Table 2.
Study outcomes pre- and post-intervention
| Control (n = 23) | Pharmacist MTM (n = 24) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | End-of-trial | Baseline | End-of-trial | OR (95 % CI) | P value | |
| Proteinuria screeninga | 14 (60.9 %) | 17 (73.9 %) | 10 (41.7 %) | 21 (87.5 %) | Entire population: 2.6 (0.5–14.0) Previously unscreened subgroup:7.3 (0.96–56.3) | Entire population: 0.3 Previously unscreened subgroup: 0.05 |
| Lipid screening | 23 (100 %) | 23 (100 %) | 21 (87.5 %) | 24 (100 %) | N/A | N/A |
| Treatment with statin | 16 (69.6 %) | 17 (73.9 %) | 13 (54.2 %) | 12 (50.0 %) | 0.4 (0.1–1.3) | 0.1 |
| Achieved BP goal | 9 (39.1 %) | 13 (56.5 %) | 10 (41.7 %) | 13 (54.2 %) | 0.9 (0.3–3.0) | 0.9 |
aRandom effects logistic regression was used to determine the effects of pharmacist MTM on proteinuria screening in the entire population, and then just among patients who were unscreened at baseline, accounting for the clustered design