Assertive outreach treatment versus care as usual for the treatment of high-need, high-cost alcohol related frequent attenders: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related hospital admissions have doubled in the last ten years to > 1.2 m per year in England. High-need, high-cost (HNHC) alcohol-related frequent attenders (ARFA) are a relatively small subgroup of patients, having multiple admissions or attendances from alcohol during a short time period. This trial aims to test the effectiveness of an assertive outreach treatment (AOT) approach in improving clinical outcomes for ARFA, and reducing resource use in the acute setting. METHODS: One hundred and sixty ARFA patients will be recruited and following baseline assessment, randomly assigned to AOT plus care as usual (CAU) or CAU alone in equal numbers. Baseline assessment includes alcohol consumption and related problems, physical and mental health comorbidity and health and social care service use in the previous 6 months using standard validated tools, plus a measure of resource use. Follow-up assessments at 6 and 12 months after randomization includes the same tools as baseline plus standard measure of patient satisfaction. Outcomes for CAU + AOT and CAU at 6 and 12 months will be compared, controlling for pre-specified baseline measures. Primary outcome will be percentage of days abstinent at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include emergency department (ED) attendance, number and length of hospital admissions, alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, other health service use, mental and physical comorbidity 6 and 12 months post intervention. Health economic analysis will estimate the economic impact of AOT from health, social care and societal perspectives and explore cost-effectiveness in terms of quality adjusted life years and alcohol consumption at 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: AOT models piloted with alcohol dependent patients have demonstrated significant reductions in alcohol consumption and use of unplanned National Health Service (NHS) care, with increased engagement with alcohol treatment services, compared with patients receiving CAU. While AOT interventions are costlier per case than current standard care in the UK, the rationale for targeting HNHC ARFAs is because of their disproportionate contribution to overall alcohol burden on the NHS. No previous studies have evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AOT for HNHC ARFAs: this randomized controlled trial (RCT) targeting ARFAs across five South London NHS Trusts is the first. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International standard randomized controlled trial number (ISRCTN) registry: ISRCTN67000214, retrospectively registered 26/11/2016.

'I'm not a real boozer': a qualitative study of primary care patients' views on drinking and its consequences.

BACKGROUND: The public health message around alcohol is complex, with benefits versus harms, the confusing concept of risk and drinking guidance changing over time. This provides a difficult context for alcohol screening in primary care, with established barriers from the practitioner perspective, but less is known about the patients' perspective. This study explores patients' views on drinking. METHODS: Eligible participants were recorded as drinking above low risk levels in primary care. Six practices in North London participated. Interviews were in-depth, semi-structured, transcribed verbatim and underwent detailed thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Interviews were conducted with 8 women and 12 men, aged 26-83 years, mostly educated to undergraduate level and of 'White' ethnicity. UK drinking guidance was viewed as irrelevant for reasons related to life stage, lifestyle and absence of harm. Dependence, loss of functionality and control were perceived as key features of problematic drinking. Healthy lifestyles, in terms of diet, exercise and not smoking, were thought to mitigate potential problems associated with alcohol intake. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that public health messages and brief advice should focus on harm experienced at different life stages, among people with different lifestyles, to challenge the ubiquitous view that 'I'm not a real boozer'.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with an inadequate response to standard treatment (including DMARD therapy). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The literature search covered a range of 13 medical databases and submissions were provided by the manufacturers of etanercept and infliximab. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of etanercept or infliximab that reported outcomes of disease activity in PsA were reviewed. RESULTS: There were two good quality double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs each for etanercept and infliximab. The results demonstrated that after initial treatment (12 weeks for etanercept and 14 or 16 weeks for infliximab) both drugs had statistically significant beneficial effects compared with placebo on ACR 20, 50 and 70, PsARC and HAQ scores. Efficacy was not dependent upon concomitant methotrexate. Results at 24 weeks indicated that the response to treatment is maintained. Effects on psoriasis were beneficial, particularly with infliximab. Uncontrolled radiographic assessment data at one year indicated a beneficial effect of both etanercept and infliximab on the progression of joint disease. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that both etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. There are limited data indicating that etanercept and infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Further long-term data are required to confirm and consolidate the evidence base for both drugs.

Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases and several Internet resources were searched up to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of the efficacy, safety and economic reviews of etanercept and efalizumab. An existing systematic review of the efficacy and safety of other treatments was also updated. Economic models supplied by the manufacturers of etanercept and efalizumab were critiqued. An economic model was then developed of etanercept and efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. RESULTS: The review of the clinical evidence identified a total of 39 published and three unpublished studies: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of etanercept (three trials) and efalizumab (five); 10 studies of the adverse effects of the interventions; and 24 RCTs of the efficacy of the other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. The trials of the efficacy of the interventions were all double-blind and placebo-controlled trials and generally of good quality, but three of the five efalizumab trials were poorly reported. A total of 1347 patients were included in the etanercept trials and 2963 in the efalizumab trials. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 25 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from three RCTs. On average, active treatment resulted in 62% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 33% achieving a PASI 75, 11% achieving a PASI 90 and 40% were assessed as clear or almost clear. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. Improvement in quality of life as assessed by mean percentage change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was around 59% with etanercept 25 mg twice a week compared with 9% with placebo, and all mean differences that could be calculated were statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 50 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from two RCTs. Across the two trials, the proportion of patients achieving PASI 50, 75 and 90 was 76, 49 and 21%, respectively; the pooled relative risks were all statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. The findings for mean PASI after treatment, mean percentage change in PASI from baseline and mean percentage change in DLQI also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept treatment. Evidence from one RCT indicates that the response to etanercept is maintained post-treatment, at least in the medium term, and data from uncontrolled follow-up phases reflect and extend these findings. Efalizumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg once a week subcutaneously was studied in five RCTs. Across these trials, 12 weeks of active treatment resulted in an average of 55% of patients achieving PASI 50, 27% PASI 75, 4.3% PASI 90 and 27% clear or minimal psoriasis status. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. There is no evidence from RCTs that the response to efalizumab 1 mg/kg once a week is maintained when treatment continues beyond 12 weeks, and long-term follow-up data relate to a range of doses and are poorly reported and so cannot be used to draw even tentative conclusions regarding the long-term efficacy of efalizumab. Uncontrolled data from trial follow-up suggest that time to relapse may be around 60 days. No data indicating the existence or absence of any rebound in psoriasis after discontinuation of efalizumab were identified. There is no evidence relating to the efficacy of efalizumab upon retreatment. A mixed treatment comparison analysis found a higher response rate in terms of PASI 50, 75 and 90 with etanercept than with efalizumab. Injection site reactions appear to be the most common adverse effects of etanercept. Overall, etanercept appears to be well tolerated in short- and long-term use, although many of the long-term data are not from patients with psoriasis. Headache, chills and, to a lesser extent, nausea, myalgia, pain and fever are the common adverse events associated with efalizumab. Overall, withdrawal rates due to adverse events are low. Longer term data for efalizumab are not readily available for evaluation, but the adverse events data up to 3 years appear to reflect those over 12 weeks and to remain stable. Unfortunately, few data for serious infections and serious adverse events with efalizumab are available. For the primary analysis comparing etanercept, efalizumab and supportive care, the results of the York Model suggest that the biological therapies would only be cost-effective for all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis if the NHS were willing to pay over pound 60,000 per QALY gained. In patients with poor baseline quality of life (fourth quartile DLQI), efalizumab, etanercept 25 mg (intermittent), etanercept 25 mg (continuous) and etanercept 50 mg (intermittent) would be cost-effective as part of a treatment sequence if the NHS were willing to pay pound 45,000, pound 35,000, pound 45,000 and pound 65,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients who are also at high risk of inpatient hospitalisation (21 days per annum), these therapies would be cost-effective as part of a sequence as long as the NHS were willingness to pay pound 25,000, pound 20,000, pound 25,000 and pound 45,000 per QALY gained, respectively. As part of a secondary analysis including a wider range of systemic therapies as comparators, the York Model found that it would only be cost-effective to use etanercept and efalizumab in a sequence after methotrexate, ciclosporin and Fumaderm. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data indicate that both etanercept and efalizumab are efficacious in patients who are eligible for systemic therapy, but the economic evaluation demonstrates that these biological therapies are likely to be cost-effective only in patients with poor baseline QoL and who are at risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy trials conducted in the specific population for which etanercept and efalizumab are licensed are required, as are long-term comparisons of etanercept and efalizumab with other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. Long-term efficacy trials and safety/tolerability data for patients treated with etanercept or efalizumab are required, as are trials on the response of specific subtypes of psoriasis to different drugs. Research on the rate of inpatient hospitalisation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis is warranted, and the effect of treatment on this rate.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have inadequate response to standard treatment, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2004. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review evaluated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of etanercept and infliximab. The efficacy of DMARDs in the treatment of PsA was also reviewed and treatments were compared using Bayesian evidence synthesis methods. Following evaluation of existing economic evaluations of etanercept and infliximab in PsA, a new economic model was developed (the York Model). This utilised the results from the evidence synthesis and data from a range of other sources. RESULTS: Across the two trials, at 12 weeks, around 65% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 {pooled relative risk (RR) 4.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.74 to 6.42]}, demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. In addition, around 45% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an ACR 50 [pooled RR 10.84 (95% CI 4.47 to 26.28)] and around 12% achieved an ACR 70 [pooled RR 16.28 (95% CI 2.20 to 120.54)], demonstrating a good level of efficacy. The subgroup analyses conducted in one trial revealed that the effect of etanercept was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. In addition, almost 85% of patients treated with etanercept achieved a Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [pooled RR 2.60 (95% CI 1.96 to 3.45). The Psoriatic Area and Severity Index (PASI) results indicate some beneficial effect on psoriasis at 12 weeks; however, the data are sparse. The statistically significant reduction (improvement) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score with etanercept compared with placebo indicates a beneficial effect of etanercept on function. Similar results were seen at 24 weeks, except that the results for PASI 75 and PASI 50 now achieved statistical significance and data for Total Sharp Score annualised rate of progression were available; this was statistically significantly lower in etanercept-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients. Uncontrolled follow-up of patients indicates that treatment benefit may be maintained for at least 50 weeks. At 16 weeks, 65% of patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 20 [RR 6.80 (95% CI 2.89 to 16.01)], demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. This level of efficacy was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. Almost half the patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 50 [RR 49.00 (95% CI 3.06 to 785.06)] and over one-quarter achieved an ACR 70 [RR 31.00 (95% CI 1.90 to 504.86)] compared with none of the placebo group, demonstrating a good level of efficacy. In addition, 75% of patients treated with infliximab achieved a PsARC [RR 3.55 (95% CI 2.05 to 6.13)]. The beneficial treatment effect on psoriasis was also statistically significant with a mean difference in percentage change from baseline in PASI of -5 (95% CI -6.8 to -3.3), as was the percentage improvement from baseline in HAQ score with infliximab compared with placebo [mean difference 51.4 (95% CI 48.08 to 54.72)], indicating a beneficial effect of infliximab on functional status. Uncontrolled data from all measures of joint disease, psoriasis and HAQ collected up to 50 weeks of follow-up reflect those at 16 weeks. There were no radiographic assessments, so nothing can be determined about the potential or otherwise of infliximab to delay the progression of joint disease. Using the York cost-effectiveness model, infliximab was consistently dominated by etanercept because of its higher acquisition and administration costs without superior effectiveness. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of etanercept compared with palliative care ranged from 14,818 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,374 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) if it is assumed that, when patients eventually fail on biological therapy, their disability (in terms of HAQ score) deteriorates by the same amount as it improved when they initially respond to treatment (rebound equal to gain). Results for etanercept ranged from 25,443 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,441 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) per QALY gained under the assumption that, when patients fail on therapy, their disability level returns to what it would have been had they never responded (rebound equal to natural history). CONCLUSIONS: The limited data available indicated that etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. Short-term data indicated that etanercept can delay joint disease progression, but long-term data are needed. There are no controlled data as yet to indicate that infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Treatment with both etanercept and infliximab for 12 weeks demonstrated a significant degree of efficacy, with no statistically significant difference between them. For both drugs, adverse events were common with mild injection/infusion reactions being the main treatment-related effect. The York model indicated that etanercept is more cost-effective than infliximab as it has a lower cost with little difference in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept is also sensitive to assumptions made about the extent of disease progression when patients are responding to therapy. The number of years for which a patient can be safely on biologicals is uncertain so these results should be considered with caution. Further research should include long-term controlled trials to confirm benefits, review adverse events and to explore further the implications of biologic therapy.