4 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

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

    Get PDF
    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.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

    Remdesiviiri sairaalahoitoisessa COVID-19-taudissa : pragmaattinen, adaptiivinen, satunnaistettu Solidarity Finland -monikeskustutkimus

    Get PDF
    Lähtökohdat : Remdesiviiriä tutkittiin Solidarity Finland -tutkimuksessa. Menetelmät : COVID-19-taudin takia sairaalahoitoon joutuneet potilaat satunnaistettiin saamaan standardihoitoa tai sen lisäksi remdesiviiriä. Solidarity-tutkimuksessa ja satunnaistettujen ­tutkimusten meta-analyysissä ensisijainen päätetapahtuma oli sairaalahoitoajan kuolleisuus. Tulokset : Rekrytoimme 208 potilasta yhdestätoista sairaalasta. Sairaalahoidon aikana ­remdesiviiriryhmässä (n = 114) kuoli 1 % ja standardihoitoryhmässä (n = 94) 4 %. Invasiiviseen hengityslaitehoitoon joutui 5 % molemmissa ryhmissä. Tehohoitoa sai 11 % remdesiviiri- ja 12 % standardihoitoryhmässä. Maksaentsyymit nousivat merkittävästi 5 %:lla remdesiviiri- ja 2 %:lla standardihoitoryhmässä. Meta-analyysin alaryhmäanalyysissä remdesiviiri vähensi kuoleman riskiä potilailla, jotka eivät sairaalahoidon alkaessa saaneet hengityslaitehoitoa (RR 0,85, 95 % LV 0,75­–0,96). Päätelmät : Suomessa on pandemian aikana mahdollista rekrytoida merkittävä määrä potilaita suuriin, satunnaistettuihin tutkimuksiin, joilla voidaan saada luotettavia tuloksia nopeasti. Remdesiviiristä voi olla apua sairaalahoitoisessa COVID-19-taudissa varhain aloitettuna.publishedVersionPeer reviewe
    corecore