Carolina Barbosa

The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol- dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model

Objectives To determine whether nalmefene combined with psychosocial support is cost-effective compared with psychosocial support alone for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels (DRLs) as defined by the WHO, and to evaluate the public health benefit of reducing harmful alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths. Design Decision modelling using Markov chains compared costs and effects over 5 years. Setting The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. Participants The model considered the licensed population for nalmefene, specifically adults with both alcohol dependence and high/very high DRLs, who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue to have high/very high DRLs after initial assessment. Data sources We modelled treatment effect using data from three clinical trials for nalmefene (ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)). Baseline characteristics of the model population, treatment resource utilisation and utilities were from these trials. We estimated the number of alcohol-attributable events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption based on published epidemiological risk-relation studies. Health-related costs were from UK sources. Main outcome measures We measured incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and number of alcohol-attributable harmful events avoided. Results Nalmefene in combination with psychosocial support had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the £20 000 per QALY gained decision threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to the avoidance of 7179 alcohol-attributable diseases/injuries and 309 deaths per 100 000 patients compared to psychosocial support alone over the course of 5 years. Conclusions Nalmefene can be seen as a cost-effective treatment for alcohol dependence, with substantial public health benefits. Trial registration numbers This cost-effectiveness analysis was developed based on data from three randomised clinical trials: ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941).

Cost to conduct screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in healthcare settings

From International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs (INEBRIA) Meeting 2013 Rome, Italy. 18-20 September 2013.

SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study. METHODS This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctors conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability. DISCUSSION The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.

Cost of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Health Care Settings ☆ ☆☆ ★

AIMS This study analyzed service unit and annual costs of substance abuse screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) programs implemented in emergency department (ED), inpatient, and outpatient medical settings in three U.S. states and one tribal organization. METHODS Unit costs and annual costs were estimated from the perspective of service providers. Data for unit costs came from 26 performance sites, and data for annual costs came from 10 programs. A bottom-up approach was used to derive unit costs and included labor, space, and materials used in each SBIRT activity. Activities included direct SBIRT services and activities that support direct service delivery. Labor time spent in each activity was collected by trained observers using a time-and-motion approach. A top-down approach used cost questionnaires completed by program administrators to calculate annual costs and included labor, space, contracted services, overhead, training, travel, equipment, and supplies and materials. Costs were estimated in 2012 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Average unit costs for prescreening, screening, brief intervention, brief treatment, and referral to treatment were

Return on Investment of a Work–Family Intervention: Evidence From the Work, Family, and Health Network

0.61,

The “Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol” [ORBITAL] framework: Protocol to determine a core outcome set for efficacy and effectiveness trials of alcohol screening and brief intervention

6.59,

Cost and Return on Investment of a Work–family Intervention in the Extended Care Industry: Evidence From the Work, Family, and Health Network

10.48,

Routine Use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin For Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis After Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

22.63, and

Commentary on Zur & Zaric and Shepard et al. (2016): Cost-effectiveness of SBI for alcohol–where are we and where do we want to go?

12.06 in ED;

Implementing adolescent SBIRT in an urban federally qualified health center: generalist vs. specialist service delivery models

0.86,