Staff training in positive behaviour support for behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability: cost-utility analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability is associated with higher healthcare, social care and societal costs. Although behavioural therapies are widely used, there is limited evidence regarding the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). AIMS: We aimed to assess the incremental cost per QALY gained of therapist training in positive behaviour support (PBS) and treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU using data from a cluster randomised controlled trial (Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT01680276). METHOD: We conducted a cost-utility analysis (cost per QALY gained) of 23 teams randomised to PBS or TAU, with a total of 246 participants followed up over 36 months. The primary analysis was from a healthcare cost perspective with a secondary analysis from a societal cost perspective. RESULTS: Over 36 months the intervention resulted in an additional 0.175 QALYs (discounted and adjusted 95% CI -0.068 to 0.418). The total cost of training in and delivery of PBS is £1598 per participant plus an additional cost of healthcare of £399 (discounted and adjusted 95% CI -603 to 1724). From a healthcare cost perspective there is an 85% probability that the intervention is cost-effective compared with TAU at a £30 000 willingness to pay for a QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high probability that training in PBS is cost-effective as the cost of training and delivery of PBS is balanced out by modest improvements in quality of life. However, staff training in PBS is not supported given we found no evidence for clinical effectiveness.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of a parent mediated intervention to reduce challenging behaviour in pre-schoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disability (EPICC-ID) study protocol: a multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Children with intellectual disabilities are likely to present with challenging behaviour. Parent mediated interventions have shown utility in influencing child behaviour, although there is a paucity of UK research into challenging behaviour interventions in this population. NICE guidelines favour Stepping Stones Triple P (SSTP) as a challenging behaviour intervention and this trial aims to evaluate its clinical and cost effectiveness in preschool children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. METHODS: This trial launched in 2017 at four sites across England, with the aim of recruiting 258 participants (aged 30-59 months). The Intervention Group receive nine weeks of SSTP parenting therapy (six group sessions and three individualised face to face or telephone sessions) in addition to Treatment as Usual, whilst the Treatment as Usual only group receive other available services in each location. Both study groups undergo the study measurements at baseline and at four and twelve months. Outcome measures include parent reports and structured observations of behaviour. Service use and health related quality of life data will also be collected to carry out a cost effectiveness and utility evaluation. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study will inform policy regarding interventions for challenging behaviour in young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03086876. Registered 22nd March 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876.

Positive behaviour support training for staff for treating challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities: a cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies have indicated that training staff in Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) may help to reduce challenging behaviour among people with intellectual disability (ID). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether or not such training is clinically effective in reducing challenging behaviour in routine care. The study also included longer-term follow-up (approximately 36 months). DESIGN: A multicentre, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-cluster randomised controlled trial. The unit of randomisation was the community ID service using an independent web-based randomisation system and random permuted blocks on a 1 : 1 allocation stratified by a staff-to-patient ratio for each cluster. SETTING: Community ID services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged > 18 years) across the range of ID with challenging behaviour [≥ 15 Aberrant Behaviour Checklist - Community total score (ABC-CT)]. INTERVENTIONS: Manual-assisted face-to-face PBS training to therapists and treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU only in the control arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Carer-reported changes in challenging behaviour as measured by the ABC-CT over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included psychopathology, community participation, family and paid carer burden, family carer psychopathology, costs of care and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Data on main outcome, service use and health-related quality of life were collected for the 36-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 246 participants were recruited from 23 teams, of whom 109 were in the intervention arm (11 teams) and 137 were in the control arm (12 teams). The difference in ABC-CT between the intervention and control arms [mean difference -2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.79 to 4.51; p = 0.528] was not statistically significant. No treatment effects were found for any of the secondary outcomes. The mean cost per participant in the intervention arm was £1201. Over 12 months, there was a difference in QALYs of 0.076 in favour of the intervention (95% CI 0.011 to 0.140 QALYs) and a 60% chance that the intervention is cost-effective compared with TAU from a health and social care cost perspective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Twenty-nine participants experienced 45 serious adverse events (intervention arm, n = 19; control arm, n = 26). PBS plans were available for 33 participants. An independent assessment of the quality of these plans found that all were less than optimal. Forty-six qualitative interviews were conducted with service users, family carers, paid carers and service managers as part of the process evaluation. Service users reported that they had learned to manage difficult situations and had gained new skills, and carers reported a positive relationship with therapists. At 36 months' follow-up (n = 184), the mean ABC-CT difference between arms was not significant (-3.70, 95% CI -9.25 to 1.85; p = 0.191). The initial cost-effectiveness of the intervention dissipated over time. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were low treatment fidelity and reach of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the main study and the naturalistic follow-up suggest that staff training in PBS as delivered in this study is insufficient to achieve significant clinical gains beyond TAU in community ID services. Although there is an indication that training in PBS is potentially cost-effective, this is not maintained in the longer term. There is increased scope to develop new approaches to challenging behaviour as well as optimising the delivery of PBS in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered as NCT01680276. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analyses for mirtazapine and sertraline in dementia: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia. METHOD: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0-13 weeks and 0-39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods. RESULTS: There were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.

Sertraline or mirtazapine for depression in dementia (HTA-SADD): a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in dementia but the evidence base for appropriate drug treatment is sparse and equivocal. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of two of the most commonly prescribed drugs, sertraline and mirtazapine, compared with placebo. METHODS: We undertook the parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Health Technology Assessment Study of the Use of Antidepressants for Depression in Dementia (HTA-SADD) trial in participants from old-age psychiatry services in nine centres in England. Participants were eligible if they had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, depression (lasting ≥4 weeks), and a Cornell scale for depression in dementia (CSDD) score of 8 or more. Participants were ineligible if they were clinically critical (eg, suicide risk), contraindicated to study drugs, on antidepressants, in another trial, or had no carer. The clinical trials unit at King's College London (UK) randomly allocated participants with a computer-generated block randomisation sequence, stratified by centre, with varying block sizes, in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive sertraline (target dose 150 mg per day), mirtazapine (45 mg), or placebo (control group), all with standard care. The primary outcome was reduction in depression (CSDD score) at 13 weeks (outcomes to 39 weeks were also assessed), assessed with a mixed linear-regression model adjusted for baseline CSDD, time, and treatment centre. This study is registered, number ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38. FINDINGS: Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. Fewer controls had adverse reactions (29 of 111 [26%]) than did participants in the sertraline group (46 of 107, 43%; p=0·010) or mirtazapine group (44 of 108, 41%; p=0·031), and fewer serious adverse events rated as severe (p=0·003). Five patients in every group died by week 39. INTERPRETATION: Because of the absence of benefit compared with placebo and increased risk of adverse events, the present practice of use of these antidepressants, with usual care, for first-line treatment of depression in Alzheimer's disease should be reconsidered. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research HTA Programme.