Economic evaluation of a behavioral intervention versus brief advice for substance use treatment in pregnant women: results from a randomized controlled trial

Xiao Xu, Kimberly A Yonkers, Jennifer Prah Ruger, Xiao Xu, Kimberly A Yonkers, Jennifer Prah Ruger

Abstract

Background: Substance use in pregnancy is associated with severe maternal and fetal morbidities and substantial economic costs. However, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of substance use treatment programs in pregnant women. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of a behavioral intervention that integrated motivational enhancement therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy (MET-CBT) for treatment of substance use in pregnancy, in comparison with brief advice.

Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial by collecting data on resource utilization and performing a cost minimization analysis as MET-CBT and brief advice had similar effects on clinical outcomes (e.g., alcohol and drug use and birth outcomes). Costs were estimated from the health care system's perspective and included intervention costs, hospital facility costs, physician fees, and costs of psychotropic medications from the date of intake assessment until 3-month postpartum. We compared effects of MET-CBT on costs with those of brief advice using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

Results: Although the integrated MET-CBT therapy had higher intervention cost than brief advice (median = $1297/participant versus $303/participant, p < 0.01), costs of care during the prenatal period, delivery, and postpartum period, as well as for psychotropic medications, were comparable between the two groups (all p values ≥ 0.55). There was no statistically significant difference in overall cost of care (median total cost = $26,993/participant for MET-CBT versus $27,831/participant for brief advice, p = 0.90).

Conclusions: The MET-CBT therapy and brief advice resulted in similar clinical outcomes and overall medical costs. Further research incorporating non-medical costs, targeting women with more severe substance use disorders, and evaluating the impact of MET-CBT on participants' quality of life will provide additional insights.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00227903 . Registered 27 September 2005.

Keywords: Cost minimization analysis; Economic evaluation; Pregnancy; Randomized controlled trial; Substance use.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of cost categories. MET-CBT = motivational enhancement therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

References

    1. Shankaran S, Lester BM, Das A, Bauer CR, Bada HS, Lagasse L, et al. Impact of maternal substance use during pregnancy on childhood outcome. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007;12:143–50. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2007.01.002.
    1. Hudak ML, Tan RC, Committee On Drugs; Committee On Fetus and Newborn; American Academy of Pediatrics Neonatal drug withdrawal. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e540–60. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-3212.
    1. National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center. Prenatal Substance Exposure. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley. 2012. . Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
    1. Quesada O, Gotman N, Howell HB, Funai EF, Rounsaville BJ, Yonkers KA. Prenatal hazardous substance use and adverse birth outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:1222–7. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.602143.
    1. Rodriguez EM, Mofenson LM, Chang BH, Rich KC, Fowler MG, Smeriglio V, et al. Association of maternal drug use during pregnancy with maternal HIV culture positivity and perinatal HIV transmission. AIDS. 1996;10:273–82. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199603000-00006.
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville. 2013. NSDUH Series H-46, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4795. . Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
    1. Jones HE, Kaltenbach K, Heil SH, Stine SM, Coyle MG, Arria AM, et al. Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2320–31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1005359.
    1. Lupton C, Burd L, Harwood R. Cost of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2004;127C:42–50. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30015.
    1. Tuten M, Fitzsimons H, Chisolm MS, Nuzzo PA, Jones HE. Contingent incentives reduce cigarette smoking among pregnant, methadone-maintained women: results of an initial feasibility and efficacy randomized clinical trial. Addiction. 2012;107:1868–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03923.x.
    1. Wilson GB, McGovern R, Antony G, Cassidy P, Deverill M, Graybill E, et al. Brief intervention to reduce risky drinking in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13:174. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-174.
    1. Ebrahim SH, Gfroerer J. Pregnancy-related substance use in the United States during 1996-1998. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:374–9.
    1. Ruger JP, Lazar CM. Economic evaluation of drug abuse treatment and HIV prevention programs in pregnant women: a systematic review. Addict Behav. 2012;37:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.042.
    1. Yonkers KA, Forray A, Howell HB, Gotman N, Kershaw T, Rounsaville BJ, et al. Motivational enhancement therapy coupled with cognitive behavioral therapy versus brief advice: a randomized trial for treatment of hazardous substance use in pregnancy and after delivery. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2012;34:439–49. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.06.002.
    1. Chang G, Wilkins-Haug L, Berman S, Goetz MA. The TWEAK: application in a prenatal setting. J Stud Alcohol. 1999;60:306–9. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1999.60.306.
    1. Russell M, Martier SS, Sokol RJ, Mudar P, Jacobson S, Jacobson J. Detecting risk drinking during pregnancy: a comparison of four screening questionnaires. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1435–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.10.1435.
    1. Fals-Stewart W, O’Farrell TJ, Freitas TT, McFarlin SK, Rutigliano P. The timeline followback reports of psychoactive substance use by drug-abusing patients: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:134–44. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.1.134.
    1. McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, O’Brien CP. An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients. The Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1980;168:26–33. doi: 10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006.
    1. Xu X, Yonkers KA, Ruger JP. Costs of a motivational enhancement therapy coupled with cognitive behavioral therapy versus brief advice for pregnant substance users. PLoS One. 2014;9:e95264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095264.
    1. Thomson Reuters. Red Book: Pharmacy’s Fundamental Reference (Red Book Drug Topics). 114th ed. Montvale, NJ: PDR Network, LLC; 2010.
    1. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Available: . Accessed 7 May 2014.
    1. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(Suppl 20):22–33.
    1. Daley M, Argeriou M, McCarty D, Callahan JJ, Jr, Shepard DS, Williams CN. The costs of crime and the benefits of substance abuse treatment for pregnant women. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000;19:445–58. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00138-0.
    1. Daley M, Shepard DS, Bury-Maynard D. Changes in quality of life for pregnant women in substance user treatment: developing a quality of life index for the addictions. Subst Use Misuse. 2005;40:375–94. doi: 10.1081/JA-200030798.
    1. Jansson LM, Svikis D, Lee J, Paluzzi P, Rutigliano P, Hackerman F. Pregnancy and addiction. A comprehensive care model. J Subst Abuse Ttreat. 1996;13:321–9. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(96)00070-0.
    1. Svikis DS, Golden AS, Huggins GR, Pickens RW, McCaul ME, Velez ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatment for drug-abusing pregnant women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;45:105–13. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(97)01352-5.
    1. Daley M, Argeriou M, McCarty D, Callahan JJ, Jr, Shepard DS, Williams CN. The impact of substance abuse treatment modality on birth weight and health care expenditures. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2001;33:57–66. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2001.10400469.
    1. Svikis D, McCaul M, Feng T, Stuart M, Fox M, Stokes E. Drug dependence during pregnancy. Effect of an on-site support group. J Reprod Med. 1998;43:799–805.
    1. Whiteman VE, Salemi JL, Mogos MF, Cain MA, Aliyu MH, Salihu HM. Maternal opioid drug use during pregnancy and its impact on perinatal morbidity, mortality, and the costs of medical care in the United States. J Pregnancy. 2014;2014:906723. doi: 10.1155/2014/906723.
    1. Fingar KR, Stocks C, Weiss AJ, Owens PL. Neonatal and Maternal Hospital Stays Related to Substance Use, 2006–2012. HCUP Statistical Brief #193. July 2015. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. . Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
    1. Goler NC, Armstrong MA, Osejo VM, Hung YY, Haimowitz M, Caughey AB. Early start: a cost-beneficial perinatal substance abuse program. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:102–10. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823d427d.
    1. Taillac C, Goler N, Armstrong MA, Haley K, Osejo V. Early start: an integrated model of substance abuse intervention for pregnant women. Perm J. 2007;11:5–11. doi: 10.7812/TPP/07-013.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe