Nadkarni Abhijit, Weobong Benedict, Weiss Helen A, McCambridge Jim, Bhat Bhargav, Katti Basavaraj, Murthy Pratima, King Michael, McDaid David, Park A-La, Wilson G Terence, Kirkwood Betty, Fairburn Christopher G, Velleman Richard, Patel Vikram
Sangath Centre, Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, Goa, India; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lancet. 2017 Jan 14;389(10065):186-195. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31590-2. Epub 2016 Dec 15.
Although structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for harmful drinking, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief psychological treatment delivered by lay counsellors to patients with harmful drinking attending routine primary health-care settings.
In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited male harmful drinkers defined by an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score of 12-19 who were aged 18-65 years from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. We excluded patients who needed emergency medical treatment or inpatient admission, who were unable to communicate clearly, and who were intoxicated at the time of screening. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by trained health assistants based at the primary health centres to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with CAP, in randomly sized blocks of four to six, stratified by primary health centre, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC and those assessing outcomes were masked. Primary outcomes were remission (AUDIT score of <8) and mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days, at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the effect of drinking, disability score, days unable to work, suicide attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We used logistic regression analysis for remission and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis for alcohol consumption. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN76465238.
Between Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 377 participants (188 [50%] to the EUC plus CAP group and 190 [50%] to the EUC alone group [one of whom was subsequently excluded because of a protocol violation]), of whom 336 (89%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (164 [87%] in the EUC plus CAP group and 172 [91%] in the EUC alone group). The proportion with remission (59 [36%] of 164 in the EUC plus CAP group vs 44 [26%] of 172 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·09-2·07]; p=0·01) and the proportion abstinent in the past 14 days (68 [42%] vs 31 [18%]; adjusted odds ratio 3·00 [1·76-5·13]; p<0·0001) were significantly higher in the EUC plus CAP group than in the EUC alone group, but we noted no effect on mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days among those who reported drinking in this period (37·0 g [SD 44·2] vs 31·0 g [27·8]; count ratio 1·08 [0·79-1·49]; p=0·62). We noted an effect on the percentage of days abstinent in the past 14 days (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 16·0% [8·1-24·1]; p<0·0001), but no effect on the percentage of days of heavy drinking (AMD -0·4% [-5·7 to 4·9]; p=0·88), the effect of drinking (Short Inventory of Problems score AMD-0·03 [-1·93 to 1·86]; p=0.97), disability score (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule score AMD 0·62 [-0·62 to 1·87]; p=0·32), days unable to work (no days unable to work adjusted odds ratio 1·02 [0·61-1·69]; p=0.95), suicide attempts (adjusted prevalence ratio 1·8 [-2·4 to 6·0]; p=0·25), and intimate partner violence (adjusted prevalence ratio 3·0 [-10·4 to 4·4]; p=0·57). The incremental cost per additional remission was $217 (95% CI 50-1073), with an 85% chance of being cost-effective in the study setting. We noted no significant difference in the number of serious adverse events between the two groups (six [4%] in the EUC plus CAP group vs 13 [8%] in the EUC alone group; p=0·11).
CAP delivered by lay counsellors plus EUC was better than EUC alone was for harmful drinkers in routine primary health-care settings, and might be cost-effective. CAP could be a key strategy to reduce the treatment gap for alcohol use disorders, one of the leading causes of the global burden among men worldwide.
Wellcome Trust.
尽管结构化心理治疗被推荐为有害饮酒的一线干预措施,但由于常规初级保健中难以获得这些治疗,全球只有一小部分人接受了这些治疗。我们评估了酒精问题咨询(CAP)的有效性和成本效益,这是一种由非专业咨询师为在常规初级卫生保健机构就诊的有害饮酒患者提供的简短心理治疗。
在这项随机对照试验中,我们从印度果阿邦的10个初级卫生中心招募了年龄在18 - 65岁之间、酒精使用障碍识别测试(AUDIT)得分为12 - 19分的男性有害饮酒者。我们排除了需要紧急医疗治疗或住院的患者、无法清晰沟通的患者以及筛查时处于醉酒状态的患者。参与者由设在初级卫生中心的经过培训的健康助理以1:1的比例随机分配,分为仅接受强化常规护理(EUC)或EUC联合CAP,按四到六个随机大小的区组进行分层,分层因素为初级卫生中心,并使用连续编号的不透明信封进行分配隐藏。提供EUC的医生和评估结果的医生均采用盲法。主要结局为缓解(AUDIT得分<8)和过去14天的平均每日饮酒量,在3个月时进行评估。次要结局包括饮酒的影响、残疾评分、无法工作的天数、自杀未遂、亲密伴侣暴力以及资源使用和疾病成本。分析采用意向性分析。我们对缓解情况使用逻辑回归分析,对饮酒量使用零膨胀负二项回归分析。我们在符合方案人群中评估严重不良事件。该试验已在国际标准随机对照试验编号注册库注册,编号为ISRCTN76465238。
在2013年10月28日至2015年7月29日期间,我们招募并随机分配了377名参与者(188名[50%]分配至EUC加CAP组,190名[50%]分配至仅EUC组[其中一名因违反方案随后被排除]),其中336名(89%)完成了3个月的主要结局评估(EUC加CAP组164名[87%],仅EUC组172名[91%])。缓解比例(EUC加CAP组164名中的59名[36%] vs仅EUC组172名中的44名[26%];调整后的患病率比1.50[95%CI 1.09 - 2.07];p = 0.01)和过去14天戒酒的比例(68名[42%] vs 31名[18%];调整后的优势比3.00[1.76 - 5.13];p < 0.0001)在EUC加CAP组显著高于仅EUC组,但我们注意到在报告在此期间饮酒的人群中,过去14天的平均每日饮酒量没有影响(37.0克[标准差44.2] vs 31.0克[27.8];计数比1.08[0.79 - 1.49];p = 0.62)。我们注意到对过去14天戒酒天数的百分比有影响(调整后的平均差[AMD] 16.0%[8.1 - 24.1];p < 0.0001),但对重度饮酒天数的百分比没有影响(AMD -0.4%[-5.7至4.9];p = 0.88),对饮酒的影响(问题简短清单得分AMD -0.03[-1.93至1.86];p = 0.97),残疾评分(世界卫生组织残疾评估量表得分AMD 0.62[-0.62至1.87];p = 0.32),无法工作的天数(无无法工作天数调整后的优势比1.02[0.61 - 1.69];p = 0.95),自杀未遂(调整后的患病率比1.8[-2.4至6.0];p = 0.25)以及亲密伴侣暴力(调整后的患病率比 3.0[-10.4至4.4];p = 0.57)均无影响。每增加一例缓解的增量成本为217美元(95%CI 50 - 1073),在研究环境中有85%的可能性具有成本效益。我们注意到两组之间严重不良事件的数量没有显著差异(EUC加CAP组6例[4%] vs仅EUC组13例[8%];p = 0.11)。
在常规初级卫生保健环境中,由非专业咨询师提供的CAP联合EUC对有害饮酒者比仅EUC更好,并且可能具有成本效益。CAP可能是缩小酒精使用障碍治疗差距的关键策略,酒精使用障碍是全球男性负担的主要原因之一。
惠康信托基金会。