No abstract

; for the Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) Study Team IMPORTANCE Nonadherence to treatment with medicines is common globally, even for life-saving treatments. Cost is one important barrier to access, and only some jurisdictions provide medicines at no charge to patients. OBJECTIVE To determine whether providing essential medicines at no charge to outpatients who reported not being able to afford medicines improves adherence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, unblinded, parallel, 2-group, superiority, outcomes assessor-blinded, individually randomized clinical trial conducted at 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada, enrolled 786 patients between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, who reported cost-related nonadherence. Follow-up occurred at 12 months. The primary analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated to receive free medicines on a list of essential medicines in addition to otherwise usual care (n = 395) or usual medicine access and usual care (n = 391). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was adherence to treatment with all medicines that were appropriately prescribed for 1 year. Secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A 1c level, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 1 year after randomization in participants taking corresponding medicines. RESULTS Among the 786 participants analyzed (439 women and 347 men; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [14.3] years), 764 completed the trial. Adherence to treatment with all medicines was higher in those randomized to receive free distribution (151 of 395 [38.2%]) compared with usual access (104 of 391 [26.6%]; difference, 11.6%; 95% CI, 4.9%-18.4%). Control of type 1 and 2 diabetes was not significantly improved by free distribution (hemoglobin A 1c , −0.38%; 95% CI, −0.76% to 0.00%), systolic blood pressure was reduced (−7.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, −11.7 to −2.8 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were not affected (−2.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, −14.7 to 10.0 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The distribution of essential medicines at no charge for 1 year increased adherence to treatment with medicines and improved some, but not other, disease-specific surrogate health outcomes. These findings could help inform changes to medicine access policies such as publicly funding essential medicines. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963

We determined the concurrent criterion validity of the Safe Driving Behavior Measure (SDBM) for on-road outcomes (passing or failing the on-road test as determined by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist) among older drivers and their family members–caregivers. On the basis of ratings from 168 older drivers and 168 family members–caregivers, we calculated receiver operating characteristic curves. The drivers’ area under the curve (AUC) was .620 (95% confidence interval [CI] = .514–.725, p = .043). The family members–caregivers’ AUC was .726 (95% CI = .622–.829, p ≤ .01). Older drivers’ ratings showed statistically significant yet poor concurrent criterion validity, but family members–caregivers’ ratings showed good concurrent criterion validity for the criterion on-road driving test. Continuing research with a more representative sample is being pursued to confirm the SDBM’s concurrent criterion validity. This screening tool may be useful for generalist practitioners to use in making decisions regarding driving.

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.

The study examines chemiluminescence measurements and computations as a method of validation. Because chemiluminescent radicals are present in small concentrations and associated timescales are also small, a common assumption is that these are quasi-steady-state species and their transport can be ignored. This paper examines the above assumption using available data and simulation results, specifically aiming at a single element rocket combustor under strong pressure fluctuations. Variations in the kinetics rate constants are considered for assessing sensitivity of the results. Two additional aspects are explored: the ability of the excited species to represent the chemical heat release and the optical thickness of the medium. For the conditions of the study, the quasi-steady-state assumption in the case of OH* is found to be marginally insufficient while in the case of CH*, it is found to be acceptable. Modeled heat release is qualitatively better captured by CH* than OH* because of higher difference in the peak to asymptotic concentrations and lower ground state concentration.

This study represents the first systematic evaluation of national-level guidelines for determining medical fitness to drive. There is substantive variability in the quality of these guidelines, and rigour of development was a relative weakness. There is a need for rigorous, empirically derived guidance for physicians and licensing authorities when assessing driving in the medically ill.

Prediction of combustion instability is essential in reducing development costs of large scale rocket engines. Recently, high fidelity CFD models have shown some ability to represent the stability characteristics of sub-scale experimental combustors. A challenge remains in acquiring experimental measurements of critical combusting flow properties, especially measurements of the unsteady heat addition field, for comparison to models. Previous studies have shown that OH* and CH* emission intensity is a function of pressure, strain rate, equivalence ratio, and turbulence level. Since these flame properties have large variations at all times in an unstable rocket combustor it is difficult to decouple the chemiluminescent emission from all variables except heat release. Emission due to chemiluminescence can, however, be isolated from other flame property variables in a computational model. A detailed chemical kinetics model is used to investigate the relationship between chemiluminescent species and heat release rate of the flame. This predicted relationship is then compared to experimental spectral measurements captured with a fiber optic probe both to check the validity of the model and to provide insight on the ability of the chemiluminescent light emission to indicate heat release in the unstable CVRC flame.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a one-time cash transfer of $C1000 in people who are unable to physically distance due to insufficient income.DesignOpen-label, multi-centre, randomised superiority trial.SettingSeven primary care sites in Ontario, Canada; six urban sites associated with St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and one in Manitoulin Island.Participants392 individuals who reported trouble affording basic necessities due to disruptions related to COVID-19.InterventionAfter random allocation, participants either received the cash transfer of $C1000 (n=196) or physical distancing guidelines alone (n=196).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the maximum number of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 over 14 days. Secondary outcomes were meeting clinical criteria for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 presence, number of close contacts, general health and ability to afford basic necessities.ResultsThe primary outcome of number of symptoms reported by participants did not differ between groups after 2 weeks (cash transfer, mean 1.6 vs 1.9, ratio of means 0.83; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.24). There were no statistically significant effects on secondary outcomes of the meeting COVID-19 clinical criteria (7.9% vs 12.8%; risk difference −0.05; 95% CI −0.11 to 0.01), SARS-CoV-2 presence (0.5% vs 0.6%; risk difference 0.00 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02), mean number of close contacts (3.5 vs 3.7; rate ratio 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.46), general health very good or excellent (60% vs 63%; risk difference −0.03 95% CI −0.14 to 0.08) and ability to make ends meet (52% vs 51%; risk difference 0.01 95% CI −0.10 to 0.12).ConclusionsA single cash transfer did not reduce the COVID-19 symptoms or improve the ability to afford necessities. Further studies are needed to determine whether some groups may benefit from financial supports and to determine if a higher level of support is beneficial.Trial registration numberNCT04359264.