Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%).

CONCLUSION

De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/ueq32 .

Effect of remdesivir post hospitalization for COVID-19 infection from the randomized SOLIDARITY Finland trial

We report the first long-term follow-up of a randomized trial (NCT04978259) addressing the effects of remdesivir on recovery (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes one year after hospitalization resulting from COVID-19. Of the 208 patients recruited from 11 Finnish hospitals, 198 survived, of whom 181 (92%) completed follow-up. At one year, self-reported recovery occurred in 85% in remdesivir and 86% in standard of care (SoC) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47-1.90). We infer no convincing difference between remdesivir and SoC in quality of life or symptom outcomes (p > 0.05). Of the 21 potential long-COVID symptoms, patients reported moderate/major bother from fatigue (26%), joint pain (22%), and problems with memory (19%) and attention/concentration (18%). In conclusion, after a one-year follow-up of hospitalized patients, one in six reported they had not recovered well from COVID-19. Our results provide no convincing evidence of remdesivir benefit, but wide confidence intervals included possible benefit and harm.

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design.

REGISTRATION

OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.