Cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. An economic analysis using real-world data.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (OA) and rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system using patient data, health utilities and costs from a real-world situation. HYPOTHESIS: Our hypothesis was that arthroplasty for OA is more cost-effective than for CTA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We gathered a cohort of patients with 153 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for OA and 107 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for CTA between years 2016-2020 at a university hospital. Short-term (mean 2.8years) shoulder function, health utilities and costs were obtained from prospectively collected data, and a Markov cohort simulation was carried out to assess lifetime cost-utility. The primary outcome measures were change in 15D score to calculate gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and change in Western Ontario osteoarthritis score of the shoulder (WOOS). RESULTS: Both TSA and RSA restored shoulder function well, WOOS improvement was 59.7 (95% CI: 56.2-63.2) and 55.8 (95% CI: 50.4-61.2), respectively. The cost/QALY gained was 20,846.82 € for TSA and 38,711.90 € for RSA. The cost-utility was not remarkable sensitive to costs, discounting of future costs or estimated revision rates. However, the cost-effectiveness was very sensitive to change in 15D health utility scores and thus QALY gain, especially for RSA patients. DISCUSSION: Shoulder arthroplasty restores shoulder function well in both OA and CTA. In health economic terms, RSA is less cost-effective than TSA in an everyday setting, mainly due to inferior improvement of health-related quality-of-life and reduced life expectancy of CTA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case series.

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 .

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.

Implementation of a new Digi-HTA process for digital health technologies in Finland.

OBJECTIVES: There has been a lack of health technology assessment (HTA) methods for novel digital health technologies (DHTs) such as mHealth, artificial intelligence, and robotics in Finland. The Digi-HTA method has been developed for this purpose. The aim of this study is to determine whether it would be possible to use Digi-HTA recommendations to support healthcare decision-makers. Secondly, from the perspective of companies offering different types of DHT products, this study assesses the suitability of using the Digi-HTA framework to perform HTAs for their products. METHODS: Feedback about Digi-HTA recommendations was collected from healthcare professionals. DHT companies provided input about the Digi-HTA framework. Data were collected via a web-based survey and were analyzed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: Of the twenty-four healthcare professional respondents, twenty said that the Digi-HTA recommendations contained all the necessary information, and twenty-one found them useful for their work. Respondents hoped that the Digi-HTA recommendations would be better integrated into the decision-making processes and healthcare professionals would be more informed about this new HTA process. The questions of the Digi-HTA framework were applicable for different DHT products based on the responses from DHT companies (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: According to the study participants, although the Digi-HTA recommendations include clear and beneficial information, their integration into healthcare decision-making processes should be improved. Responses from DHT companies indicate that the Digi-HTA framework would be an appropriate tool for performing assessments for their products. To generalize the findings of this study, more comprehensive studies will be needed.