Effect of free distribution of medicines on the process of care for adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and hypertension: post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial findings

Onella Charles, Hannah Woods, Muhamad Ally, Braden Manns, Baiju R Shah, Ri Wang, Nav Persaud, Onella Charles, Hannah Woods, Muhamad Ally, Braden Manns, Baiju R Shah, Ri Wang, Nav Persaud

Abstract

Objectives: The Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No charge Medicines randomised controlled trial showed that patients receiving free access to medicines had improved diabetes and hypertension outcomes compared with patients who had usual access to medicines. In this study, we aimed to test the impact of providing free access to medicine to people with diabetes and hypertension on process of care indicators.

Design: In this post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial findings, we identified process of care indicators for the management of diabetes and hypertension using relevant guidelines. The following process of care indicators were identified for diabetes management: encounters with healthcare professionals, blood pressure measurements, self-monitoring of blood glucose, annual eye and foot examination, annual administration of the influenza vaccine, and laboratory testing for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, serum creatinine and urine albumin to creatinine ratio. We identified the following process of care indicators for hypertension: encounters with healthcare professionals, blood pressure measurements, self-measuring of blood pressure, and serum tests for electrolytes, HbA1c, lipids and creatinine. Chart extractions were performed for all patients and the indicators for diabetes and hypertension were recorded. We compared the indicators for patients in each arm of the trial.

Results: The study included 268 primary care patients. Free distribution of medicines may improve self-monitoring behaviours (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 1.30; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.57) and reduce missed primary care appointments for patients with diabetes (aRR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) or hypertension (aRR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90). Free distribution may also reduce primary care and consultant appointments and laboratory testing in patients with hypertension.

Conclusions: Improving medicine accessibility for patients with diabetes and hypertension not only improves surrogate health outcomes but also improves the patient experience and may also reduce healthcare costs by encouraging self-monitoring.

Trial registration number: The randomised controlled trial mentioned is clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963.

Keywords: diabetes & endocrinology; health policy; primary care.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: NP reports grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, the Canada Research Chairs programme and Physicians Services Incorporated during the conduct of the study. All other authors (OC, HW, MA, BM and BRS) declare that they have no competing interests.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart illustrating study participant inclusion. RCT, randomised controlled trial.

References

    1. Braga MFB, Casanova A, Teoh H, et al. . Treatment gaps in the management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in Canada. Can J Cardiol 2010;26:297–302. 10.1016/S0828-282X(10)70393-7
    1. Saaddine JB, Engelgau MM, Beckles GL, et al. . A diabetes report card for the United States: quality of care in the 1990s. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:565. 10.7326/0003-4819-136-8-200204160-00005
    1. Hajjar I, Kotchen TA. Trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States, 1988-2000. JAMA 2003;290:199–206. 10.1001/jama.290.2.199
    1. Law MR, Cheng L, Dhalla IA, et al. . The effect of cost on adherence to prescription medications in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 2012;184:297–302. 10.1503/cmaj.111270
    1. Kang H, Lobo JM, Kim S, et al. . Cost-related medication non-adherence among U.S. adults with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;143:24–33. 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.06.016
    1. Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, et al. . Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012;379:2252–61. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60480-2
    1. Walsh JME, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, et al. . Quality improvement strategies for hypertension management: a systematic review. Med Care 2006;44:646–57. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000220260.30768.32
    1. Rosella LC, Lebenbaum M, Fitzpatrick T, et al. . Impact of diabetes on healthcare costs in a population-based cohort: a cost analysis. Diabetic Medicine 2016;33:395–403. 10.1111/dme.12858
    1. Weaver CG, Clement FM, Campbell NRC, et al. . Healthcare costs attributable to hypertension: Canadian population-based cohort study. Hypertension 2015;66:502–8. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05702
    1. Persaud N, Bedard M, Boozary AS, et al. . Effect on treatment adherence of distributing essential medicines at no charge: the clean Meds randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 201910.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4472
    1. Murray CM, Shah BR. Diabetes self-management education improves medication utilization and retinopathy screening in the elderly. Prim Care Diabetes 2016;10:179–85. 10.1016/j.pcd.2015.10.007
    1. An J, JaeJin A. The impact of patient-centered medical homes on quality of care and medication adherence in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2016;22:1272–84. 10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.11.1272
    1. Diabetes Canada . Clinical practice guidelines - 2018 full guidelines [online]. Available: [Accessed 23 Sep 2019].
    1. Diagnosis & Assessment | Hypertension Canada Guidelines [online]. Available: [Accessed 23 Sep 2019].
    1. Zhu H, Zhu Y, Leung S-W. Is self-monitoring of blood glucose effective in improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes without insulin treatment: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010524. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010524
    1. Uhlig K, Patel K, Ip S, et al. . Self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:185–94.
    1. McManus RJ, Mant J, Franssen M, et al. . Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:949–59. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30309-X
    1. Keeler EB, Brook RH, Goldberg GA, et al. . How free care reduced hypertension in the health insurance experiment. JAMA 1985;254:1926–31. 10.1001/jama.1985.03360140084030
    1. Lacy NL, Paulman A, Reuter MD, et al. . Why we don’t come: patient perceptions on no-shows. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:541–5. 10.1370/afm.123
    1. Nwabuo CC, Dy SM, Weeks K, et al. . Factors associated with appointment non-adherence among African-Americans with severe, poorly controlled hypertension. PLoS One 2014;9:e103090. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103090
    1. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, et al. . Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems. Stat Med 2002;21:2917–30. 10.1002/sim.1296

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi