Recovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Best Practices, Knowledge Exchange and Economic Issues, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal.
Alcohol Alcohol. 2020 Oct 20;55(6):641-651. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agaa050.
A recently completed Cochrane review assessed the effectiveness and cost-benefits of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and clinically delivered 12-Step Facilitation (TSF) interventions for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This paper summarizes key findings and discusses implications for practice and policy.
Cochrane review methods were followed. Searches were conducted across all major databases (e.g. Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception to 2 August 2019 and included non-English language studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experiments that compared AA/TSF with other interventions, such as motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), TSF treatment variants or no treatment, were included. Healthcare cost offset studies were also included. Studies were categorized by design (RCT/quasi-experimental; nonrandomized; economic), degree of manualization (all interventions manualized versus some/none) and comparison intervention type (i.e. whether AA/TSF was compared to an intervention with a different theoretical orientation or an AA/TSF intervention that varied in style or intensity). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effects where possible using standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes (e.g. percent days abstinent (PDA)) and the relative risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous.
A total of 27 studies (21 RCTs/quasi-experiments, 5 nonrandomized and 1 purely economic study) containing 10,565 participants were included. AA/TSF interventions performed at least as well as established active comparison treatments (e.g. CBT) on all outcomes except for abstinence where it often outperformed other treatments. AA/TSF also demonstrated higher health care cost savings than other AUD treatments.
AA/TSF interventions produce similar benefits to other treatments on all drinking-related outcomes except for continuous abstinence and remission, where AA/TSF is superior. AA/TSF also reduces healthcare costs. Clinically implementing one of these proven manualized AA/TSF interventions is likely to enhance outcomes for individuals with AUD while producing health economic benefits.
最近完成的 Cochrane 综述评估了匿名戒酒协会(AA)和临床提供的 12 步戒酒促进(TSF)干预措施治疗酒精使用障碍(AUD)的有效性和成本效益。本文总结了关键发现,并讨论了对实践和政策的影响。
遵循 Cochrane 综述方法。从成立到 2019 年 8 月 2 日,在所有主要数据库(如 Cochrane 药物和酒精组专业注册库、PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO 和 ClinicalTrials.gov)中进行了检索,并包括非英语语言研究。纳入了比较 AA/TSF 与其他干预措施(如动机增强治疗(MET)或认知行为治疗(CBT)、TSF 治疗变体或无治疗)的随机对照试验(RCT)和准实验。还纳入了医疗保健成本抵消研究。研究按设计(RCT/准实验;非随机;经济)、手动化程度(所有干预均手动化与部分/无手动化)和比较干预类型(即 AA/TSF 是否与具有不同理论取向的干预或风格或强度不同的 AA/TSF 干预进行比较)进行分类。如果可能,使用标准均数差(SMD)对连续结局(如无饮酒天数百分比(PDA))和相对风险比(RR)对二分类进行随机效应荟萃分析以汇总效应。
共纳入 27 项研究(21 项 RCT/准实验,5 项非随机和 1 项纯经济研究),共纳入 10565 名参与者。AA/TSF 干预在所有结局上的表现至少与既定的有效对照治疗(如 CBT)一样好,除了在戒酒方面,AA/TSF 通常优于其他治疗。AA/TSF 还显示出比其他 AUD 治疗更高的医疗保健成本节约。
AA/TSF 干预在除连续戒酒和缓解外的所有与饮酒相关的结局上与其他治疗产生相似的益处,在这些结局上,AA/TSF 更优。AA/TSF 还降低了医疗保健成本。临床实施这些经过验证的手动化 AA/TSF 干预之一可能会增强 AUD 个体的结局,并产生健康经济效益。