Maria Cary

Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction

BACKGROUND Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain. AIMS To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. METHOD Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources. RESULTS Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin. CONCLUSIONS Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.

Economic Evaluation of Multisystemic Therapy for Young People at Risk for Continuing Criminal Activity in the UK

Objective To evaluate whether multisystemic therapy (MST) is more cost-effective than statutory interventions that are currently available for young offenders in England. Method A cost-offset evaluation of MST based on data from a randomised controlled trial conducted in North London, England, comparing MST with usual services provided by two youth offending teams (YOT). Service costs were compared to cost savings in terms of rates of criminal re-offending. Results 108 adolescents, aged 11–17 years, were randomly allocated to MST+YOT (n = 56) or YOT alone (n = 52). Reductions in offending were evident in both groups, but were higher in the MST+YOT group. At 18-month follow-up, the MST+YOT group cost less in terms of criminal activity (£9,425 versus £11,715, p = 0.456). The MST+YOT group were significantly cheaper in terms of YOT services than the YOT group (£3,402 versus £4,619, p = 0.006), but more expensive including the cost of MST, although not significantly so (£5,687 versus £4,619, p = 0.195). The net benefit per young person for the 18-month follow-up was estimated to be £1,222 (95% CI −£5,838 to £8,283). Conclusions The results reported in this study support the finding that MST+YOT has scope for cost-savings when compared to YOT alone. However, the limitations of the study in terms of method of economic evaluation, outcome measures used and data quality support the need for further research.

The effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: an evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND Child maltreatment is a substantial social problem that affects large numbers of children and young people in the UK, resulting in a range of significant short- and long-term psychosocial problems. OBJECTIVES To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions addressing the adverse consequences of child maltreatment. STUDY DESIGN For effectiveness, we included any controlled study. Other study designs were considered for economic decision modelling. For acceptability, we included any study that asked participants for their views. PARTICIPANTS Children and young people up to 24 years 11 months, who had experienced maltreatment before the age of 17 years 11 months. INTERVENTIONS Any psychosocial intervention provided in any setting aiming to address the consequences of maltreatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Psychological distress [particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, and self-harm], behaviour, social functioning, quality of life and acceptability. METHODS Young Persons and Professional Advisory Groups guided the project, which was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance. Departures from the published protocol were recorded and explained. Meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses of available data were undertaken where possible. RESULTS We identified 198 effectiveness studies (including 62 randomised trials); six economic evaluations (five using trial data and one decision-analytic model); and 73 studies investigating treatment acceptability. Pooled data on cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for sexual abuse suggested post-treatment reductions in PTSD [standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.44 (95% CI -4.43 to -1.53)], depression [mean difference -2.83 (95% CI -4.53 to -1.13)] and anxiety [SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.03 to -0.42)]. No differences were observed for post-treatment sexualised behaviour, externalising behaviour, behaviour management skills of parents, or parental support to the child. Findings from attachment-focused interventions suggested improvements in secure attachment [odds ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.70)] and reductions in disorganised behaviour [SMD 0.23 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.42)], but no differences in avoidant attachment or externalising behaviour. Few studies addressed the role of caregivers, or the impact of the therapist-child relationship. Economic evaluations suffered methodological limitations and provided conflicting results. As a result, decision-analytic modelling was not possible, but cost-effectiveness analysis using effectiveness data from meta-analyses was undertaken for the most promising intervention: CBT for sexual abuse. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of CBT were limited by the lack of cost data beyond the cost of CBT itself. CONCLUSIONS It is not possible to draw firm conclusions about which interventions are effective for children with different maltreatment profiles, which are of no benefit or are harmful, and which factors encourage people to seek therapy, accept the offer of therapy and actively engage with therapy. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. LIMITATIONS Studies were largely conducted outside the UK. The heterogeneity of outcomes and measures seriously impacted on the ability to conduct meta-analyses. FUTURE WORK Studies are needed that assess the effectiveness of interventions within a UK context, which address the wider effects of maltreatment, as well as specific clinical outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003889. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can provide the best evidence to inform decision-making, but their methodological and reporting quality varies. Tools exist to guide the critical appraisal of quality and risk of bias in SRs, but evaluations of their measurement properties are limited. We will investigate the interrater reliability (IRR), usability, and applicability of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) for SRs in the fields of biomedicine and public health.MethodsAn international team of researchers at three collaborating centres will undertake the study. We will use a random sample of 30 SRs of RCTs investigating therapeutic interventions indexed in MEDLINE in February 2014. Two reviewers at each centre will appraise the quality and risk of bias in each SR using AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS. We will record the time to complete each assessment and for the two reviewers to reach consensus for each SR. We will extract the descriptive characteristics of each SR, the included studies, participants, interventions, and comparators. We will also extract the direction and strength of the results and conclusions for the primary outcome. We will summarise the descriptive characteristics of the SRs using means and standard deviations, or frequencies and proportions. To test for interrater reliability between reviewers and between the consensus agreements of reviewer pairs, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For comparability to previous evaluations, we will also calculate weighted Cohen’s kappa and Fleiss’ kappa statistics. To estimate usability, we will calculate the mean time to complete the appraisal and to reach consensus for each tool. To inform applications of the tools, we will test for statistical associations between quality scores and risk of bias judgments, and the results and conclusions of the SRs.DiscussionAppraising the methodological and reporting quality of SRs is necessary to determine the trustworthiness of their conclusions. Which tool may be most reliably applied and how the appraisals should be used is uncertain; the usability of newly developed tools is unknown. This investigation of common (AMSTAR) and newly developed (AMSTAR 2, ROBIS) tools will provide empiric data to inform their application, interpretation, and refinement.