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.

Gender and racialisation of pharmaceutical sector leaders in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: Lacking diversity in pharmaceutical leadership positions could contribute to inequities in medicine access. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the gender and racial identities of individuals who hold leadership positions in the Canadian pharmaceutical sector. PARTICIPANTS: We compiled a list of all Canadian governmental bodies, pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers. We identified individuals who were part of the leadership team, including executives and members of the board of directors. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes of the study were the racialisation and gender of the individuals in leadership positions. The gender and racialisation of an individual were determined by reviewing their name, pronouns and institutional profile through internet searches. Two members of the research team performed the assessment and a third reviewer resolved disagreements. RESULTS: We identified 957 individuals holding leadership positions within the pharmaceutical sector, including 280 drug evaluation committee members, 12 governmental executive officers, 273 insurance company executive and board members and 392 executive and board members. Reviewers identified a total of 375 (39.2% of 957) women holding leadership roles, with most of these positions being held by governmental leaders (52.4% of 292) and a minority by insurance (37.0% of 273) and pharmaceutical (30.9% of 392) leaders. There were a total of 157 (16.4% of 957) racialised leaders, with most of these positions being held by governmental (18.5% of 292) and pharmaceutical (18.1% of 392) leaders, and a minority in insurance companies (11.7% of 273). Across the pharmaceutical sector, there were a total of 48 (5.0% of 957) racialised women and 327 (34.2% of 957) white women. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders within the Canadian pharmaceutical sector are mostly white men, and racialised women hold few leadership roles. Public policy should recognise that these institutions are mostly led by white men and reasons for this disparity could be explored.

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.

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

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.

Effect of free medicine distribution on ability to make ends meet: post hoc quantitative subgroup analysis and qualitative thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Out-of-pocket medication costs can contribute to financial insecurity and many Canadians have trouble affording medicines. This study aimed to determine if the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs on individual's financial security varied by gender, racialisation, income and location. DESIGN: In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the CLEAN Meds trial, a binary logistic regression model was fitted and a qualitative inductive thematic analysis of comments related to participant's ability to make ends meet was carried out. SETTING: Primary care patients in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (786) who reported not being able to afford medicines during the previous 12 months. INTERVENTION: Free access to a comprehensive list of essential medicines for 24 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Ability to make ends meet or afford basic necessities. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the effect of free medicine distribution by gender (OR for male 0.82; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33, p=0.76), age (older than 65 years OR 1.28; 95 % CI 0.62 to 2.64, p=0.73), racialisation (OR 0.85; 95 % CI 0.51 to 1.45, p=0.66), household income level (above US$30 000 per year OR 1.08; 95 % CI 0.64 to 1.80, p=0.99) or location (urban OR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.96, p=0.10). The main theme in the qualitative analysis was insufficient income, and there were three related themes: out-of-pocket medication expenses, cost-related non-adherence and the importance of medication coverage. In the intervention group, additional themes identified included improved health, functioning and access to basic needs. CONCLUSIONS: Providing free essential medications improved financial security across subgroups in a trial population who all had trouble affording medicines. Free access to medicines could improve health directly by improving medicine adherence and indirectly by making other necessities more accessible to people who have an insufficient income. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02744963.

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.

Relation between opioid consumption and inclusion of opioids in 137 national essential medicines lists.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids are deemed essential medicines by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, many countries have inadequate access to them. Whether including opioids in national essential medicines lists (EMLs) influences national opioid consumption has not been evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine whether the listing of opioids in national EMLs was associated with consumption. We quantified the numbers and types of all opioids included in 137 national EMLs, for comparison with opioids in the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines. Using the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) consumption statistics for 2015-2017, we assessed the relation between annual mean opioid consumption (mg/person) and the numbers of opioids included in EMLs, controlling for region, population, healthcare expenditure, life expectancy, gross domestic product, human development and corruption. RESULTS: Five opioids were included in the 20th edition of the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines: codeine, fentanyl, loperamide, methadone and morphine. On average, countries' lists included significantly (p<0.05) more opioids than the WHO's Model List. However, there were wide variations in the numbers (median 6 opioids; IQR: 5-9) and types (n=33) of opioids included in national EMLs. Morphine (95%), fentanyl (83%) and codeine (69%) were the most commonly included opioids. Most national EMLs were out of date (median publication date: 2011, IQR: 2009-2013). After adjusting for country characteristics, there was no relation between mean opioid consumption and the number of opioids in EMLs. CONCLUSIONS: Including opioids in national EMLs was not associated with consumption. National EMLs should be regularly updated to reflect the availability of opioids and the populations' needs for managing pain.

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. METHODS: We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. RESULTS: We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

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.

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.

Exploring the experiences of people in Ontario, Canada who have trouble affording medicines: a qualitative concept mapping study.

OBJECTIVES: The experiences of people who report cost-related medicine non-adherence are not well documented. We aimed to present experiences relating to accessing medicines reported by the participants in a randomised controlled trial of free medicine distribution. METHODS: The trial consisted of primary care patients from a large urban family practice and three rural family practices who reported cost-related medicine non-adherence. Participants were randomly allocated to continue their poor access (control) or to receive free and easily accessible medicines (intervention). As part of data collection for the first year of the trial, participants were asked closed and open-ended questions to assess their adherence to medication, health outcomes and their experiences in relation to medicine accessibility. We conducted a qualitative concept mapping study in which we analysed and summarised participants' responses to the open-ended question on a concept map to visually present their experiences relating to accessing medicines. RESULTS: Of the 524 trial participants contacted, 198 (38%) responded to the open-ended question. The concept map contains clusters that represent eight types of experiences of participants related to medicine access including stress, relationship with doctor, health impact, quality of life, sacrificing other essentials, medicines are expensive, financial impact and adherence. These experiences fall under two major themes, experiences relating to personal finances and experiences relating to well-being, which are bridged by a central cluster of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences shared by the participants demonstrate that access to medicines impacts people's finances and well-being as well as their adherence to prescribed medicines. These results indicate that effects on personal finances and general well-being should be measured for interventions and policy changes aimed at improving medicine access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This article is linked to the Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) randomised controlled trial (trial registration number: NCT02744963).