Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

BACKGROUND: Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages. METHODS: The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders. RECOMMENDATIONS: We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages. INTERPRETATION: Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Systematic assessment of opioid advertisements in general medical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine the content of opioid-related advertisements. DESIGN: Content analysis and quantitative assessment. SETTING: North America. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers examined advertisements in 2 issues per year from 1996 to 2016 of American Family Physician, Canadian Family Physician, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of advertisements, nature of the claims made, and quality of cited evidence in the advertisements. RESULTS: Opioid advertisements composed 89 of the 3173 pharmaceutical advertisements in 210 journal issues searched. Seventy-three advertisements were able to be obtained for analysis. Thirty-four (46.6%) did not mention the addictive potential of opioids, and 54 of 73 (74.0%) did not mention the possibility of death. All referenced studies in advertisements were funded by pharmaceutical organizations or had pharmaceutical company employees as authors. No advertisements cited high-quality evidence. CONCLUSION: Many claims of the effectiveness and safety of opioids were published in medical journals through advertisements. Advertisements did not usually mention key negative information about opioids. Although the extent to which these advertisements directly influenced the development of the opioid crisis in North America is unknown, the marked omission of important detrimental effects of opioids may have played a role. Further efforts to restrict opioid marketing may be warranted.

Adherence at 2 years with distribution of essential medicines at no charge: The CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medicines is low for a variety of reasons, including the cost borne by patients. Some jurisdictions publicly fund medicines for the general population, but many jurisdictions do not, and such policies are contentious. To our knowledge, no trials studying free access to a wide range of medicines have been conducted. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 786 primary care patients who reported not taking medicines due to cost between June 1, 2016 and April 28, 2017 to either free distribution of essential medicines (n = 395) or to usual medicine access (n = 391). The trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where hospital care and physician services are publicly funded for the general population but medicines are not. The trial population was mostly female (56%), younger than 65 years (83%), white (66%), and had a low income from wages as the primary source (56%). The primary outcome was medicine adherence after 2 years. Secondary outcomes included control of diabetes, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients taking relevant treatments and healthcare costs over 2 years. Adherence to all appropriate prescribed medicines was 38.7% in the free distribution group and 28.6% in the usual access group after 2 years (absolute difference 10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 16.9, p = 0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in control of diabetes (hemoglobin A1c 0.27; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.79, p = 0.302), systolic blood pressure (-3.9; 95% CI -9.9 to 2.2, p = 0.210), or LDL cholesterol (0.26; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.60, p = 0.130) based on available data. Total healthcare costs over 2 years were lower with free distribution (difference in median CAN$1,117; 95% CI CAN$445 to CAN$1,778, p = 0.006). In the free distribution group, 51 participants experienced a serious adverse event, while 68 participants in the usual access group experienced a serious adverse event (p = 0.091). Participants were not blinded, and some outcomes depended on participant reports. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that free distribution of essential medicines to patients with cost-related nonadherence substantially increased adherence, did not affect surrogate health outcomes, and reduced total healthcare costs over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02744963.

Essential diabetes medicines and health outcomes in 127 countries.

AIM: Diabetes is the ninth leading cause of death. Improving access to diabetes medicines may decrease mortality. Diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) vary considerably. We examine the association between diabetes population health outcomes relating to mortality and the listing of diabetes medicines on national essential medicine lists for 127 countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study. We determined the number of diabetes medicines on NEMLs and used multiple linear regression to analyse the association between diabetes health outcomes and the number of medicines on NEMLs. We used linear regression to assess the association between diabetes health outcomes and the listing of or not listing of medicines that were listed by 25-75% of countries. Diabetes prevalence, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and mean expenditure per person with diabetes were controlled for in all analyses. RESULTS: The total number of diabetes medicines listed on NEMLs ranged from 0 to 16 (median: 4; interquartile range: 3-6). Diabetes health outcome scores were associated with the number of diabetes medicines on NEMLs [1.3-point increase (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.5-2.1) for every additional medicine on NEMLs; P = .002] and GDP per capita [19.5-point increase (95% CI 5.4-33.6) for every 10-fold increase in GDP; P = .003]. Diabetes expenditure was not associated with health outcome scores (P = .23). Increases in diabetes health outcomes score were associated with the listing of glimepiride (7.9-point increase, 95% CI 2.3-13.5, P = .006) and glipizide (5.8-point increase, 95% CI 0.03-11.6, P = .049) on NEMLs. CONCLUSIONS: Listing of diabetes medicines on NEMLs has the potential to improve population health outcomes related to mortality in countries with diverse incomes and diabetes prevalence without necessarily increasing diabetes health expenditure.

Associations between essential medicines and health outcomes for cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: National essential medicines lists are used to guide medicine reimbursement and public sector medicine procurement for many countries therefore medicine listings may impact health outcomes. METHODS: Countries' national essential medicines lists were scored on whether they listed proven medicines for ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertensive heart disease. In this cross sectional study linear regression was used to measure the association between countries' medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores. RESULTS: There was an association between healthcare access and quality scores and health expenditure for ischemic heart disease (p ≤ 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (p ≤ 0.001) and hypertensive heart disease (p ≤ 0.001). However, there was no association between medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores for ischemic heart disease (p = 0.252), cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.194) and hypertensive heart disease (p = 0.209) when country characteristics were accounted for. CONCLUSIONS: Listing more medicines on national essential medicines lists may only be one factor in reducing mortality from cardiovascular disease and improving healthcare access and quality scores.

A comparison of national essential medicines lists in the Americas.

OBJECTIVES: To compare national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) from countries in the Region of the Americas and to identify potential opportunities for improving those lists. METHODS: In June of 2017, NEMLs from 31 countries in the Americas were abstracted from documents included in a World Health Organization (WHO) repository. The lists from the Americas were compared to each other and to NEMLs from outside of the Americas, as well as with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 20th edition ("WHO Model List") and the list of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Revolving Fund for Strategic Public Health Supplies ("Strategic Fund"). RESULTS: The number of differences between the NEMLs from the Americas and the WHO Model List were similar within those countries (median: 295; interquartile range (IQR): 265 to 347). The NEMLs from the Americas were generally similar to each other. While the NEMLs from the Americas coincided well with the Strategic Fund list, some medicines were not included on any of those NEMLs. All the NEMLs in the Americas included some medicines that were withdrawn due to adverse effects by a national regulatory body (median: 8 withdrawn medicines per NEML; IQR: 4 to 12). CONCLUSIONS: The NEMLs in the Americas were fairly similar to each other and to the WHO Model List and the Strategic Fund list. However, some areas of treatment and some specific medicines were identified that the countries should reassess when revising their NEMLs.

Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the medicines included in national essential medicines lists with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Model list of essential medicines, and assess the extent to which countries' characteristics, such as WHO region, size and health care expenditure, account for the differences. METHODS: We searched the WHO's Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal for national essential medicines lists. We compared each national list of essential medicines with both the 2017 WHO model list and other national lists. We used linear regression to determine whether differences were dependent on WHO Region, population size, life expectancy, infant mortality, gross domestic product and health-care expenditure. FINDINGS: We identified 137 national lists of essential medicines that collectively included 2068 unique medicines. Each national list contained between 44 and 983 medicines (median 310: interquartile range, IQR: 269 to 422). The number of differences between each country's essential medicines list and WHO's model list ranged from 93 to 815 (median: 296; IQR: 265 to 381). Linear regression showed that only WHO region and health-care expenditure were significantly associated with the number of differences (adjusted R2 : 0.33; P < 0.05). Most medicines (1248; 60%) were listed by no more than 10% (14) of countries. CONCLUSION: The substantial differences between national lists of essential medicines are only partly explained by differences in country characteristics and thus may not be related to different priority needs. This information helps to identify opportunities to improve essential medicines lists.

Acceptability and feasibility of a national essential medicines list in Canada: a qualitative study of perceptions of decision-makers and policy stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Policy approaches have been considered to address inconsistent and inequitable prescription drug coverage in Canada, including a national essential medicines list. We sought to explore key factors influencing the acceptability and feasibility of an essential medicines list in Canada. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision-makers and other key stakeholders from government or pan-Canadian institutions, civil society and the private sector across Canada. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis and by applying Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to analyze the emergent themes deductively. RESULTS: We conducted 21 interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. We categorized emergent themes to describe the problem, the essential medicines list policy (including content and process), and politics. There was consensus among participants that prescription drug coverage was an important problem to address. Participants differed in their views on how to define essential medicines and concerns about what would be excluded from an essential medicines list. There was consensus on important features for a process to develop an essential medicines list: an independent decision-making body, use of defined selection criteria based on quality evidence, and clear communication of the purpose of the essential medicines list. Federal government financing and the broader pharmacare model, engagement of various interest groups and changing political agendas emerged as core political factors to consider if developing a Canadian essential medicines list. INTERPRETATION: Although stakeholders' views on the content of a Canadian essential medicines list varied, there was consensus on the process to formulate and implement an essential medicines list or common national formulary, including choosing medicines based on best evidence. Greater understanding is now needed on how patients, clinicians and the public perceive the concept of an essential medicines list.

Reliability of routinely collected anthropometric measurements in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Measuring body mass index (BMI) has been proposed as a method of screening for preventive primary care and population surveillance of childhood obesity. However, the accuracy of routinely collected measurements has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of height, length and weight measurements collected during well-child visits in primary care relative to trained research personnel. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of measurement reliability was conducted in community pediatric and family medicine primary care practices. Each participating child, ages 0 to 18 years, was measured four consecutive times; twice by a primary care team member (e.g. nurses, practice personnel) and twice by a trained research assistant. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was calculated using the technical error of measurement (TEM), relative TEM (%TEM), and a coefficient of reliability (R). RESULTS: Six trained research assistants and 16 primary care team members performed measurements in three practices. All %TEM values for intra-observer reliability of length, height, and weight were classified as 'acceptable' (< 2%; range 0.19% to 0.70%). Inter-observer reliability was also classified as 'acceptable' (< 2%; range 0.36% to 1.03%) for all measurements. Coefficients of reliability (R) were all > 99% for both intra- and inter-observer reliability. Length measurements in children < 2 years had the highest measurement error. There were some significant differences in length intra-observer reliability between observers. CONCLUSION: There was agreement between routine measurements and research measurements although there were some differences in length measurement reliability between practice staff and research assistants. These results provide justification for using routinely collected data from selected primary care practices for secondary purposes such as BMI population surveillance and research.

Medication coverage for lawmakers may worsen access for everyone else.

Despite numerous recommendations for universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada based on evidence that millions of Canadians cannot afford medications, no province or territory has adopted first dollar coverage for all residents. However, one group unaffected by the lack of public coverage are lawmakers. Lawmakers receive excellent drug coverage plans for themselves and their immediate families. Evidence suggests that lawmakers' decisions are influenced by their personal circumstances; in this case, they are insulated from the effects of poor access to medications by their drug coverage plans. In contrast, a patchwork system of 46 programs across Canada provides some drug coverage to vulnerable populations. Reducing the disparity in prescription drug access between Canadian lawmakers and the public may promote progress towards better medication access for everyone. This could be achieved either by reducing lawmaker coverage or improving upon the public patchwork system. Since the goal should be to improve the overall access of medications for all Canadians, lawmakers included, the latter method is preferred. A universal drug plan with first dollar coverage could replace the current patchwork system and expand coverage to all Canadians.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé.

CONTEXTE: Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d'observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L'équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l'équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l'intention des groupes défavorisés. MÉTHODES: La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d'un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d'autres études pertinentes sur l'efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d'experts en contenu avant d'être distribuées à des intervenants à l'échelle nationale pour approbation. RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d'autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l'accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l'âge de 45 ans et pour l'évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l'autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l'interféron γ pour l'infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d'accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées. INTERPRÉTATION: Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s'ils veulent promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Estimated effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Canada's universal health care system does not include universal coverage of prescription drugs. We sought to estimate the effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada. METHODS: We used administrative and market research data to estimate the 2015 shares of the volume and cost of prescriptions filled in the community setting that were for 117 drugs on a model list of essential medicines for Canada. We compared prices of these essential medicines in Canada with prices in the United States, Sweden and New Zealand. We estimated the cost of adding universal public drug coverage of these essential medicines based on anticipated effects on medication use and pricing. RESULTS: The 117 essential medicines on the model list accounted for 44% of all prescriptions and 30% of total prescription drug expenditures in 2015. Average prices of generic essential medicines were 47% lower in the US, 60% lower in Sweden and 84% lower in New Zealand; brand-name drugs were priced 43% lower in the US. Estimated savings from universal public coverage of these essential medicines was $4.27 billion per year (range $2.72 billion to $5.83 billion; 28% reduction) for patients and private drug plan sponsors, at an incremental government cost of $1.23 billion per year (range $373 million to $1.98 billion; 11% reduction). INTERPRETATION: Our analysis showed that adding universal public coverage of essential medicines to the existing public drug plans in Canada could address most of Canadians' pharmaceutical needs and save billions of dollars annually. Doing so may be a pragmatic step forward while more comprehensive pharmacare reforms are planned.

Why Clinicians Prognosticate Stroke Patients Poorly: Results from the Clinician Judgment versus Risk Score to Predict Stroke Outcomes Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostication after a stroke has important implications for care and for decisions made by patients and their families. It is not clear why clinicians, even experienced stroke neurologists, poorly estimate the risk of disability and death following stroke. METHODS: We analyzed the results from the Clinician Judgment versus Risk Score to predict Stroke Outcomes study in which each clinician estimated the risk of death and the risk of death or disability in 5 case-based ischemic stroke scenarios. We employed a mixed-effect linear model to disentangle the ability of clinicians to discriminate between poor and good prognosis cases (slope) from the calibration of quantitative estimates (intercept), and to assess for any effect of anchoring in the death or disability condition (through a comparison with the death condition). RESULTS: One hundred eleven clinicians made 1665 predictions. Clinicians were able to discriminate between cases with low and high risks of death (slope of .81, 95% confidence interval [CI] .70-.93), but the quantitative estimates were not well calibrated (intercept of 5.14, 95% CI 3.97-6.33). The discrimination was poorer (slope of .67, 95% CI .60-.75), but the calibration was better (intercept of -.34, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.98) in the death or disability estimates. CONCLUSION: Poor stroke prognostication can be explained by poor calibration and an anchoring effect, which are both amenable to specific training interventions.