Intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and improve comorbidity outcomes in hypertensive or depressed primary care patients: two parallel cluster randomized feasibility trials

Efficacy of screening and brief intervention for hazardous alcohol use in patients with mood disorders: A randomized clinical trial from a psychiatric out-patient clinic in India

AIM

To determine the efficacy of individual-based, face-to-face screening and brief intervention (SBI) for hazardous alcohol use among treatment-seeking outpatients with mood disorders.

METHODS

It was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of 84 participants who met the selection criteria for hazardous alcohol use, defined by alcohol use disorder identification test (AUDIT) score 8-19. Participants were randomly allocated to either SBI or general advice group. Both groups had received a standard care for mood disorders. The outcome was assessed after 3 months. The primary outcome was a change in the mean AUDIT score and the secondary outcomes were a change in frequency of heavy episodic drinking and stages of motivation.

RESULTS

Majority (60%) had major depressive episodes. There was no significant difference in baseline demography and clinical variables between the groups. Both intention to treat and per-protocol analyses showed a small but significant effect of SBI on mean AUDIT score. Age, baseline AUDIT, and motivation did not moderate the effect. SBI was associated with a significant decrease in the frequency of heavy drinking and improvement in stages of motivation.

CONCLUSION

SBI among patients with mood disorders had a small but significant effect on alcohol use.

Primary care-based screening and management of depression amongst heavy drinking patients: Interim secondary outcomes of a three-country quasi-experimental study in Latin America

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of evidence-based care for heavy drinking and depression remains low in global health systems. We tested the impact of providing community support, training, and clinical packages of varied intensity on depression screening and management for heavy drinking patients in Latin American primary healthcare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quasi-experimental study involving 58 primary healthcare units in Colombia, Mexico and Peru randomized to receive: (1) usual care (control); (2) training using a brief clinical package; (3) community support plus training using a brief clinical package; (4) community support plus training using a standard clinical package. Outcomes were proportion of: (1) heavy drinking patients screened for depression; (2) screen-positive patients receiving appropriate support; (3) all consulting patients screened for depression, irrespective of drinking status.

RESULTS

550/615 identified heavy drinkers were screened for depression (89.4%). 147/230 patients screening positive for depression received appropriate support (64%). Amongst identified heavy drinkers, adjusting for country, sex, age and provider profession, provision of community support and training had no impact on depression activity rates. Intensity of clinical package also did not affect delivery rates, with comparable performance for brief and standard versions. However, amongst all consulting patients, training providers resulted in significantly higher rates of alcohol measurement and in turn higher depression screening rates; 2.7 times higher compared to those not trained.

CONCLUSIONS

Training using a brief clinical package increased depression screening rates in Latin American primary healthcare. It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of community support on depression activity rates due to the impact of COVID-19.

Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Reducing Blood Pressure in Adults With Prehypertension to Established Hypertension

Background

Nonpharmacologic interventions that modify lifestyle can lower blood pressure (BP) and have been assessed in numerous randomized controlled trials and pairwise meta‐analyses. It is still unclear which intervention would be most efficacious.

Methods and Results

Bayesian network meta‐analyses were performed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different interventions for lowering BP. From 60 166 potentially relevant articles, 120 eligible articles (14 923 participants) with a median follow‐up of 12 weeks, assessing 22 nonpharmacologic interventions, were included. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality of evidence, for adults with prehypertension to established hypertension, high‐quality evidence indicated that the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH) was superior to usual care and all other nonpharmacologic interventions in lowering systolic BP (weighted mean difference, 6.97 mm Hg; 95% credible interval, 4.50–9.47) and diastolic BP (weighted mean difference, 3.54 mm Hg; 95% credible interval, 1.80–5.28). Compared with usual care, moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence indicated that aerobic exercise, isometric training, low‐sodium and high‐potassium salt, comprehensive lifestyle modification, breathing‐control, and meditation could lower systolic BP and diastolic BP. For patients with hypertension, moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence suggested that the interventions listed (except comprehensive lifestyle modification) were associated with greater systolic BP and diastolic BP reduction than usual care; salt restriction was also effective in lowering both systolic BP and diastolic BP. Among overweight and obese participants, low‐calorie diet and low‐calorie diet plus exercise could lower more BP than exercise.

Conclusions

DASH might be the most effective intervention in lowering BP for adults with prehypertension to established hypertension. Aerobic exercise, isometric training, low‐sodium and high‐potassium salt, comprehensive lifestyle modification, salt restriction, breathing‐control, meditation and low‐calorie diet also have obvious effects on BP reduction.

Alcohol intake reduction for controlling hypertension

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure constitutes one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity all over the world. At the same time, heavy drinking increases the risk for developing cardiovascular diseases, including cardiomyopathy, hypertension, atrial arrhythmias, or stroke. Several studies have already assessed specifically the relationship between alcohol intake and hypertension. However, the potential effect on blood pressure of alcohol intake reduction interventions is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of any intervention to reduce alcohol intake in terms of blood pressure decrease in hypertensive people with alcohol consumption compared to a control intervention or no intervention at all. To determine additional effects related to mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, or quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, and MEDLINE Ovid In-Process, Embase Ovid (from 1974), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Trial authors were contacted when needed and no language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with minimum 12 weeks duration and including 50 or more subjects per group with quantitative measurement of alcohol consumption and/or biological measurement of the outcomes of interest. Participants were adults (16 years of age or older) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90 mmHg, and SBP ≥ 130 or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg in participants with diabetes. We included any intervention implemented to reduce their alcohol intake.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures adopted by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1210 studies were screened. We included one randomised controlled trial involving a total of 269 participants with a two-year follow-up. Individual patient data for all participants were provided and used in this review. No differences were found between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group for overall mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.17; low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (not estimable) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.79; very low-certainty evidence). There was no statistical difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.92 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.66 to 3.82 mmHg; very low-certainty evidence) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decrease (MD 0.98 mmHg, 95% CI -1.69 to 3.65 mmHg; low-certainty evidence) between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group. We also did not find any differences in the proportion of subjects with SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.65; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning secondary outcomes, the alcohol intake was significantly reduced in the cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with the control group (MD 191.33 g, 95% CI 85.36 to 297.30 g). We found no differences between the active and control intervention in the proportion of subjects with lower-risk alcohol intake versus higher-risk and extreme drinkers at the end of the study (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.60). There were no estimable results for the quality of life outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An intervention for decreasing alcohol intake consumption did not result in differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with a control intervention, although there was a reduction in alcohol intake favouring the active intervention. No differences were found either for overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events. No data on serious adverse events or quality of life were available to assess. Adequate randomised controlled trials are needed to provide additional evidence on this specific question.

Effect of alcohol on blood pressure

BACKGROUND

Alcohol is consumed by over 2 billion people worldwide. It is a common substance of abuse and its use can lead to more than 200 disorders including hypertension. Alcohol has both acute and chronic effects on blood pressure. This review aimed to quantify the acute effects of different doses of alcohol over time on blood pressure and heart rate in an adult population.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To determine short-term dose-related effects of alcohol versus placebo on systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in healthy and hypertensive adults over 18 years of age. Secondary objective To determine short-term dose-related effects of alcohol versus placebo on heart rate in healthy and hypertensive adults over 18 years of age.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (from 1946); Embase (from 1974); the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant articles regarding further published and unpublished work. These searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effects of a single dose of alcohol versus placebo on blood pressure (BP) or heart rate (HR) in adults (≥ 18 years of age).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (ST and CT) independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. We also contacted trial authors for missing or unclear information. Mean difference (MD) from placebo with 95% confidence interval (CI) was the outcome measure, and a fixed-effect model was used to combine effect sizes across studies.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs involving 767 participants. Most of the study participants were male (N = 642) and were healthy. The mean age of participants was 33 years, and mean body weight was 78 kilograms. Low-dose alcohol (< 14 g) within six hours (2 RCTs, N = 28) did not affect BP but did increase HR by 5.1 bpm (95% CI 1.9 to 8.2) (moderate-certainty evidence). Medium-dose alcohol (14 to 28 g) within six hours (10 RCTs, N = 149) decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 5.6 mmHg (95% CI -8.3 to -3.0) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 4.0 mmHg (95% CI -6.0 to -2.0) and increased HR by 4.6 bpm (95% CI 3.1 to 6.1) (moderate-certainty evidence for all).  Medium-dose alcohol within 7 to 12 hours (4 RCTs, N = 54) did not affect BP or HR. Medium-dose alcohol > 13 hours after consumption (4 RCTs, N = 66) did not affect BP or HR. High-dose alcohol (> 30 g) within six hours (16 RCTs, N = 418) decreased SBP by 3.5 mmHg (95% CI -6.0 to -1.0), decreased DBP by 1.9 mmHg (95% CI-3.9 to 0.04), and increased HR by 5.8 bpm (95% CI 4.0 to 7.5). The certainty of evidence was moderate for SBP and HR, and was low for DBP. High-dose alcohol within 7 to 12 hours of consumption (3 RCTs, N = 54) decreased SBP by 3.7 mmHg (95% CI -7.0 to -0.5) and DBP by 1.7 mmHg (95% CI -4.6 to 1.8) and increased HR by 6.2 bpm (95% CI 3.0 to 9.3). The certainty of evidence was moderate for SBP and HR, and low for DBP. High-dose alcohol ≥ 13 hours after consumption (4 RCTs, N = 154) increased SBP by 3.7 mmHg (95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), DBP by 2.4 mmHg (95% CI 0.2 to 4.5), and HR by 2.7 bpm (95% CI 0.8 to 4.6) (moderate-certainty evidence for all).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-dose alcohol has a biphasic effect on BP; it decreases BP up to 12 hours after consumption and increases BP > 13 hours after consumption. High-dose alcohol increases HR at all times up to 24 hours. Findings of this review are relevant mainly to healthy males, as only small numbers of women were included in the included trials.

Preoperative behavioural intervention to reduce drinking before elective orthopaedic surgery: the PRE-OP BIRDS feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment.

DESIGN

A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment.

SETTING

The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual.

INTERVENTIONS

The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15-20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data.

RESULTS

The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Adolescents and Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Unhealthy alcohol use is common, increasing, and a leading cause of premature mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 12, 2017; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies and randomized clinical trials of screening and counseling to reduce unhealthy alcohol use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Counseling trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drinks per week, exceeding recommended limits, heavy use episodes, abstinence (for pregnant women), and other health, family, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen studies (N = 314 466) were included. No studies examined benefits or harms of screening programs to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. For adolescents (10 studies [n = 171 363]), 1 study (n = 225) reported a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86) using the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) to detect the full spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use. For adults (35 studies [n = 114 182]), brief screening instruments commonly reported sensitivity and specificity between 0.70 and 0.85. Two trials of the effects of interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents (n = 588) found mixed results: one reported a benefit in high-risk but not moderate-risk drinkers, and the other reported a statistically significant reduction in drinking frequency for boys but not girls; neither reported health or related outcomes. Across all populations (68 studies [n = 36 528]), counseling interventions were associated with a decrease in drinks per week (weighted mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.0]; 32 studies [37 effects; n = 15 974]), the proportion exceeding recommended drinking limits (odds ratio [OR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67]; 15 studies [16 effects; n = 9760]), and the proportion reporting a heavy use episode (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.77]; 12 studies [14 effects; n = 8108]), and an increase in the proportion of pregnant women reporting abstinence (OR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.43 to 3.56]; 5 studies [n = 796]) after 6 to 12 months. Health outcomes were sparsely reported and generally did not demonstrate group differences in effect. There was no evidence that these interventions could be harmful.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults, screening instruments feasible for use in primary care are available that can effectively identify people with unhealthy alcohol use, and counseling interventions in those who screen positive are associated with reductions in unhealthy alcohol use. There was no evidence that these interventions have unintended harmful effects.

The Effect of Brief Interventions for Alcohol Among People with Comorbid Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and Narrative Synthesis

Aims

To review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials.

Results

Seventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias.

Conclusions

Overall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively.

Preoperative Behavioural Intervention versus standard care to Reduce Drinking before elective orthopaedic Surgery (PRE-OP BIRDS): protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Evidence suggests that increased preoperative alcohol consumption increases the risk of postoperative complications; therefore, a reduction or cessation in alcohol intake before surgery may reduce perioperative risk. Preoperative assessment presents an opportunity to intervene to optimise patients for surgery. This multicentre, two-arm, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial will investigate whether a definitive trial of a brief behavioural intervention aimed at reducing preoperative alcohol consumption is feasible and acceptable to healthcare professionals responsible for its delivery and the preoperative elective orthopaedic patient population.

Methods

Screening will be conducted by trained healthcare professionals at three hospitals in the North East of England. Eligible patients (those aged 18 or over, listed for elective hip or knee arthroplasty surgery and scoring 5 or more or reporting consumption of six or more units on a single occasion at least weekly on the alcohol screening tool) who enrol in the trial will be randomised on a one-to-one non-blinded basis to either treatment as usual or brief behavioural intervention delivered in the pre-assessment clinic. Patients will be followed up 1–2 days pre-surgery, 1–5 days post-surgery (as an in-patient), 6 weeks post-surgery, and 6 months post intervention. Feasibility will be assessed through rates of screening, eligibility, recruitment, and retention to 6-month follow-up. An embedded qualitative study will explore the acceptability of study methods to patients and staff.

Discussion

This pilot randomised controlled trial will establish the feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures reducing uncertainties ahead of a definitive randomised controlled trial to establish the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in the preoperative period and the potential impact on perioperative complications.

Trial registration

Reference number ISRCTN36257982

Managing Alcohol Use Disorder in Primary Health Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study is to summarise the current literature on both the impact and the implementation of primary health care-based screening and advice programmes to reduce heavy drinking, as an evidence-based component of managing alcohol use disorder in primary health care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Systematic reviews of reviews find conclusive evidence for the impact of primary health care delivered screening and brief advice programmes in reducing heavy drinking. The content, length of advice and which profession delivers the advice seems less important than the actual encounter between provider and patient. Despite the global burden of disease due to heavy drinking and the evidence that this can be reduced by screening and brief advice programmes delivered in primary health care, such programmes remain poorly implemented. Were such programmes widely implemented, there would be substantial health and productivity gains. Systematic reviews and international studies indicate that improved implementation requires tailoring of training and programme content to match the needs of providers, training and ongoing support and embedding of programmes within local community support, championed by local leaders. The next stage of implementation and scale-up of evidence-based screening and brief advice programmes should take place embedded within supportive local community action, with appropriate research to demonstrate impact.

Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention: A Potential Role in Cancer Prevention for Young Adults

Excessive or risky alcohol use is a preventable cause of significant morbidity and mortality in the U.S. and worldwide. Alcohol use is a common preventable cancer risk factor among young adults; it is associated with increased risk of developing at least six types of cancer. Alcohol consumed during early adulthood may pose a higher risk of female breast cancer than alcohol consumed later in life. Reducing alcohol use may help prevent cancer. Alcohol misuse screening and brief counseling or intervention (also called alcohol screening and brief intervention among other designations) is known to reduce excessive alcohol use, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that it be implemented for all adults aged ≥18 years in primary healthcare settings. Because the prevalence of excessive alcohol use, particularly binge drinking, peaks among young adults, this time of life may present a unique window of opportunity to talk about the cancer risk associated with alcohol use and how to reduce that risk by reducing excessive drinking or misuse. This article briefly describes alcohol screening and brief intervention, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended approach, and suggests a role for it in the context of cancer prevention. The article also briefly discusses how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working to make alcohol screening and brief intervention a routine element of health care in all primary care settings to identify and help young adults who drink too much.

Scaling-up primary health care-based prevention and management of heavy drinking at the municipal level in middle-income countries in Latin America: Background and protocol for a three-country quasi-experimental study

Background: While primary health care (PHC)-based prevention and management of heavy drinking is clinically effective and cost-effective, it remains poorly implemented in routine practice. Systematic reviews and multi-country studies have demonstrated the ability of training and support programmes to increase PHC-based screening and brief advice activity to reduce heavy drinking. However, gains have been only modest and short term at best. WHO studies have concluded that a more effective uptake could be achieved by embedding PHC activity within broader community and municipal support.

Protocol: A quasi-experimental study will compare PHC-based prevention and management of heavy drinking in three intervention cities from Colombia, Mexico and Peru with three comparator cities from the same countries. In the implementation cities, primary health care units (PHCUs) will receive training embedded within ongoing supportive municipal action over an 18-month implementation period. In the comparator cities, practice as usual will continue at both municipal and PHCU levels. The primary outcome will be the proportion of consulting adult patients intervened with (screened and advice given to screen positives). The study is powered to detect a doubling of the outcome measure from an estimated 2.5/1,000 patients at baseline. Formal evaluation points will be at baseline, mid-point and end-point of the 18-month implementation period. We will present the ratio (plus 95% confidence interval) of the proportion of patients receiving intervention in the implementation cities with the proportions in the comparator cities. Full process evaluation will be undertaken, coupled with an analysis of potential contextual, financial and political-economy influencing factors.

Discussion: This multi-country study will test the extent to which embedding PHC-based prevention and management of alcohol use disorder with supportive municipal action leads to improved scale-up of more patients with heavy drinking receiving appropriate advice and treatment.

Study status: The four-year study will start on 1 ^st December 2017.

Screening and brief intervention for unhealthy substance use in patients with chronic medical conditions: a systematic review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This systematic review describes studies evaluating screening tools and brief interventions for addressing unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with hypertension, diabetes or depression.

BACKGROUND

Primary care is the main entry point to the health care system for most patients with comorbid unhealthy substance use and chronic medical conditions. Although of great public health importance, systematic reviews of screening tools and brief interventions for unhealthy substance use in this population that are also feasible for use in primary care have not been conducted.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We systematically review the research literature on evidence-based tools for screening for unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with depression, diabetes and hypertension, and utilising brief interventions with this population.

RESULTS

Despite recommendations to screen for and intervene with unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with chronic medical conditions, the review found little indication of routine use of these practices. Limited evidence suggested the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C screeners had adequate psychometric characteristics in patients with the selected chronic medical conditions. Screening scores indicating more severe alcohol use were associated with health-risk behaviours and poorer health outcomes, adding to the potential usefulness of screening for unhealthy alcohol use in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies support brief interventions' effectiveness with patients treated for hypertension or depression who hazardously use alcohol or cannabis, for both substance use and chronic medical condition outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Although small, the international evidence base suggests that screening with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test or Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C and brief interventions for primary care patients with chronic medical conditions, delivered by nurses or other providers, are effective for identifying unhealthy substance use and associated with healthy behaviours and improved outcomes. Lacking are studies screening for illicit drug use, and using single-item screening tools, which could be especially helpful for frontline primary care providers including nurses.

Lessons from a pilot and feasibility randomised trial in depression (Blood pressure Rapid Intensive Lowering And Normal Treatment for Mood and cognition in persistent depression (BRILiANT mood study))

BACKGROUND

The blood pressure rapid intensive lowering and normal treatment for mood and cognition in persistent depression (BRILiANT mood study) was devised as a pilot study to investigate the feasibility and safety of intensive blood pressure lowering as treatment for persistent mood and cognitive symptoms in older adults with major depressive disorder and to assess the availability of this population for recruitment. In addition, the relationship between reduced blood pressure and the change in cerebral blood flow and mood was to be investigated.

METHODS

A single centre pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), with two parallel groups of intensive or normal treatment for hypertension, recruiting from primary and secondary care and newspaper advert, with an aim of recruiting 66 participants, was observed in this study. At the end of the recruitment period, in order to explore the reasons for failure to recruit to target, surveys were developed and issued to those involved in recruitment.

RESULTS

Recruitment rates were lower than expected which led to the study being expanded to further areas and opened to self-referral via advertisement. However, because of better management of hypertension due to changes in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework guidelines for blood pressure treatment, few eligible patients were identified and the study closed at the end of the recruitment period, with 13 participants consenting, but 12 failing screening resulting in one recruited participant.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the BRILiANT mood study was found not to be feasible, and results suggest that the expected patient population no longer exists. To overcome such recruitment difficulties, a prompt commencement of a study after funding so no relevant care changes occur might help prevent similar problems in future studies. In addition, self-referral, in this case via advertisement in papers, may be a useful tool to increase response rate. When recruiting in primary care, direct access to primary care databases, in a secure and anonymised way, may enable more effective screening. Ultimately, the BRILiANT mood study was shown not to be feasible; this was a useful conclusion from this pilot study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 64524251; UKCRN Portfolio No: 13284.