Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness: : A systematic review and economic appraisal

Background: Drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems are common in the criminal justice system. A combination of drug use and mental health problems makes people more likely to be arrested for criminal involvement after release compared to offenders without a mental health problem. Previous research has evaluated interventions aimed broadly at those with a drug problem but rarely with drug use and mental health problems. This systematic review considers the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. Methods: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five Internet resources. The review included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity. Data were reported on drug and crime outcomes, the identification of mental health problems, diagnoses and resource information using the Drummond checklist. The systematic review used standard methodological procedures as prescribed by the Cochrane collaboration. Results: Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. These evaluated: case management (RR, 1.05, 95 % CI 0.90 to 1.22, 235 participants), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills, (MD-7.42, 95 % CI-0.20.12 to 5.28, 162 participants) and interpersonal psychotherapy (RR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.3 to 1.5, 38 participants). None of these trials reported significant reductions in self-report drug misuse or crime. Four trials evaluating differing therapeutic community models showed reductions in re-incarceration (RR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.13 to 0.63, 139 participants) but not re-arrest (RR 1.65, 95 % CI 0.83 to 3.28, 370 participants) or self-report drug use (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.53 to 1.01, 370 participants). Mental health problems were identified across the eight trials and 17 different diagnoses were described. Two trials reported some resource information suggesting a cost-beneficial saving when comparing therapeutic communities to a prison alternative. Conclusions: Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. Specifically, tailored interventions are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

Are Non-Pharmacological Interventions Effective in Reducing Drug Use and Criminality? : A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review with an Economic Appraisal of These Interventions

Background: The numbers of incarcerated people suffering from drug dependence has steadily risen since the 1980s and only a small proportion of these receive appropriate treatment. A systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and economic evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for drug using offenders was conducted. Methods: Cochrane Collaboration criteria were used to identify trials across 14 databases between 2004 and 2014. A series of meta-analyses and an economic appraisal were conducted. Results: 43 trials were identified showing to have limited effect in reducing re-arrests RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-1.07) and drug use RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-1.00) but were found to significantly reduce re-incarceration RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.85). Therapeutic community programs were found to significantly reduce the number of re-arrests RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.56-0.87). 10 papers contained economic information. One paper presented a cost-benefit analysis and two reported on the cost and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Conclusions: We suggest that therapeutic community interventions have some benefit in reducing subsequent re-arrest. We recommend that economic evaluations should form part of standard trial protocols

The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are of increasing importance within health technology assessment due to time and resource constraints. There are many rapid review methods available although there is little guidance as to the most suitable methods. We present three case studies employing differing methods to suit the evidence base for each review and outline some issues to consider when selecting an appropriate method. METHODS: Three recently completed systematic review short reports produced for the UK National Institute for Health Research were examined. Different approaches to rapid review methods were used in the three reports which were undertaken to inform the commissioning of services within the NHS and to inform future trial design. We describe the methods used, the reasoning behind the choice of methods and explore the strengths and weaknesses of each method. RESULTS: Rapid review methods were chosen to meet the needs of the review and each review had distinctly different challenges such as heterogeneity in terms of populations, interventions, comparators and outcome measures (PICO) and/or large numbers of relevant trials. All reviews included at least 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), each with numerous included outcomes. For the first case study (sexual health interventions), very diverse studies in terms of PICO were included. P-values and summary information only were presented due to substantial heterogeneity between studies and outcomes measured. For the second case study (premature ejaculation treatments), there were over 100 RCTs but also several existing systematic reviews. Data for meta-analyses were extracted directly from existing systematic reviews with new RCT data added where available. For the final case study (cannabis cessation therapies), studies included a wide range of interventions and considerable variation in study populations and outcomes. A brief summary of the key findings for each study was presented and narrative synthesis used to summarise results for each pair of interventions compared. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid review methods need to be chosen to meet both the nature of the evidence base of a review and the challenges presented by the included studies. Appropriate methods should be chosen after an assessment of the evidence base

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders : an update to a systematic review and meta-analysis

This updated systematic review assesses the effects of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. Methods Systematic review protocols and conventions of the Cochrane Collaboration were followed to identify eligible studies. Studies were pooled in a meta-analysis to assess the impact of pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity. An economic appraisal was conducted. Results The search strategies identified 22 studies containing 4372 participants. Meta-analyses revealed a small statistically significant mean difference favouring pharmacological interventions relative to psychological interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another there were no significant differences between those included (methadone versus buprenorphine, naltrexone and cyclazocine). Conclusion Overall, the findings of this review suggest that methadone and naltrexone may have some impact on reducing drug use and reincarceration. Individual pharmacological drugs had differing (generally non-significant) effects. One study identified serious adverse events. Three studies reported cost and consequences information sufficient to conduct a full economic analysis but this was not comprehensive enough to be able to make judgements across all treatment options. Full economic analyses should be encouraged. The study findings were limited mainly to male adult offenders

The Effectiveness of Lower-Limb Wearable Technology for Improving Activity and Participation in Adult Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review

Background: With advances in technology, the adoption of wearable devices has become a viable adjunct in poststroke rehabilitation. Regaining ambulation is a top priority for an increasing number of stroke survivors. However, despite an increase in research exploring these devices for lower limb rehabilitation, little is known of the effectiveness. Objective: This review aims to assess the effectiveness of lower limb wearable technology for improving activity and participation in adult stroke survivors. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lower limb wearable technology for poststroke rehabilitation were included. Primary outcome measures were validated measures of activity and participation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Databases searched were MEDLINE, Web of Science (Core collection), CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs. Results: In the review, we included 11 RCTs with collectively 550 participants at baseline and 474 participants at final follow-up including control groups and participants post stroke. Participants' stroke type and severity varied. Only one study found significant between-group differences for systems functioning and activity. Across the included RCTs, the lowest number of participants was 12 and the highest was 151 with a mean of 49 participants. The lowest number of participants to drop out of an RCT was zero in two of the studies and 19 in one study. Significant between-group differences were found across three of the 11 included trials. Out of the activity and participation measures alone, P values ranged from P=.87 to P≤.001. Conclusions: This review has highlighted a number of reasons for insignificant findings in this area including low sample sizes, appropriateness of the RCT methodology for complex interventions, a lack of appropriate analysis of outcome data, and participant stroke severity

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS

Tofacitinib for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Pfizer) of tofacitinib (TOF; Xeljanz®) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for TOF is based predominantly on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of TOF against placebo. Three RCTs investigated TOF in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and one RCT investigated TOF monotherapy. All four RCTs compared TOF with placebo plus cDMARDs, one RCT also included adalimumab as a comparator. The study population in the four RCTs comprised patients who were MTX inadequate responders or cDMARD inadequate responders (cDMARD-IR). The company performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of TOF compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients who were cDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR with moderate-to-severe RA for European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at 6 months. The company's NMA concluded that TOF had comparable efficacy to bDMARDs currently recommended by NICE. The company submitted a de novo model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TOF versus its comparators in six different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR with severe RA; (2) cDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) bDMARD-IR; (4) bDMARD-IR for whom rituximab (RTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (5) bDMARD-IR for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; and, (6) cDMARD-IR with moderate RA. According to the company's economic analyses, in cDMARD-IR with severe RA, TOF plus MTX dominates or extendedly dominates most comparators, whilst TOF monotherapy is slightly less effective and less expensive than its comparators, with the cost saved per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost always higher than £50,000. In bDMARD-IR with severe RA, RTX plus MTX dominated TOF plus MTX, but in patients for whom RTX was not an option, TOF plus MTX dominated all comparators included in the analysis (four comparators recommended by NICE were not included). In cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY for TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy compared with a sequence of cDMARDs was estimated to be greater than £50,000/QALY. The ERG identified a number of limitations in the company's analyses, including use of a fixed-effects model in the NMA and the use of treatment sequences in the cost-effectiveness model which did not reflect NICE recommendations. These limitations were addressed partly by the company during the clarification round and partly by the ERG. The exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in similar conclusions: (1) TOF plus MTX was dominated by RTX plus MTX; (2) TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy dominates or extendedly dominates some of its comparators in cDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom RTX plus MTX was not an option; and (3) in cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY of TOF in combination with MTX or as a monotherapy versus cDMARDs was in excess of £47,000. The NICE Appraisal Committee consequently recommended TOF plus MTX as an option for patients whose disease has responded inadequately to intensive therapy with a combination of cDMARDs only if (1) disease is severe [a Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of more than 5.1] and (2) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the Patient Access Scheme (PAS). TOF plus MTX is also recommended as an option for adults whose disease has responded inadequately to, or who cannot have, other DMARDs, including at least one bDMARD, only if (1) disease is severe, (2) they cannot have RTX, and (3) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the PAS. For patients who are intolerant of MTX, or where MTX is contraindicated, TOF monotherapy is recommended where TOF plus MTX would be recommended

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme

Meta-analysis of walking for preservation of bone mineral density in postmenopausal women

Whilst exercise is recommended for optimum bone health in adult women, there are few systematic reviews of the efficacy of walking as singular exercise therapy for postmenopausal bone loss. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of prescribed walking programmes on bone mineral density (BMD) at the hip and spine in postmenopausal women and to determine if effects are modified by variations in protocol design. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials. Electronic bibliographic databases, key journals and reference lists of reviews and articles were searched to identify studies for inclusion. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of walking on lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip BMD, measured by radiographic techniques, among sedentary postmenopausal women were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility. Reported absolute BMD outcomes were combined in the analysis. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using a fixed and random-effects models. Heterogeneity among trials was examined using the Q statistic and I 2 methods. Potential publication bias was assessed through funnel plot inspection. Assessment of trial quality was also performed using the widely used instrument devised by Jadad et al. [Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Cont Clin Trials 1996; 17:1-12]. Eight trials were eligible for inclusion. Treatment duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. All eight trials reported BMD data at the lumbar spine following walking interventions among postmenopausal women. Meta-analysis showed no significant change in BMD at this site [WMD (fixed-effect) 0.007 g/cm 2 95% CI (- 0.001 to 0.016); P = 0.09)]. BMD data at the femoral neck were available from five trials among postmenopausal women. Results were inconsistent (I 2 = 51.4%) in showing a positive effect of walking on BMD at this site [WMD (random-effects) 0.014 g/cm 2 95% CI (0.000 to 0.028); P = 0.05). Insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of the total hip site. Funnel plots showed some asymmetry for negative lumbar spine BMD outcomes. Trial quality scores ranged from 0 to 3 from the Jadad scale of 0 to 5. We conclude that regular walking has no significant effect on preservation of BMD at the spine in postmenopausal women, whilst significant positive effects at femoral neck are evident. However, diverse methodological and reporting discrepancies are apparent in the published trials on which these conclusions are based. Other forms of exercise that provide greater targeted skeletal loading may be required to preserve bone mineral density in this population. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved