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 .

Psychiatric medications and the risk of autoimmune and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacovigilance reports have suggested that certain commonly used medications may trigger autoimmune diseases (ADs) and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate whether psychiatric medication use is associated with ADs and IMIDs. METHODS: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022296524) before the start of the study. We searched Medline Ovid and Scopus up to November 28th, 2021, for comparative studies, with any psychiatric medication as exposure and ADs and IMIDs as outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects modeling. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed in reporting. Study-level risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: There were 7,265 citations from which 31 studies were eligible, all from high-income countries, covering 15 distinct immune diseases. The evidence for the association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use and higher risk of microscopic colitis (meta-OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.05-6.39, I2 97.5%, 6 studies) was of low certainty. A subgroup analysis by the histological type of microscopic colitis showed a statistically significant association only with lymphocytic colitis (meta-OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.60-3.18, I2 00.00%, three studies). In two case-control studies, SSRI use had no significant association with psoriasis (meta-OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58-1.10, I2 82.4%). The risk of acute pancreatitis was slightly increased with exposure to SSRIs (meta-OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26, I2 00.0%), as was the risk of bullous pemphigoid after exposure to antipsychotics (meta-OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.17-2.73, I2 0%). CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed the literature on whether psychiatric medications associate with the risk of ADs and IMIDs and concluded that, despite several signals, the credibility of evidence remains low at best. Prospective cohort studies would be needed as the next step to confirm the suggestions of increased risk.

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134. FINDINGS: Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (pinteraction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated. FUNDING: EU-RESPONSE.

Autoimmune and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases after exposure to acid-suppressive medication: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacovigilance risk signals have proposed a relationship between the use of acid-suppressive medications and the development of certain autoimmune and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and a meta-analysis was performed. METHODS: We reviewed MEDLINE (Ovid) and Scopus for comparative observational studies between these diseases and previous exposure to proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA), and antacids. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020192715). RESULTS: From 3,191 citations, 25 articles were eligible and covered 16 diseases. Microscopic colitis (MC) was studied the most (7 studies). In a random-effects meta-analysis, there was low certainty evidence (GRADE approach) of a non-significant relationship between exposure to any PPIs and MC (meta-OR 3.28, 95% CI 0.98-11.0, I2 98.2%, six studies, 4,436 PPI-exposed MC patients). Moderate certainty evidence pointed towards large odds of collagenous colitis after exposure to lansoprazole (meta-OR 14.5, 95% CI 9.37-22.3, I2 10.2%, three studies, 1,725 lansoprazole-exposed patients). After PPI exposure, the risk of rheumatoid arthritis was slightly increased based on low certainty evidence from two cohort studies totaling 475 diagnoses (meta-RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12-2.34, I2 34.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MC, it would be reasonable to carefully review the indication of PPI, especially in CC patients using lansoprazole.

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.