between the two modes of supply may be smaller, since we considered only the drug acquisition values of public pharmacies, excluding logistics and dispensing costs. In a study conducted in Rio de Janeiro state, adding logistics and dispensing costs raised acquisition costs by 70.1%, based on the 25 drugs selected [81].
Strengths and limitations
Our study systematized real world evidence, which provided a more complete picture of SAH costs in the SUS, including the proportion attributed to circulatory system diseases. In addition, the overview obtained evidence using systematic reviews with meta-analysis to calculate the PAR, avoiding arbitrary selection of the measures of effect size of diseases associated with SAH. However, it is important to emphasize a number of limitations in the present study. First, it was not possible to estimate the costs of preventing and screening SAH in Brazil, since these actions commonly occur during management of other clinical conditions. Second, due to the aggregate funding of primary care in Brazil, we were unable to accurately determine the specific SAH costs in primary care. As such, it was not possible to measure the cost of medical consultations and treatments by NPHWs in primary care, which prompted the use of the value paid for consultations/care in secondary and tertiary care. Third, the logistics costs of public pharmacy drugs were not considered due to the difficulty in measuring them, which may have underestimated these costs. Fourth, the public pharmacy values were used to estimate the costs of drugs not available in the PFPB, which may not be compatible with the real values. Fifth, the costs and proportion of SAH-related circulatory system diseases in secondary and tertiary care were obtained from administrative databases used to record the clinical procedure and service costs reimbursed by the Ministry of Health of Brazil, which may not reflect the real costs incurred by health services. Sixth, the overview conducted was restricted to systematic reviews with meta-analysis, due to the high number of articles on the topic. However, these were of low quality, and should be interpreted with caution, and no systematic reviews were found for all the complications of SAH described in the literature. Thus, the limitations suggest that the costs of SAH and the complications of the disease in the circulatory system are underestimated in Brazil.
Implications for public policies
Based on our findings, the major SAH costs were incurred in primary health care (consultations and drugs). Drugs and consultations in primary health care accounted for 62.6% and 20.0% of total SAH costs, respectively. Costs related to complications of SAH were relatively low in our study, probably due to the SAH care coverage in primary health care, provided free of charge. The Brazilian experience in recent years has demonstrated a national effort to manage SAH in primary care, especially due to increased access to essential antihypertensive drugs free of charge and the actions of the FHS. The WHO indicated that in 2019 the availability of essential antihypertensives in middle-income countries such as Brazil was around 92% [82], which is similar to the total access of 97.9% estimated by a national survey [15]. This is also the result of the long trajectory of the PFPB, where a partnership was established with the private sector to improve drug access by hypertensive individuals in Brazil [34]. In addition, the experience of the FHS, an example of the prevention and management of nontransmissible diseases worldwide [69], has demonstrated the importance of the continuous funding of primary care in order to ensure the sustainability of coverage over time [37].
However, a number of challenges to managing SAH in Brazil remain. It will be difficult to reach the goal of a 25% reduction in the prevalence of SAH by 2025 [11], established by the WHO [16], in projections for Brazil [83]. The control of SAH still needs to be improved in many regions of the country [84–87], as well as in other LMICs [19]. Despite efforts to improve the follow-up of hypertensive patients in primary care [88], the weak link between them and primary care professionals [89] and nonattendance at medical consultations [90] are still problems observed in Brazil, compromising the effectiveness of SAH management. As determined in the present study, the number of medical consultations for hypertensive individuals was approximately two-thirds of the estimated number of hypertensive patients indicated for drug treatment in 2019. This represents less than 1 consultation per patient. In addition, a Brazilian survey demonstrated that 10.6% of hypertensive patients intentionally abandoned drug treatment [15]. Experiences in low-income communities in Brazil have shown opportunities for improving SAH management in primary care, such as investing in the training of health professionals and greater multidisciplinary engagement. Barriers include health system restrictions and local dietary culture [91].
Given the restricted budget for public health in the last 20 years [92], national and international decision makers could use the results of this study to formulate public policies and optimize resources related to SAH. Moreover, cost-of-illness studies like ours can complement economic evaluations conducted in health technology assessment, such as cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.
Finally, it is important to note that there is still a need to improve the health information systems used to manage diseases in Brazil [27]. Disparities remain in the health information records of the different Brazilian institutions, in addition to difficulties related to the technological infrastructure and qualification of the professionals involved in data collection [93]. Thus, it is important to continuously modernize Brazilian information systems, as well as professional qualification and awareness of the relevance of ensuring that the health registers are complete.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Estimated hypertensive population using antihypertensive drugs in SUS primary care.
Brazil, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Estimated costs of antihypertensive drugs from public pharmacies in primary care.
Brazil, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063.s003
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Estimated costs of antihypertensive drugs from the Brazilian Popular Pharmacy Program (PFPB) in primary care.
Brazil, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063.s004
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Distribution of use and estimated total cost of antihypertensive drugs in primary care.
Brazil, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063.s005
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Search strategies in scientific databases.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063.s006
(DOCX)
S6 Table. Critical appraisal of the systematic review studies using AMSTAR 2.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253063.s007
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Chobanian A V., Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, et al. Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The JNC 7 Report. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(19):2560–71.
- 2. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Rosei EA, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH). Vol. 36, Journal of Hypertension. 2018. 1953–2041 p.
- 3. Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F, Khan NA, Poulter NR, Prabhakaran D, et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2020;75(6):1334–57. pmid:32370572
- 4. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Whelton PK, He J. Worldwide prevalence of hypertension: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2004;22(1):11–9. pmid:15106785
- 5. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global Burden of Hypertension: Analysis of Worldwide Data. Lancet. 2005;365(9455):217–23. pmid:15652604
- 6. Yusuf S, Reddy S, Ôunpuu S, Anand S. Clinical Cardiology: New Frontiers Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases. Circulation. 2001;104:2746–53. pmid:11723030
- 7. Thomas H, Diamond J, Vieco A, Chaudhuri S, Shinnar E, Cromer S, et al. Global Atlas of Cardiovascular Disease 2000–2016: The Path to Prevention and Control. Glob Heart [Internet]. 2018;13(3):143–63. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gheart.2018.09.511 pmid:30301680
- 8. Forouzanfar MH, Afshin A, Alexander LT, Biryukov S, Brauer M, Cercy K, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1659–724. pmid:27733284
- 9. Forouzanfar MH, Liu P, Roth GA, Ng M, Biryukov S, Marczak L, et al. Global burden of hypertension and systolic blood pressure of at least 110 to 115mmHg, 1990–2015. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317(2):165–82.
- 10.
World Health Organization. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014. In: World Health Organisation. 2014. p. 1–302.
- 11. Zhou B, Bentham J, Di Cesare M, Bixby H, Danaei G, Cowan MJ, et al. Worldwide trends in blood pressure from 1975 to 2015: a pooled analysis of 1479 population-based measurement studies with 19·1 million participants. Lancet [Internet]. 2017;389(10064):37–55. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31919-5 pmid:27863813
- 12. Sarki AM, Nduka CU, Stranges S, Kandala NB, Uthman OA. Prevalence of hypertension in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med (United States). 2015;94(50):e1959. pmid:26683910
- 13. Malta DC, Gonçalves RPF, Machado ÍE, Freitas MI de F, Azeredo C, Szwarcwald CL. Prevalência da hipertensão arterial segundo diferentes critérios diagnósticos, Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2018;21(Suppl 1):1–15.
- 14.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Vigitel Brasil 2019: vigilância de fatores de risco e proteção para doenças crônicas por inquérito telefônico—estimativas sobre frequência e distribuição sociodemográfica de fatores de risco e proteção para doenças crônicas nas capitais dos 26 estados b. 2020.
- 15. Mengue SS, Bertoldi AD, Ramos LR, Farias MR, Oliveira MA, Tavares NUL, et al. Access to and use of high blood pressure medications in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50(supl 2):1–9.
- 16.
World Health Organization. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020. 2013. 1–102 p.
- 17. Baker R, Wilson A, Nockels K, Agarwal S, Modi P, Bankart J. Levels of detection of hypertension in primary medical care and interventions to improve detection: A systematic review of the evidence since 2000. BMJ Open. 2018;8:1–10. pmid:29567850
- 18. Zhou B, Danaei G, Stevens GA, Bixby H, Taddei C, Carrillo-Larco RM, et al. Long-term and recent trends in hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in 12 high-income countries: an analysis of 123 nationally representative surveys. Lancet. 2019;394:639–51. pmid:31327564
- 19. Mills KT, Bundy JD, Tanika N. Kelly , Reed JE, Kearney PM, Reynolds K, et al. Global Disparities of Hypertension Prevalence and Control: A Systematic Analysis of Population-based Studies from 90 Countries. Circulation. 2016;134(6):441–50. pmid:27502908
- 20. Alcocer L, Cueto L. Hypertension, a health economics perspective. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;2(3):147–55. pmid:19124418
- 21. Arredondo A, Orozco E, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Navarro J, Azar A. Challenges on the epidemiological and economic burden of diabetes and hypertension in Mexico. Rev Saude Publica. 2018;52:23. pmid:29489993
- 22. Kirkland EB, Heincelman M, Bishu KG, Schumann SO, Schreiner A, Axon RN, et al. Trends in healthcare expenditures among US adults with hypertension: National estimates, 2003–2014. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e008731. pmid:29848493
- 23.
Optimity Matrix. Cost-effectiveness review of blood pressure interventions: A Report to the Blood Pressure System Leadership Board [Internet]. 2014. www.optimitymatrix.com.
- 24. Weaver CG, Clement FM, Campbell NRC, James MT, Klarenbach SW, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. Healthcare Costs Attributable to Hypertension: Canadian Population-Based Cohort Study. Hypertension. 2015;66:502–8. pmid:26169049
- 25. Dib MW, Riera R, Ferraz MB. Estimated annual cost of arterial hypertension treatment in Brazil. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2010;27(2):125–31. pmid:20339616
- 26. Nilson EAF, Andrade R da CS, de Brito DA, de O Michele Lessa. Custos atribuíveis a obesidade, hipertensão e diabetes no Sistema Único de Saúde, Brasil, 2018. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 2020;44:1–7.
- 27. Paim J, Travassos C, Almeida C, Bahia L, MacInko J. The Brazilian health system: History, advances, and challenges. Lancet [Internet]. 2011;377:1778–97. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60054-8 pmid:21561655
- 28. Massuda A, Hone T, Leles FAG, De Castro MC, Atun R. The Brazilian health system at crossroads: Progress, crisis and resilience. BMJ Glob Heal. 2018;3:e000829. pmid:29997906
- 29. Da Silva EN, Powell-Jackson T. Does expanding primary healthcare improve hospital efficiency? Evidence from a panel analysis of avoidable hospitalisations in 5506 municipalities in Brazil, 2000–2014. BMJ Glob Heal. 2017;2:e000242.
- 30.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais: Rename 2020 [Internet]. 2020. 217 p. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/relacao_medicamentos_rename_2020.pdf.
- 31.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. PCR no 05 de 28 de setembro de 2017, SEÇÃO III, ANEXO LXXVII DO PROGRAMA FARMÁCIA POPULAR DO BRASIL (PFPB). 2017.
- 32.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Farmácia Popular: sobre o programa [Internet]. 2020. https://www.saude.gov.br/acoes-e-programas/farmacia-popular/sobre-o-programa.
- 33. da Silva RM, Caetano R. Programa “Farmácia Popular do Brasil”: Caracterização e evolução entre 2004–2012. Cienc e Saude Coletiva. 2015;20(10):2943–56.
- 34. de OS Alencar T, Araújo PS, Costa EA, Barros RD, Lima YOR, Paim JS. Programa Farmácia Popular do Brasil: uma análise política de sua origem, seus desdobramentos e inflexões. Saúde em Debate. 2018;42(spe2):159–72.
- 35. Stopa SR, Malta DC, Monteiro CN, Szwarcwald CL, Goldbaum M, Cesar CLG. Use of and access to health services in Brazil, 2013 National Health Survey. Rev Saude Publica. 2017;51:1S–10S.
- 36.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Política Nacional de Atenção Básica. 2012. 1–110 p.
- 37. Andrade MV, Coelho AQ, Neto MX, De Carvalho LR, Atun R, Castro MC. Transition to universal primary health care coverage in Brazil: Analysis of uptake and expansion patterns of Brazil’s Family Health Strategy (1998–2012). PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0201723. pmid:30096201
- 38. de Oliveira ML, Santos LMP, da Silva EN. Bases metodológicas para estudos de custos da doença no Brasil. Rev Nutr. 2014;27(5):585–95.
- 39. Rice DP. Estimating the cost of illness. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1967;57(3):424–40. pmid:6066903
- 40.
Brasil. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Estimativas da População [Internet]. 2019. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/populacao/9103-estimativas-de-populacao.html?edicao=25272&t=resultados.
- 41.
World Bank. PPP conversion factor, GDP (LCU per international $)—Brazil [Internet]. 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP?locations=BR.
- 42.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Estratégias para o cuidado da pessoa com doença crônica: hipertensão arterial sistêmica. Vol. 37, Cadernos de Atenção Básica, n. 37. 2013. 1–128 p.
- 43.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. DATASUS. Transferência/Download de Arquivos—Arquivos de Dados [Internet]. [citado 1 de novembro de 2020]. http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS/index.php?area=0901.
- 44.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Sistema de Informação em Saúde para a Atenção Básica—SISAB [Internet]. 2020. https://sisab.saude.gov.br/paginas/acessoRestrito/relatorio/federal/saude/RelSauProducao.xhtml.
- 45.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Sistema de Gerenciamento da Tabela de Procedimentos, Medicamentos e OPM do SUS—SIGTAP [Internet]. 2020. http://sigtap.datasus.gov.br/tabela-unificada/app/sec/inicio.jsp.
- 46. Álvares J, Alves MCGP, Escuder MML, Almeida AM, Izidoro JB, Guerra Junior AA, et al. National survey on access, use and promotion of rational use of medicines: methods. Rev Saude Publica. 2017;51:Suppl 2:4s. pmid:29160446
- 47.
World Health Organization. ATC/DDD Index 2020 [Internet]. 2020. https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/.
- 48.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Banco de Preços em Saúde—BPS [Internet]. 2020 [citado 19 de outubro de 2020]. http://bps.saude.gov.br/visao/consultaPublica/relatorios/geral/index.jsf.
- 49.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria No 739, de 27 de março de 2018. Atualiza os valores de referência dos medicamentos do Programa Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular para o tratamento de hipertensão arterial, diabetes mellitus e asma. 2018.
- 50. de Rezende LFM, Eluf-Neto J. Population attributable fraction: planning of diseases prevention actions in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50:1–6. pmid:26982957
- 51.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos no Brasil; Caderno 3—Componente populacional: resultados [Internet]. 2016. 1–52 p. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/componente_populacional_resultados_pnaum_caderno3.pdf.
- 52. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. pmid:28935701
- 53. Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: A practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(4):675–92.
- 54.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Resolução No 510, de 07 de Abril de 2016. Normas para Pesquisas ciêntificas humanas e sociais. 2016;31–48.
- 55. Poorzand H, Tsarouhas K, Hozhabrossadati SA, Khorrampazhouh N, Bondarsahebi Y, Bacopoulou F, et al. Risk factors of premature coronary artery disease in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2019;49(7):1–13. pmid:31038733
- 56. Yang H, Negishi K, Otahal P, Marwick TH. Clinical prediction of incident heart failure risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Hear. 2015;2(1):1–8. pmid:25893103
- 57. Feigin VL, Rinkel GJE, Lawes CMM, Algra A, Bennett DA, Van Gijn J, et al. Risk factors for subarachnoid hemorrhage: An updated systematic review of epidemiological studies. Stroke. 2005;36(12):2773–80. pmid:16282541
- 58. Ariesen MJ, Claus SP, Rinkel GJE, Algra A. Risk factors for intracerebral hemorrhage in the general population: A systematic review. Stroke. 2003;34(8):2060–5. pmid:12843354
- 59. Wang J, Wen X, Li W, Li X, Wang Y, Lu W. Risk Factors for Stroke in the Chinese Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis [Internet]. 2017;26(3):509–17. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.12.002 pmid:28041900
- 60. Ji X, Leng X-Y, Dong Y, Ma Y-H, Xu W, Cao X-P, et al. Modifiable risk factors for carotid atherosclerosis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(22):632–632. pmid:31930033
- 61. Kobeissi E, Hibino M, Pan H, Aune D. Blood pressure, hypertension and the risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol [Internet]. 2019;34(6):547–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00510-9 pmid:30903463
- 62. Song P, Rudan D, Zhu Y, Fowkes FJI, Rahimi K, Fowkes FGR, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence and risk factors for peripheral artery disease in 2015: an updated systematic review and analysis. Lancet Glob Heal [Internet]. 2019;7(8):e1020–30. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30255-4.
- 63.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Sistema de Informações sobre Orçamentos Públicos em Saúde (SIOPS) [Internet]. 2020 [citado 26 de julho de 2020]. http://saude.gov.br/repasses-financeiros/siops/demonstrativos-dados-informados.
- 64. Mion D Jr, Machado CA, Gomes MAM N F, Kohlmann O Jr, Amodeo C et al. IV Diretrizes Brasileiras de Hipertensão Arterial. Arq Bras Cardiol [Internet]. 2004;82(Supl IV):7–22. Available at: https://www.scielo.br/pdf/abc/v82s4/04.pdf.
- 65. Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet [Internet]. 2002;360(9349):1903–13. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12493255 pmid:12493255
- 66. Gheorghe A, Griffiths U, Murphy A, Legido-Quigley H, Lamptey P, Perel P. The economic burden of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–11. pmid:30081871
- 67.
Xu K, Soucat A, Kutzin J, Brindley C, Maele N Vande, Touré H, et al. Public Spending on Health: A Closer Look at Global Trends [Internet]. Geneva; 2018. http://apps.who.int/bookorders.
- 68. Castro MC, Massuda A, Almeida G, Menezes-Filho NA, Andrade MV, de Souza Noronha KVM, et al. Brazil’s unified health system: the first 30 years and prospects for the future. Lancet. 2019;394(10195):345–56. pmid:31303318
- 69. Atun R, Jaffar S, Nishtar S, Knaul FM, Barreto ML, Nyirenda M, et al. Improving responsiveness of health systems to non-communicable diseases. Lancet. 2013;381:690–7. pmid:23410609
- 70. Macinko BJ, Dourado I, Aquino R, Bonolo PDF, Lima-costa MF, Medina MG, et al. Major Expansion Of Primary Care In Brazil Linked To Decline In Unnecessary Hospitalization. Heal Afairs. 2010;29(12):2149–2160. pmid:21134915
- 71. Rocha R, Soares RR. EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH INTERVENTIONS: EVIDENCE FROM BRAZIL’ S FAMILY HEALTH PROGRAM. Health Econ. 2010;19:126–58. pmid:20803631
- 72. Dourado I, Oliveira VB, Aquino R, Bonolo P, Lima-costa MF, Medina MG, et al. Trends in Primary Health Care-Sensitive Conditions in Brazil: The Role of the Family Health Program (Project ICSAP-Brazil). Med Cara. 2011;49(6):577–84.
- 73. Pinto LF, Giovanella L. The Family Health Strategy: expanding access and reducing hospitalizations due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC). Cienc e Saude Coletiva. 2018;23(6):1903–13.
- 74. Correia JC, Lachat S, Lagger G, Chappuis F, Golay A, Beran D. Interventions targeting hypertension and diabetes mellitus at community and primary healthcare level in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1542. pmid:31752801
- 75. Lu CH, Tang ST, Lei YX, Zhang MQ, Lin WQ, Ding SH, et al. Community-based interventions in hypertensive patients: a comparison of three health education strategies. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:33. pmid:25631224
- 76. Schwalm JD, McCready T, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Yusoff K, Attaran A, Lamelas P, et al. A community-based comprehensive intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in hypertension (HOPE 4): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2019;394(10205):1231–42. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31949-X pmid:31488369
- 77. Jafar TH, Gandhi M, De Silva HA, Jehan I, Naheed A, Finkelstein EA, et al. A Community-Based Intervention for Managing Hypertension in Rural South Asia. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:717–26. pmid:32074419
- 78. Zhang D, Wang G, Joo H. A Systematic Review of Economic Evidence on Community Hypertension Interventions. Am J Prev Med [Internet]. 2017;53(6S2):S121–30. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.05.008 pmid:29153113
- 79. Krishnan A, Finkelstein EA, Kallestrup P, Karki A, Olsen MH, Neupane D. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the community-based management of hypertension in Nepal study (COBIN): a retrospective analysis. Lancet Glob Heal [Internet]. 2019;7:1367–74. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30338-9 pmid:31537367
- 80. de Almeida ATC, de Sá EB, Vieira FS, de S e Benevides RP. Impacts of a Brazilian pharmaceutical program on the health of chronic patients. Rev Saude Publica. 2019;53:20. pmid:30726501
- 81. da Silva RM, Caetano R. Costs of public pharmaceutical services in Rio de Janeiro compared to Farmácia Popular Program. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50(74):1–11.
- 82.
World Health Organization. Assessing national capacity for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases: report of the 2019 global survey. 2020. 1–116 p.
- 83.
World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases country profiles 2018. In: World Health Organization. 2018. p. 1–224.
- 84. Fontbonne A, Cesse EÂP, de Sousa IMC, de Souza WV, de V Chaves VL, Bezerra AFB, et al. Risk factor control in hypertensive and diabetic subjects attended by the Family Health Strategy in the State of Pernambuco, Brazil: the SERVIDIAH study. Cad Saude Publica. 2013;29(6):1195–204. pmid:23778551
- 85. de A Pinho N, Pierin AMG. Hypertension Control in Brazilian Publications. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2013;101(3):e65–73. pmid:24061761
- 86. Costa Filho FF, Timerman A, Saraiva JFK, Magalhaes CC, Pinto IMF, Oliveira GBF, et al. Independent predictors of effective blood pressure control in patients with hypertension on drug treatment in Brazil. J Clin Hypertens. 2018;20:125–32. pmid:29168987
- 87. Firmo JOA, de M Mambrini JV, Peixoto SV, Filho AI de L, de Souza Junior PRB, de Andrade FB, et al. Adequate control of hypertension among older adults: ELSI-Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2018;52(Supl 2):13s. pmid:30379290
- 88. Dantas RC de O, Roncalli AG. Protocol for hypertensive individuals assisted in Basic Health Care. Cien Saude Colet. 2019;24(1):295–306. pmid:30698262
- 89. Rêgo A da S, Radovanovic CAT. Adherence of hypertension patients in the Brazil ‘s Family Health Strategy. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018;71(3):1030–7. pmid:29924169
- 90. Barreto M da S, Mendonça R de D, Pimenta AM, Garcia-Vivar C, Marcon SS. Non-use of primary care routine consultations for individuals with hypertension. Cien Saude Colet. 2018;23(3):795–804. pmid:29538560
- 91. Flor LS, Wilson S, Bhatt P, Bryant M, Burnett A, Camarda JN, et al. Community-based interventions for detection and management of diabetes and hypertension in underserved communities: a mixed-methods evaluation in Brazil, India, South Africa and the USA. BMJ Glob Heal. 2020;5:e001959.
- 92.
Brasil. Casa Civil. Emenda Constitucional no 95, de 15 de dezembro de 2016 [Internet]. 2016. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/emc/emc95.htm
- 93. Ali MS, Ichihara MY, Lopes LC, Barbosa GCG, Pita R, Carreiro RP, et al. Administrative Data Linkage in Brazil: Potentials for Health Technology Assessment. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10(984):1–20. pmid:31607900