Dataset Information

Treatment interventions to maintain abstinence from alcohol in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care.

Design:Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources:Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Study selection:Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more interventions that could be used in primary care. The population was patients with alcohol dependency diagnosed by standardised clinical tools and who became detoxified within four weeks.

Data extraction:Outcomes of interest were continuous abstinence from alcohol (effectiveness) and all cause dropouts (as a proxy for acceptability) at least 12 weeks after start of intervention.

Results:64 trials (43 interventions) were included. The median probability of abstinence across placebo arms was 25%. Compared with placebo, the only intervention associated with increased probability of abstinence and moderate certainty evidence was acamprosate (odds ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.33, corresponding to an absolute probability of 38%). Of the 62 included trials that reported all cause dropouts, interventions associated with a reduced number of dropouts compared with placebo (probability 50%) and moderate certainty of evidence were acamprosate (0.73, 0.62 to 0.86; 42%), naltrexone (0.70, 0.50 to 0.98; 41%), and acamprosate-naltrexone (0.30, 0.13 to 0.67; 17%). Acamprosate was the only intervention associated with moderate confidence in the evidence of effectiveness and acceptability up to 12 months. It is uncertain whether other interventions can help maintain abstinence and reduce dropouts because of low confidence in the evidence.

Conclusions:Evidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care.

Systematic review registration:PROSPERO CRD42016049779.

SUBMITTER: Cheng HY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7687021 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment interventions to maintain abstinence from alcohol in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Cheng Hung-Yuan HY McGuinness Luke A LA Elbers Roy G RG MacArthur Georgina J GJ Taylor Abigail A McAleenan Alexandra A Dawson Sarah S López-López José A JA Higgins Julian P T JPT Cowlishaw Sean S Lingford-Hughes Anne A Hickman Matthew M Kessler David D

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20201125

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and network meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.<h4>Study selection</h4>Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more interventions that could be used in primary ca ...[more]

PMID: 33239318

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS:Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of present study is to quantitatively evaluate the association between different interventions and abstinence rates based on network meta-analysis. METHOD:Following PRISMA guidelines, randomized clinical trials that compared different alcoholic interventions for alcohol use disorders associated with abstinence rates in treatment sessions or/and follow-up sessions were recruited. Main data synthesis was performed by Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, and the relative ranking of interventions was estimated by cumulative probability P values (SUCRA). Funnel plot symmetry was used to detect publication bias. Moreover, pair-wised comparison was also conducted to determine the statistical difference and forest plots were generated to calculate the differences between the groups. The Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were utilized for the recommendations of evidence from pairwise direct comparisons. RESULTS:A total of 137 RCTs containing 27,282 participants and 8 variations of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, contingency management, and brief intervention used as treatment interventions were included. In summary, contingency management plus psychotherapy was demonstrated to be effective and possessed the best rank of achieving the highest abstinence rate in treatment sessions (SUCRA, 0.61). Pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy also revealed its efficacy and was associated with the highest abstinence rate in follow-up sessions (SUCRA, 0.40). More importantly, psychotherapy alone was demonstrated not to be associated with higher abstinence rates in both treatment (OR, 1.052; 95% CI, 0.907-1.220) and follow-up sessions (OR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.552-1.693), yet pharmacotherapy seemed to be the only intervention associated with higher abstinence rates compared to controls in both sessions (treatment session: OR, 1.074; 95% CI, 1.002-1.152) (follow-up session: OR, 1.442; 95% CI, 1.094-1.900). CONCLUSIONS:Contingency management plus psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy were demonstrated to be associated with the highest abstinence rates in treatment sessions and follow-up sessions, respectively. However, contingency management and pharmacotherapy seemed to be the substantial crucial factors allowing for the maintenance of the highest abstinence rates in respective sessions, although we need more evidence for further validation.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nearly 50% of depressed primary care patients referred to mental health services do not initiate mental health treatment. The most promising interventions for increasing depression treatment initiation in primary care settings remain unclear. METHODS:We performed a systematic search of publicly available databases from inception through August 2017 to identify interventions designed to increase depression treatment initiation. Two authors independently selected, extracted data, and rated risk of bias from included studies. Eligible studies used a randomized or pre-post design and assessed depression treatment initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 mental health visit or antidepressant fill) among adults, the majority of whom met criteria for depression. Interventions were classified as simple or complex and sub-classified into intervention strategies that were graded for strength of evidence. RESULTS:Of 9516 articles identified, we included 14 unique studies representing 16 (4 simple and 12 complex) interventions and 8 treatment initiation strategies. We found low to moderate strength of evidence for collaborative/integrated care (3 studies), treatment preference matching (2 studies), and case management (2 studies) strategies. However, there was insufficient evidence to determine the benefit of cultural tailoring (2 studies), motivation (alone, with reminders or with cultural tailoring (5 studies)), education (1 study), and shared decision-making strategies (1 study). Overall, we found moderate strength of evidence for complex interventions (8 of 12 complex interventions demonstrated statistically significant effects on treatment initiation). DISCUSSION:Collaborative/integrated care, preference treatment matching, and case management strategies had the best evidence for improving depression treatment initiation, but none of the strategies had high strength of evidence. While primary care settings can consider using some of these strategies when referring depressed patients to treatment, our review highlights the need for further rigorous research in this area.

Project description:AimTo compare the effectiveness of practitioner versus digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis comprising comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials, robust screening and selection methods and appraisal with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using random effects, frequentist models. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to assess confidence in effect sizes.SettingOnline or community or health settings where the intervention was immediately accessible without referral.ParticipantsNon treatment-seeking hazardous or harmful drinkers.MeasurementsPrimary outcome was mean difference in alcohol consumption (g/wk); secondary outcome was number of single high intensity drinking episodes. Baseline consumption was analysed as a covariate.FindingsOf 201 included trials (94 753 participants), 152 reported a consumption outcome that could be converted to grams/week; 104 reported number of single high intensity drinking episodes. At 1 and 6 months, practitioner delivered interventions reduced consumption more than digitally delivered interventions (1 month: -23 g/wk (95% CI, -43 to -2); 6 months: -14 g/wk [95% CI, -25 to -3]). At 12 months there was no evidence of difference between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions (-6 g/wk [95% CI, -24 to 12]). There was no evidence of a difference in single high intensity drinking episodes between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions at any time point. Effect sizes were small, but could impact across a population with relatively high prevalence of hazardous and harmful drinking. Heterogeneity was a concern. Some inconsistency was indicated at 1 and 6 months, but little evidence was apparent at 12 months.ConclusionPractitioner delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption are more effective than digitally delivered interventions up to 6 months; at 12 months there is no evidence of a difference.

Project description:ImportanceIncidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.ObjectiveTo compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.ResultsEighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.Conclusions and relevanceThe current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.

Dataset Information

Treatment interventions to maintain abstinence from alcohol in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Treatment interventions to maintain abstinence from alcohol in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets