'Quitlink': Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of peer researcher facilitated referral to a tailored quitline tobacco treatment for people receiving mental health services.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a tailored quitline tobacco treatment ('Quitlink') among people receiving support for mental health conditions. METHODS: We employed a prospective, cluster-randomised, open, blinded endpoint design to compare a control condition to our 'Quitlink' intervention. Both conditions received a brief intervention delivered by a peer researcher. Control participants received no further intervention. Quitlink participants were referred to a tailored 8-week quitline intervention delivered by dedicated Quitline counsellors plus combination nicotine replacement therapy. The primary outcome was self-reported 6 months continuous abstinence from end of treatment (8 months from baseline). Secondary outcomes included additional smoking outcomes, mental health symptoms, substance use and quality of life. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 110 participants were recruited over 26 months and 91 had confirmed outcomes at 8 months post baseline. There was a difference in self-reported prolonged abstinence at 8-month follow-up between Quitlink (16%, n = 6) and control (2%, n = 1) conditions, which was not statistically significant (OR = 8.33 [0.52, 132.09] p = 0.131 available case). There was a significant difference in favour of the Quitlink condition on 7-day point prevalence at 2 months (OR = 8.06 [1.27, 51.00] p = 0.027 available case). Quitlink costs AU$9231 per additional quit achieved. CONCLUSION: The Quitlink intervention did not result in significantly higher rates of prolonged abstinence at 8 months post baseline. However, engagement rates and satisfaction with the 'Quitlink' intervention were high. While underpowered, the Quitlink intervention shows promise. A powered trial to determine its effectiveness for improving long-term cessation is warranted.

Household Composition and Smoking Behavior in a Prospective Longitudinal Australian Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimates the extent to which individuals' smoking cessation and relapse patterns are associated with the smoking behavior of their household members. AIMS AND METHODS: Longitudinal data on household members' smoking behavior was sourced from a representative sample of 12 723 Australians who ever reported smoking between 2001 and 2019. Controlling for a rich set of confounders, multivariate regression analyses were used to predict the likelihood of smoking cessation and relapse given other household members' smoking status and their relationship type. The models were then used to forecast smoking prevalence over 10 years across different household types. RESULTS: Individuals living with a smoking spouse were less likely to quit (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.72;0.83]) and more likely to relapse (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.28;1.69]) compared to those living with nonsmoking spouses. Subsequently, the proportion of smokers living with other smoking household members increased by 15% between 2011 and 2019. A 10-year forecast using the smoking cessation and relapse models predicts that, on average, smokers living with nonsmokers will reduce by 43%, while those living alone or with a smoking partner will only reduce by 26% and 28% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, those who are still smoking are more likely to live with other smokers. Therefore, the current cohort of smokers is increasingly less likely to quit and more likely to relapse. Smoking projection models that fail to account for this dynamic risk may overstate the downstream health benefits and health cost savings. Interventions that encourage smoking cessation at the household level, particularly for spouses, may assist individuals to quit and abstain from smoking. IMPLICATIONS: The current and future paradigm shift in the smoking environment suggests that smoking cessation and relapse prevention policies should consider household structure. Policies designed to affect smoking at the household level are likely to be particularly effective. When estimating the long-term benefits of current smoking policies intrahousehold smoking behavior needs to be considered.

Healthcare Funding Decisions and Real-World Benefits: Reducing Bias by Matching Untreated Patients.

Governments and health insurers often make funding decisions based on health gains from randomised controlled trials. These decisions are inherently uncertain because health gains in trials may not translate to practice owing to differences in the population, treatment use and setting. Post-market analysis of real-world data can provide additional evidence but estimates from standard matching methods may be biased when unobserved characteristics explain whether a patient is treated and their outcomes. We propose a new untreated matching approach that can reduce this bias. Our approach utilises the outcomes of contemporaneous untreated patients to improve the matching of treated and historical control patients. We assess the performance of this new approach compared to standard matching using a simulation study and demonstrate the steps required using a funding decision for prostate cancer treatments in Australia. Our simulation study shows that our new matching approach eliminates nearly all bias when unobserved treatment selection is related to outcomes, and outperforms standard matching in most scenarios. In our empirical example, standard matching overestimated survival by 15% (95% confidence interval 2-34) compared to our untreated matching approach. The health gains estimated using our approach were slightly lower than expected based on the trial evidence, but we also found evidence that in practice prescribers ceased prior therapies earlier, treated a more vulnerable population and continued treatment for longer. Our untreated matching approach offers researchers a new tool for reducing uncertainty in healthcare funding decisions using real-world data.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of incentive- and non-incentive-based interventions for increasing blood donations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood services are tasked with efficiently maintaining a reliable blood supply, and there has been much debate over the use of incentives to motivate prosocial activities. Thus, it is important to understand the relative effectiveness of interventions for increasing donations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review used a broad search strategy to identify randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for increasing blood donations. After full-text review, 28 trials from 25 published articles were included. Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available from 27 trials. Monetary incentives were assumed to be equivalent regardless of value, and non-monetary incentives were assumed to be equivalent regardless of type. Non-incentive-based interventions identified included existing practice, letters, telephone calls, questionnaires, and the combination of a letter & telephone call. A network meta-analysis was used to pool the results from identified trials. A subgroup analysis was performed in populations of donors and non-donors as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The best performing interventions were letter & telephone call and telephone call-only with odds ratios of 3·08 (95% CI: 1·99, 4·75) and 1·99 (95% CI: 1·47, 2·69) compared to existing practice, respectively. With considerable uncertainty around the pooled effect, we found no evidence that monetary incentives were effective at increasing donations compared to existing practice. Non-monetary incentives were only effective in the donor subgroup. CONCLUSION: When pooling across modes of interventions, letter & telephone call and telephone call-only are effective at increasing blood donations. The effectiveness of incentives remains unclear with limited, disparate evidence identified.

Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is much interest from stakeholders in understanding how health technology assessment (HTA) committees make national funding decisions for health technologies. A growing literature has analysed past decisions by committees (revealed preference, RP studies) and hypothetical decisions by committee members (stated preference, SP studies) to identify factors influencing decisions and assess their importance. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to provide insight into committee preferences for these factors (after controlling for other factors) and the methods used to elicit them. METHODS: Ovid Medline, Embase, Econlit and Web of Science were searched from inception to 11 May 2017. Included studies had to have investigated factors considered by HTA committees and to have conducted multivariate analysis to identify the effect of each factor on funding decisions. Factors were classified as being important based on statistical significance, and their impact on decisions was compared using marginal effects. RESULTS: Twenty-three RP and four SP studies (containing 42 analyses) of 14 HTA committees met the inclusion criteria. Although factors were defined differently, the SP literature generally found clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and equity factors (such as disease severity) were each important to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. These findings were supported by the RP studies of the PBAC, but not the other committees, which found funding decisions by these and other committees were mostly influenced by the acceptance of the clinical evidence and, where applicable, cost-effectiveness. Trust in the evidence was very important for decision makers, equivalent to reducing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) by A$38,000 (Australian dollars) for the PBAC and £15,000 for NICE. CONCLUSIONS: This review found trust in the clinical evidence and, where applicable, cost-effectiveness were important for decision makers. Many methodological differences likely contributed to the diversity in some of the other findings across studies of the same committee. Further work is needed to better understand how competing factors are valued by different HTA committees.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of unsupervised buprenorphine-naloxone for the treatment of heroin dependence in a randomized waitlist controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Access to opioid agonist treatment can be associated with extensive waiting periods with significant health and financial burdens. This study aimed to determine whether patients with heroin dependence dispensed buprenorphine-naloxone weekly have greater reductions in heroin use and related adverse health effects 12-weeks after commencing treatment, compared to waitlist controls and to examine the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. METHODS: An open-label waitlist RCT was conducted in an opioid treatment clinic in Newcastle, Australia. Fifty patients with DSM-IV-TR heroin dependence (and no other substance dependence) were recruited. The intervention group (n=25) received take-home self-administered sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone weekly (mean dose, 22.7±5.7mg) and weekly clinical review. Waitlist controls (n=25) received no clinical intervention. The primary outcome was heroin use (self-report, urine toxicology verified) at weeks four, eight and 12. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per additional heroin-free-day. RESULTS: Outcome data were available for 80% of all randomized participants. Across the 12-weeks, treatment group heroin use was on average 19.02days less/month (95% CI -22.98, -15.06, p<0.0001). A total 12-week reduction in adjusted costs including crime of $A5,722 (95% CI 3299, 8154) in favor of treatment was observed. Excluding crime, incremental cost per heroin-free-day gained from treatment was $A18.24 (95% CI 4.50, 28.49). CONCLUSION: When compared to remaining on a waitlist, take-home self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone treatment is associated with significant reductions in heroin use for people with DSM-IV-TR heroin dependence. This cost-effective approach may be an efficient strategy to enhance treatment capacity.

Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent.

In most societies resources are insufficient to provide everyone with all the health care they want. In practice, this means that some people are given priority over others. On what basis should priority be given? In this paper we are interested in the general public's views on this question. We set out to synthesis what the literature has found as a whole regarding which attributes or factors the general public think should count in priority setting and what weight they should receive. A systematic review was undertaken (in August 2014) to address these questions based on empirical studies that elicited stated preferences from the general public. Sixty four studies, applying eight methods, spanning five continents met the inclusion criteria. Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and Person Trade-off (PTO) were the most popular standard methods for preference elicitation, but only 34% of all studies calculated distributional weights, mainly using PTO. While there is heterogeneity, results suggest the young are favoured over the old, the more severely ill are favoured over the less severely ill, and people with self-induced illness or high socioeconomic status tend to receive lower priority. In those studies that considered health gain, larger gain is universally preferred, but at a diminishing rate. Evidence from the small number of studies that explored preferences over different components of health gain suggests life extension is favoured over quality of life enhancement; however this may be reversed at the end of life. The majority of studies that investigated end of life care found weak/no support for providing a premium for such care. The review highlights considerable heterogeneity in both methods and results. Further methodological work is needed to achieve the goal of deriving robust distributional weights for use in health care priority setting.

Preferences for oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a best-best discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is recognised as a growing clinical and public health problem in many countries, owing to disability and death from stroke associated with the condition, high hospitalisation costs and an increasing prevalence with ageing populations. Under-treatment with oral anticoagulants has been a significant challenge of treatment, historically related to patient concerns over the safety and convenience of warfarin, which until recently was the only oral anticoagulant available. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine: (1) patient preferences for attributes of warfarin and the new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) in AF; (2) which attributes are most important; and (3) whether current under-treatment is likely to improve with the new oral anticoagulants. METHODS: This study was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, with members of the general public with or without AF aged ≥40 years, where those without AF proxy for newly-diagnosed patients. Participants completed a computerised best-best discrete choice experiment (and follow-up interview) as if they had AF with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke. Choice data were modelled using mixed rank-ordered logit. Relative value was explored via estimation of marginal rates of substitution with predicted probability analysis used to simulate potential uptake of oral anticoagulants. RESULTS: Seventy-six participants were recruited and completed the study. Efficacy (stroke risk) was more important than safety (bleed risk, antidote), which were both considerably more important than convenience factors (blood tests, dose frequency, drug or food interactions). Cost was also important. Predicted use of the new oral anticoagulants (and under-treatment of AF) using simulation, given moderate-to-high risk of stroke, is 25 % (52 %), 54 % (29 %) and 70 % (21 %) assuming a market price of AUD$120/month, AUD$30/month (subsidised price) and AUD$30/month with an antidote, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study sample and the modelled attributes, the overall profiles of the new oral anticoagulants were preferred to warfarin as their cost decreased. Public subsidisation and the development of antidotes (such as vitamin K for warfarin) for the new oral anticoagulants may have a positive effect on the under-treatment of AF.