Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, analgesic use increased significantly, primarily due to self-medication for symptom relief. In Brazil, metamizole (dipyrone) is widely used despite international restrictions, highlighting the importance of evaluating its consumption patterns. Objective: To assess analgesic use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted via a household survey in Alegre, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Structured questionnaires were used to collect data on sociodemographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and medication use. Descriptive statistics included frequency distributions, medians, and interquartile ranges. Factors associated with analgesic use were analyzed using Poisson regression with robust variance. Results: Among 694 participants, 31.6% reported using analgesics, with metamizole being the most frequently used (87.2%), followed by acetaminophen (paracetamol) (24.7%). Analgesic use was more common among individuals with polypharmacy, lower self-reported quality of life, better self-perceived health, and recent dental appointments. Conclusions: A high prevalence of analgesic use was identified, particularly of metamizole. Given its over-the-counter availability and growing evidence of risks such as liver injury and other adverse events, ongoing monitoring is essential. These findings underscore the need for public health strategies and pharmacist involvement to promote the rational and safe use of analgesics.
1. Introduction
Analgesics play a crucial role in managing pain and reducing fever and are among the most widely used medications worldwide. In Brazil, metamizole (dipyrone) and acetaminophen (paracetamol) are the most used analgesics []. These drugs are crucial in alleviating pain associated with various conditions, including flu-like symptoms, COVID-19 manifestations, and post-vaccination reactions, thereby reinforcing their importance, particularly during pandemics [,].
In the context of rational medicine use, it is essential to distinguish between medications that require a prescription and those classified as over-the-counter (OTC), which can be purchased without a prescription. The wide availability of OTC drugs facilitates self-medication, often guided by prior experience, advice from relatives or friends, or information accessed online [,].
While OTC drugs offer convenience and quick relief, their easy access can lead to inappropriate use. Such misuse may pose significant risks, including masking underlying conditions, adverse drug interactions, increased toxicity, and reduced therapeutic effectiveness. Additionally, prolonged use or incorrect dosages can worsen clinical conditions and compromise patient safety. Therefore, self-medication, often driven by the urgency to relieve symptoms, represents a substantial public health concern [].
This issue became even more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The overlap between common flu symptoms, such as fever, cough, and body aches, and those of SARS-CoV-2 led many individuals to use analgesics for symptomatic relief []. In many cases, this resulted in self-medication before diagnostic confirmation, potentially delaying appropriate treatment [].
Within this scenario, pharmacists have emerged as key healthcare professionals in promoting the safe use of medications. Over recent decades, their role in public health has expanded significantly. With specialized training, pharmacists provide essential guidance to patients, helping to prevent adverse events and promote the rational use of medicines, especially crucial during health crises [,,].
Therefore, assessing the prevalence and patterns of analgesic use during the COVID-19 pandemic is essential for enhancing pharmaceutical care. These data support the identification of inappropriate use, guide interventions to promote rational medication practices, and reinforce the pharmacist’s role in protecting public health.
2. Results
A total of 694 individuals were interviewed, of whom 72.9% were women and 43.4% were aged 60 years or older. The median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 37.0–67.0). Approximately 47% of participants self-identified as White, 69.6% lived in the municipal seat of Alegre, and 43.3% were married. Regarding religion, 49.6% identified as Catholic. In terms of education, 30.7% had completed high school, and 47.1% reported a family income of up to one minimum wage (Table 1).
Table 1.
Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
Regarding health characteristics (Table 2), 52.3% of participants rated their health as very good or good, with a median quality of life score of 0.884 (IQR: 0.817–1.000). Based on BMI classification, 38% were overweight and 28% were obese. The majority (65%) reported not engaging in regular physical activity, while 25.4% reported alcohol use and 13.6% identified as smokers. Approximately 32.8% reported sleeping between 7 and 8 h per day.
Table 2.
Clinical and health characteristics of the sample.
In the previous year, 79.6% of participants had a medical consultation, 38.9% had visited a dentist, 9.3% had consulted a nutritionist, and 13.1% had been hospitalized. Additionally, 77.4% did not have private health insurance. Use of the Municipal Basic Pharmacy was reported by 53.4%, while 87.7% purchased medications from private pharmacies.
Self-medication was reported by 69.4% of participants. Minor polypharmacy (defined as the use of two to four medications) was observed in 44.9% of the sample, while major polypharmacy (five or more medications) was reported by 20.2%. Furthermore, 25.8% reported difficulties with medication adherence, and 39.7% used medicinal plants. A confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was reported by 18.8% of participants (n = 129).
Among the 694 respondents, 219 (31.6%) reported using analgesics (ATC code: N02), while 36 individuals (5.2%) reported using anti-inflammatory and anti-rheumatic drugs (ATC code: M01) (Supplemental Table S1). Metamizole was the most frequently used analgesic, accounting for 27.5% of total consumption, followed by acetaminophen at 7.8%. Both metamizole and acetaminophen were also commonly used in combination with other active ingredients (Table 3).
Table 3.
Analgesics most consumed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several factors were significantly associated with analgesic use (Table 4). Participants who rated their health as very good or good had a higher prevalence of analgesic use compared to those who rated their health as poor or very poor (Prevalence Ratio [PR] = 1.94; 95% CI: 1.24–3.02; p = 0.004). Those who had visited a dentist in the previous year were also more likely to use analgesics (PR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06–1.63; p = 0.011).
Table 4.
Factors associated with analgesic consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Polypharmacy was strongly associated with analgesic use. Participants with major polypharmacy (five or more medications) had 2.43 times the prevalence of analgesic use compared to those without polypharmacy (95% CI: 1.76–3.34; p < 0.001). Minor polypharmacy was also associated with increased use (PR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.36–2.45; p < 0.001).
Additionally, quality of life was inversely associated with analgesic use: individuals with EQ-5D scores below 0.885 had a higher prevalence of analgesic consumption (PR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.19–1.93; p = 0.001), suggesting that lower perceived quality of life may be linked to greater need for pain management.
3. Discussion
Among the 694 participants surveyed, 219 (31.5%) reported using analgesics, indicating a considerable prevalence of consumption. Metamizole was the most frequently used analgesic, with 191 participants (87.2%) reporting its use as a single agent. When including combinations containing metamizole, such as metamizole monohydrate with orphenadrine citrate and caffeine anhydrous (25 reports), the total number of users rises to 215, representing 98.1% of all analgesic users. Acetaminophen ranked second, with 54 reports (24.7%) as a single drug. When combinations such as phenylephrine hydrochloride + acetaminophen + chlorpheniramine maleate (18 cases) and caffeine + carisoprodol + diclofenac sodium + acetaminophen (17 cases) are included, total use reaches 89, or 40.6% of all analgesic consumption. These findings highlight the predominance of analgesic use in the population, particularly of metamizole and acetaminophen, both widely used to relieve pain and fever.
According to the Pharmaceutical Market Statistical Yearbook, published by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) through the Medicines Market Regulation Chamber (CMED), the most commonly used analgesics in Brazil between 2020 and 2023 were metamizole, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen. Metamizole stands out as one of the most widely consumed drugs in the country, available in various formulations and used both as a single agent and in combination with other compounds. Acetaminophen is also a popular choice, particularly for managing mild to moderate pain and fever, and is commonly prescribed to both adults and children. Ibuprofen, which has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, is mainly indicated for musculoskeletal and febrile conditions. The widespread availability of these drugs reflects a population seeking effective and accessible options for managing pain and fever [,,,].
Metamizole and acetaminophen are available by prescription through public primary healthcare pharmacies in Brazil. Both are included in the National List of Essential Medicines (RENAME), which guides the provision of safe, effective, and essential treatments within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). Their inclusion ensures access to widely used analgesics for managing pain and fever, while also promoting rational use under professional supervision []. In addition to their public-sector distribution, these medications are widely available over the counter in community pharmacies, further enhancing access. This widespread availability underscores the importance of pharmacist supervision to ensure the safe and appropriate use of these drugs [,,,,].
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the widespread availability of metamizole and acetaminophen was accompanied by significant self-medication practices. Both medications were frequently used without professional supervision, often in response to common symptoms such as fever, headache, and musculoskeletal pain. This pattern likely reflects the population’s attempt to manage symptoms at home while avoiding healthcare facilities during periods of social distancing and system overload. The over-the-counter status of these drugs facilitated access but also underscored the need for greater guidance and pharmacovigilance regarding their use in the context of public health emergencies [].
Despite being restricted in several countries due to rare but serious adverse effects, such as neutropenia and agranulocytosis [,], metamizole remains the most frequently used analgesic in Brazil [,]. Studies have consistently documented its extensive use for headache, muscle pain, and fever across different age groups [,]. In contrast to countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, India, Japan, and Australia, where metamizole is banned or heavily restricted, it remains available and widely used in nations like Germany, Russia, Mexico, South America, and China. In these settings, health authorities consider its benefits to outweigh its risks when used under medical supervision. This regulatory divergence reflects differences in pharmacovigilance systems, cultural norms, and levels of risk tolerance [,].
More recently, metamizole has also been associated with an increased risk of liver injury compared to other non-narcotic analgesics, particularly acetaminophen (adjusted HR 1.69; 95% CI: 1.46–1.97), with consistent findings across sensitivity analyses using comparators such as naproxen []. Although cases of metamizole-induced liver injury were rarely reported prior to 2019, more than 50 cases have since been documented, including fatalities and liver transplants, prompting reassessments by regulatory agencies. Clinical presentations vary, ranging from hyperacute, hypersensitivity-like reactions to delayed hepatocellular or mixed injury after prolonged use. While most cases resolve upon drug withdrawal, hepatocellular injury with jaundice has been associated with a fatality rate of at least 10%. These findings highlight the need for caution, further research to better quantify the risk, and immediate drug discontinuation when liver toxicity is suspected [].
Additionally, a review of 22 studies found that metamizole is consistently associated with an increased risk of agranulocytosis, although the magnitude of relative risk varied widely. While no significant association was identified with aplastic anemia, most case-control studies reported a higher risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Overall, the literature shows variability in risk estimates and notable methodological limitations, underscoring the need for more rigorous research to accurately assess the safety profile of metamizole in comparison to other non-narcotic analgesics [].
Acetaminophen also showed high prevalence in this study, with 54 instances reported as monotherapy and 89 in combination with other drugs, accounting for 40.6% of all analgesic use. Internationally, acetaminophen is among the most frequently used analgesics, particularly in countries where metamizole is unavailable. Its use for managing pain and fever, including post-COVID-19 symptoms such as muscle and joint pain, is well documented. However, excessive or prolonged use may lead to hepatotoxicity, emphasizing the need for clinical monitoring and careful administration [].
Although both metamizole and acetaminophen are effective for symptom management, their use in infectious disease contexts, such as COVID-19, should be carefully monitored. Ongoing studies continue to evaluate the safety of metamizole, particularly due to its potential to cause neutropenia []. In the post-acute phase of COVID-19, analgesics such as acetaminophen remain commonly used to relieve persistent symptoms, including headache and myalgia [].
This study also identified key factors associated with analgesic use during the COVID-19 pandemic, including polypharmacy, lower self-reported quality of life, dental consultations, and better self-perceived health. Individuals who used multiple medications, had lower EQ-5D scores, or underwent dental procedures were more likely to report analgesic use. Interestingly, a better self-perceived health status was also associated with increased analgesic use.
Although the observed association between better self-rated health and increased analgesic use may seem counterintuitive, it can be explained by the distinction between subjective health perception and objective health status. Self-rated health reflects a broad, personal appraisal of one’s condition, often shaped by cultural norms, expectations, and perceived symptom relief. In contrast, the EQ-5D instrument assesses specific domains, such as mobility, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression, that more directly capture functional limitations and disease burden. Previous studies have shown that individuals may report good health even when experiencing chronic symptoms or impairments, provided these are effectively managed with medication or other treatments [,,]. In Brazil, analgesics such as metamizole and acetaminophen are low-cost, widely accessible, over-the-counter drugs and available in the public health system. Their availability and effectiveness in controlling pain may help individuals maintain functional capacity and carry out daily activities, contributing to a more favorable perception of health. Thus, the observed association likely reflects the role of analgesics in supporting symptom management and preserving autonomy, even in the presence of underlying health conditions [,,,,,,].
Polypharmacy often reflects the management of multiple comorbidities, where pain control is a common therapeutic goal, helping to explain the higher prevalence of analgesic use []. Lower quality of life scores are typically associated with increased discomfort or pain, reinforcing the observed link to greater medication use []. The positive association between self-rated health and analgesic use may suggest that effective symptom control contributes to a more favorable health perception, an association previously reported in other conditions []. Furthermore, the association with dental consultations may reflect both the treatment of orofacial pain and improved access to healthcare services, which can facilitate appropriate analgesic prescribing [].
Collectively, these findings underscore the importance of understanding the behavioral and clinical context surrounding analgesic use, particularly in pandemic settings, where health systems are strained and self-medication becomes more common.
The clinical relevance of our study lies in documenting the high consumption of metamizole in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic, a drug that is banned or restricted in many countries due to its potential for serious adverse effects. Understanding consumption patterns is crucial for pharmacovigilance and for informing public health strategies, particularly given the rise in self-medication observed during the pandemic [,,,,].
This study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, as a cross-sectional analysis, it does not provide information on analgesic use trends before or after the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting conclusions about temporal changes in consumption patterns. Second, we lacked detailed data on the specific reasons for analgesic use, such as the types of pain or symptoms that prompted consumption. Additionally, we did not evaluate clinical outcomes related to analgesic use, including potential adverse effects such as liver or kidney dysfunction or gastrointestinal complications. These limitations restrict a more comprehensive understanding of both the determinants and consequences of analgesic use. Future research should address these gaps by exploring longitudinal trends, specific indications for use, and potential health outcomes to support informed public health strategies.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Study Design and Setting
This was a cross-sectional epidemiological study conducted through a household survey in the municipality of Alegre (Espírito Santo, Brazil) between November and December 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.2. Study Population and Sample Selection
The study population consisted of residents from both central and peripheral urban areas of Alegre, aged 18 years or older, who agreed to participate by signing the Informed Consent Form. The sampling process included only the urban population of the municipality. According to the most recent census, Alegre’s urban population totaled 21,512, with 16,179 residents living in the municipal seat [].
The sample size was calculated based on the total urban population, adopting a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05), an estimated prevalence of 50% for the outcomes, and a design effect of 1.5. These parameters yielded a minimum sample size of 567 individuals. To account for potential losses, a 10% increase was applied, resulting in a target sample of 624 participants [].
Participants were selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. In the first stage, 10 out of 37 urban census tracts were randomly selected. In the second stage, an equal number of individuals were surveyed in each tract [,].
4.3. Researcher Training
The research team received theoretical training via Google Meet between October and November 2021. Supplementary training materials, including instructional videos, were provided through the Google Classroom platform (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) to support learning on the data collection instrument.
Before fieldwork began, practical training was conducted on 21 and 22 November 2021, to reinforce procedures and protocols. A pilot study was also carried out to test the questionnaire and offer researchers hands-on field experience.
A dedicated support committee was established to assist field researchers with questions or issues, providing face-to-face, telephone, and electronic support throughout the data collection process.
4.4. Data Collection
Data were collected using a structured and pre-coded questionnaire organized into thematic sections. Part A included sociodemographic information; Part B addressed general health conditions; Part C focused on COVID-19-specific issues; Part D covered healthcare service utilization; and Part E referred to medication use. Part F assessed the use of teas and medicinal plants, while Part G explored alternative therapies, including homeopathy, phytotherapy, compounded, and homemade medications. Part H collected information on lifestyle habits, and Part I assessed quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L instrument (EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) [].
All procedures were standardized. In cases where direct participation was not feasible (due to health problems, hearing impairments, or cognitive limitations), information was provided by a proxy respondent (a relative or caregiver).
4.5. Variables
The dependent variable was the use of analgesic and antipyretic medications, based on the question: “Do you use medication?” If the answer was affirmative, participants were asked to present a medical prescription, medication packaging, or another form of documentation to confirm medication use.
Independent variables included: age, sex, race/ethnicity, region, marital status, religion, education, income, self-perceived health, quality of life, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, sleep duration, medical and dental appointments, consultations with a nutritionist, hospitalizations, private health insurance coverage, use of public and private pharmacies in the previous year, treatment-related problems, and use of medicinal plants.
The medications most frequently used by self-medicating individuals were classified according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system of the World Health Organization (WHO).
4.6. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were performed using frequency distributions for categorical variables and medians with interquartile ranges for continuous variables.
Factors associated with analgesic use were analyzed using Poisson regression with robust variance. Variables with a p-value ≤ 0.20 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate model, and only those with a p-value ≤ 0.05 were retained in the final model.
Self-medication was also examined using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Variables with p ≤ 0.20 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate Poisson regression model, and those with p ≤ 0.05 remained in the final model.
All analyses were conducted using Jamovi (version 2.2.5) and Stata (version 16.1).
4.7. Ethical Considerations
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Espírito Santo, Alegre campus (approval number 4.732.878). All procedures followed the ethical standards of the Human Research Committee, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki (revised in 2013), and the biosafety standards established during the COVID-19 pandemic [,,].
5. Conclusions
This study highlights the high prevalence of analgesic use during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly of metamizole, followed by acetaminophen. Given its over-the-counter availability and widespread use, the findings underscore the need for enhanced public health education and strengthened pharmacovigilance. Monitoring the use of these medications is essential, especially in light of growing evidence linking metamizole to increased risks of liver injury and other adverse events. Strengthening the role of pharmacists and implementing targeted public health interventions are key strategies to promote the rational and safe use of analgesics, ensuring both therapeutic efficacy and patient safety.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pharma4030017/s1: Table S1: All analgesics drugs used during COVID-19 pandemic.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.R.R.d.S., J.B.R.d.S., A.M.d.S. and P.S.B.; methodology, M.R.R.d.S., J.B.R.d.S., A.M.d.S. and P.S.B.; software, M.R.R.d.S. and J.B.R.d.S.; validation, M.R.R.d.S. and J.B.R.d.S.; formal analysis, M.R.R.d.S., A.M.d.S., M.R.C.d.S. and P.S.B.; investigation, M.R.R.d.S., J.B.R.d.S., A.M.d.S. and P.S.B.; resources, M.R.R.d.S., J.B.R.d.S., A.M.d.S., M.R.C.d.S. and P.S.B.; data curation, M.R.R.d.S. and J.B.R.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.R.d.S. and M.R.C.d.S.; writing—review and editing, M.R.R.d.S., J.B.R.d.S., A.M.d.S., M.R.C.d.S. and P.S.B.; visualization, M.R.R.d.S., J.B.R.d.S., A.M.d.S., M.R.C.d.S. and P.S.B.; supervision, M.R.R.d.S. and J.B.R.d.S.; project administration, M.R.R.d.S. and J.B.R.d.S.; funding acquisition, M.R.R.d.S. and J.B.R.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Espírito Santo Research and Innovation Support Foundation (FAPES), process n° 2021-85T7B, grant number 156/2021.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of the Federal University of Espírito Santo, Alegre campus (approval number 4.732.878, approval date 25 May 2021). All procedures followed the ethical standards of the Human Research Committee, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki (revised in 2013), and biosafety standards established during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Espírito Santo Research and Innovation Foundation (FAPES), the Health Technology Assessment and Economics Group (GATES), and the Executive Health Secretariat of Alegre (SESA).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| SUS | Brazilian Unified Health System |
| FAPES | Espírito Santo Research and Innovation Foundation |
| GATES | Health Technology Assessment and Economics Group |
| IQR | Interquartile Range |
| BMI | Body Mass Index |
| COVID-19 | Coronavirus Disease 2019 |
| ICF | Informed Consent Form |
| ATC | Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical |
| WHO | World Health Organization |
| EQ-5D-3L | European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version |
| PPS | Probability proportional to size sampling |
References
- Queremel Milani, D.A.; Davis, D.D. Pain management medications. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2025. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560692/ (accessed on 30 April 2025).
- Galluzzo, V.; Zazzara, M.B.; Ciciarello, F.; Tosato, M.; Bizzarro, A.; Paglionico, A.; Varriano, V.; Gremese, E.; Calvani, R.; Landi, F. Use of first-line oral analgesics during and after COVID-19: Results from a survey on a sample of Italian 696 COVID-19 survivors with post-acute symptoms. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ooi, E.E.; Dhar, A.; Petruschke, R.; Locht, C.; Buchy, P.; Low, J.G.H. Use of analgesics/antipyretics in the management of symptoms associated with COVID-19 vaccination. NPJ Vaccines 2022, 7, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamal, M.; Negm, W.A.; Abdelkader, A.M.; Alshehri, A.A.; El-Saber Batiha, G.; Osama, H. Most common over-the-counter medications and effects on patients. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 1654–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Sánchez, E.; Fernández-Cerezo, F.L.; Díaz-Jimenez, J.; Rosety-Rodriguez, M.; Díaz, A.J.; Ordonez, F.J.; Rosety, M.Á.; Rosety, I. Consumption of over-the-counter drugs: Prevalence and type of drugs. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dulęba, J.; Religioni, U.; Słodka, E.; Fal, A.; Krysiński, J.; Merks, P. The awareness of risks associated with OTC drugs available in non-pharmacy outlets among Polish patients: A cross-sectional study. Healthcare 2021, 9, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazoni, P.S.; Faria, R.J.; Cordeiro, F.J.R.; Timóteo, É.D.S.; da Silva, A.M.; Horsth, A.L.; Meira, E.F.; Dos Santos, J.B.R.; da Silva, M.R.R. Self-medication during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: Findings and implications to promote the rational use of medicines. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Liu, J.; Tang, P.K.; Hu, H.; Ung, C.O.L. A systematic review of self-medication practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for pharmacy practice in supporting public health measures. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1184882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amariles, P.; Ledezma-Morales, M.; Salazar-Ospina, A.; Hincapié-García, J.A. Pharmacist’s role and pharmaceutical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021, 1318, 605–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bragazzi, N.L.; Mansour, M.; Bonsignore, A.; Ciliberti, R. The role of hospital and community pharmacists in the management of COVID-19: Towards an expanded definition of the roles, responsibilities, and duties of the pharmacist. Pharmacy 2020, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed Ibrahim, O.; Ibrahim, R.M.; Ibrahim, Y.A.; Madawi, E.A.; Al Deri, M.Y. Shedding the light on pharmacists’ roles during COVID-19 global pandemic. Saudi Pharm. J. 2022, 30, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA); Chamber for the Regulation of the Medicines Market (CMED). Statistical Yearbook of the Pharmaceutical Market 2020; ANVISA: Brasília, Brazil, 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/medicamentos/cmed/anuario-estatistico-2019/view (accessed on 30 April 2025).
- National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA); Chamber for the Regulation of the Medicines Market (CMED). Statistical Yearbook of the Pharmaceutical Market 2021; ANVISA: Brasília, Brazil, 2022. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/medicamentos/cmed/anuario-estatistico-2022 (accessed on 30 April 2025).
- National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA); Chamber for the Regulation of the Medicines Market (CMED). Statistical Yearbook of the Pharmaceutical Market 2022; ANVISA: Brasília, Brazil, 2023. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/medicamentos/cmed/anuario-estatistico-2022/view (accessed on 30 April 2025).
- National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA); Chamber for the Regulation of the Medicines Market (CMED). Statistical Yearbook of the Pharmaceutical Market 2023; ANVISA: Brasília, Brazil, 2024. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/medicamentos/cmed/anuario-estatistico-do-mercado-farmaceutico-2023.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2025).
- Ministry of Health; Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation and Strategic Health Inputs; Department of Pharmaceutical Services and Strategic Health Supplies. National List of Essential Medicines: RENAME 2024; Ministry of Health: Brasília, Brazil, 2024; ISBN 978-65-5993-710-3. Available online: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/relacao_nacional_medicamentos_2024.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
- Andrade, S.; Bartels, D.B.; Lange, R.; Sandford, L.; Gurwitz, J. Safety of metamizole: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2016, 41, 459–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hedenmalm, K.; Pacurariu, A.; Slattery, J.; Kurz, X.; Candore, G.; Flynn, R. Is There an Increased Risk of Hepatotoxicity with Metamizole? A Comparative Cohort Study in Incident Users. Drug Saf. 2021, 44, 973–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sznejder, H.; Amand, C.; Stewart, A.; Salazar, R.; Ruiz Scala, W.A. Real world evidence of the use of metamizole (metamizole) by the Brazilian population: A retrospective cohort with over 380,000 patients. Einstein 2022, 20, eAO6353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury; Metamizole; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK604194/ (accessed on 1 May 2025).
- Verstraete, J.; Scott, D. Comparison of the EQ-5D-Y-5L, EQ-5D-Y-3L and PedsQL in children and adolescents. J. Patient Rep. Outcomes. 2022, 6, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, Z.; Crèvecoeur, J.; Pepermans, K.; Kind, P.; Neyens, T.; Beutels, P. A Comparison of Items and Constructs of Standardized Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Well-Being Measures. Value Health 2024, 27, 478–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ham, A.S.; Traore, M.; Othon, G.C.; Conde, M.L.; Lamine, T.M.; Djigué, B.S.; Kaba, C.; Karinka, D.; Idrissa, D.; Idrissa, C.; et al. Improvement in health perception but not quality of life with an antiseizure medication intervention in people with epilepsy in Guinea: A cohort study. Seizure 2023, 111, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazoni, P.S.; Faria, R.J.; da Silva, A.M.; Horsth, A.L.; Meira, E.F.; dos Santos, J.B.R.; da Silva, M.R.R. Drug utilization research in a municipality in the state of Espírito Santo: Findings and implications related to the practice of polypharmacy. Rev. Med. 2024, 103, e2024212394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, M.F.; Yin, K.N.; Jeffree, M.S.; Ahmedy, F.B.; Zainudin, M.F.; Htwe, O.; Jahan, S.; Hossain, M.Z.; Hossain, K.A.; Hossain, T.; et al. Clinical presentation of post-COVID pain and its impact on quality of life in long COVID patients: A cross-sectional household survey of SARS-CoV-2 cases in Bangladesh. BMC Infect. Dis. 2024, 24, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palmer, N.O.A.; Seoudi, N. The effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the prescribing of antimicrobials and analgesics by NHS general dental practitioners in England. Br. Dent. J. 2021, 230, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2010 Population Census: Synopsis; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011. Available online: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/es/alegre/pesquisa/23/27652 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
- Silva, P.L.N.; Bianchini, Z.M.; Dias, A.J.R. Sampling: Theory and Practice Using R; Github: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2021; Volume 1, Available online: https://amostragemcomr.github.io/livro/index.html (accessed on 23 August 2021).
- Skinner, C.J. Probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, A.K.L. Probability proportional sampling. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, M.; Cintra, M.A.; Monteiro, A.L.; Santos, B.; Gusmão-Filho, F.; Andrade, M.V.; Noronha, K.; Cruz, L.N.; Camey, S.; Tura, B.; et al. Brazilian valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states: Results from a saturation study. Med. Decis. Mak. 2016, 36, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, O.M.D.; Cabral, D.B.; Marin, S.M.; Bitencourt, J.V.O.V.; Vargas, M.A.O.; Meschial, W.C. Biosafety measures to prevent COVID-19 in healthcare professionals: An integrative review. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2021, 75, e20201191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Resolution CNS No. 466; Guidelines and Regulatory Standards for Research Involving Human Beings; National Health Council: Brasília, Brazil, 2012. Available online: https://www.gov.br/conselho-nacional-de-saude/pt-br/atos-normativos/resolucoes/2012/resolucao-no-466.pdf/view (accessed on 30 April 2025).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).