Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

Screening and brief interventions for unhealthy levels of alcohol use in primary care settings are effective for reducing alcohol intake. A number of screening instruments are available. Evidence-based brief interventions have generally included: feedback on the screening outcome plus structured advice about potential risks of heavy drinking and ways to reduce consumption. Effective feedback and advice has taken several forms including: FRAMES, motivational interviewing, Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), Brief Negotiated Interview (BNI), and/or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Some have been backed up by diaries or exercises for the patient to complete at home, and follow-up telephone calls.

Free full text

Background

Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person’s alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally-focused counselling.

This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007.

Author/s:

Kaner, EFS, Beyer, FR, Muirhead, C, Campbell, F, Pienaar, ED, Bertholet, N, Daeppen, JB, Saunders, JB, Burnand, B

Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review Update

Jeffrey Wilson — Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:35:02 +0000

Date Added:

August 23, 2018

Journal/Publication:

Comparative Effectiveness Review

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

May 17, 2018

Issue:

URL:

Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review Update

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines, Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER207

Keywords

PTSD

therapy

MeSH

stress disorders, post-traumatic

This AHRQ evidence review summarizes the effectiveness of various non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments for PTSD. The tabular results are on pages E3 – E6.

Free full text

Objective. To assess efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of psychological and pharmacological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and to update the original 2013 review.

Data sources. MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, PILOTS (Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress), PsycINFO®, and reference lists of published literature (May 2012–September 2017).

Review methods. Two investigators independently selected, extracted data from, and rated risk of bias of relevant studies. We conducted meta-analyses or network meta-analyses using random-effects models when we had evidence from three or more studies with low heterogeneity. We graded strength of evidence (SOE) following established Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidance.

Results. We included 193 randomized controlled trials (207 articles) for this review.

Several psychological treatments were associated with the reduction of PTSD symptoms and loss of PTSD diagnosis compared with inactive comparators; high SOE supports efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-exposure and CBT-mixed treatments, and moderate SOE supports efficacy of cognitive processing therapy (CPT), cognitive therapy (CT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), and narrative exposure therapy (NET). When directly comparing two treatments of interest, moderate SOE favors CBT-exposure over relaxation therapy.

Several pharmacological treatments reduced PTSD symptoms; moderate SOE supports the efficacy of fluoxetine, paroxetine, and venlafaxine compared with placebo. Our network meta-analysis (33 trials; N=4,817) of Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS)-measured PTSD symptoms showed no differences in effectiveness between medications with at least moderate SOE of efficacy (fluoxetine, paroxetine, and venlafaxine) (low SOE for no difference).

Studies provided insufficient strength of evidence for serious adverse events associated with any treatments of interest. The majority of psychological studies reported no information about adverse events. Among pharmacological treatments with evidence of efficacy (moderate SOE), we found increased risk of nausea with venlafaxine compared with placebo (moderate SOE).

Our review found insufficient strength of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of any psychological versus pharmacological treatment and for differences in the efficacy or comparative effectiveness of treatments by patient characteristics (e.g., co-occurring conditions) or type, number, severity, or chronicity of trauma exposure(s). We did not find evidence for many of our outcomes of interest or interventions of interest, including the newer treatments added since our prior review.

Conclusions. Several psychological and pharmacological treatments have moderate to high SOE of efficacy for treating adults with PTSD. Future research is needed on the comparative effectiveness of treatments (including different comparisons of psychological and pharmacological treatments), differences in treatment benefits by trauma type or other patient characteristics, and adverse events associated with treatments.

Author/s:

Forman-Hoffman, Valerie, Middleton, Jennifer Cook, Feltner, Cynthia, Gaynes, Bradley N., Weber, Rachel Palmieri, Bann, Carla, Viswanathan, Meera, Lohr, Kathleen N., Baker, Claire, Green, Joshua