Economic Evaluations of Establishing Opioid Overdose Prevention Centers in 12 North American Cities: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) provide a safe place where people can consume preobtained drugs under supervision so that a life-saving medical response can be provided quickly in the event of an overdose. OPCs are programs that are established in Canada and have recently become legally sanctioned in only a few United States jurisdictions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review that summarizes and identifies gaps of economic evidence on establishing OPCs in North America to guide future expansion of OPCs. RESULTS: We included 16 final studies that were evaluated with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists. Eight studies reported cost-effectiveness results (eg, cost per overdose avoided or cost per quality-adjusted life-year), with 6 also including cost-benefit; 5 reported only cost-benefit results, and 3 cost offsets. Health outcomes primarily included overdose mortality outcomes or HIV/hepatitis C virus infections averted. Most studies used mathematical modeling and projected OPC outcomes using the experience of a single facility in Vancouver, BC. CONCLUSIONS: OPCs were found to be cost-saving or to have favorable cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios across all studies. Future studies should incorporate the experience of OPCs established in various settings and use a greater diversity of modeling designs.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacologic Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The crisis of opioid use puts a strain on resources in the United States and worldwide. There are 3 US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for treatment of opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine, and injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX). The comparative effectiveness and cost vary considerably among these 3 medications. Economic evaluations provide evidence that help stakeholders efficiently allocate scarce resources. Our objective was to summarize recent health economic evidence of pharmacologic treatment of opioid use disorder interventions. METHODS: We searched PubMed for peer-reviewed studies in English from August 2015 through December 2019 as an update to a 2015 review. We used the Drummond checklist to evaluate and categorize economic evaluation study quality. We summarized results by economic evaluation methodology and pharmacologic treatment modality. RESULTS: We identified 105 articles as potentially relevant and included 21 (4 cost-offset studies and 17 cost-effectiveness/cost-benefit studies). We found strengthened evidence on buprenorphine and methadone, indicating that these treatments are economically advantageous compared with no pharmacotherapy, but found limited evidence on XR-NTX. Only half of the cost-effectiveness studies used a generic preference-based measure of effectiveness, limiting broad comparison across diseases/disorders. The disease/disorder-specific cost-effectiveness measures vary widely, suggesting a lack of consensus on the value of substance use disorder treatment. CONCLUSION: We found studies that provide new evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine compared with no pharmacotherapy. We found a lack of evidence supporting superior economic value for buprenorphine versus methadone, suggesting that both are attractive alternatives. Further economic research is needed on XR-NTX, as well as other emerging pharmacotherapies, treatment modalities, and dosage forms.

Cost-effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Models for People Who Inject Drugs in Opioid Agonist Treatment Programs.

BACKGROUND: Many people who inject drugs in the United States have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). On-site treatment in opiate agonist treatment (OAT) programs addresses HCV treatment barriers, but few evidence-based models exist. METHODS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment models for OAT patients using data from a randomized trial conducted in Bronx, New York. We used a decision analytic model to compare self-administered individual treatment (SIT), group treatment (GT), directly observed therapy (DOT), and no intervention for a simulated cohort with the same demographic characteristics of trial participants. We projected long-term outcomes using an established model of HCV disease progression and treatment (hepatitis C cost-effectiveness model: HEP-CE). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in 2016 US$/quality-adjusted life years (QALY), discounted 3% annually, from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives. RESULTS: For those assigned to SIT, we projected 89% would ever achieve a sustained viral response (SVR), with 7.21 QALYs and a $245 500 lifetime cost, compared to 22% achieving SVR, with 5.49 QALYs and a $161 300 lifetime cost, with no intervention. GT was more efficient than SIT, resulting in 0.33 additional QALYs and a $14 100 lower lifetime cost per person, with an ICER of $34 300/QALY, compared to no intervention. DOT was slightly more effective and costly than GT, with an ICER > $100 000/QALY, compared to GT. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, GT and DOT were preferred in 91% of simulations at a threshold of <$100 000/QALY; conclusions were similar from the societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: All models were associated with high rates of achieving SVR, compared to standard care. GT and DOT treatment models should be considered as cost-effective alternatives to SIT.

Cost-Effectiveness of Buprenorphine-Naloxone Versus Extended-Release Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Relapse.

Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine-naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine-naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine-naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

Cost-Effectiveness of One-Time Hepatitis C Screening Strategies Among Adolescents and Young Adults in Primary Care Settings.

Background: High hepatitis C virus (HCV) rates have been reported in young people who inject drugs (PWID). We evaluated the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of testing among youth seen in communities with a high overall number of reported HCV cases. Methods: We developed a decision analytic model to project quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2016 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 9 strategies for 1-time testing among 15- to 30-year-olds seen at urban community health centers. Strategies differed in 3 ways: targeted vs routine testing, rapid finger stick vs standard venipuncture, and ordered by physician vs by counselor/tester using standing orders. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to evaluate uncertainty. Results: Compared to targeted risk-based testing (current standard of care), routine testing increased the lifetime medical cost by $80 and discounted QALYs by 0.0013 per person. Across all strategies, rapid testing provided higher QALYs at a lower cost per QALY gained and was always preferred. Counselor-initiated routine rapid testing was associated with an ICER of $71000/QALY gained. Results were sensitive to offer and result receipt rates. Counselor-initiated routine rapid testing was cost-effective (ICER <$100000/QALY) unless the prevalence of PWID was <0.59%, HCV prevalence among PWID was <16%, reinfection rate was >26 cases per 100 person-years, or reflex confirmatory testing followed all reactive venipuncture diagnostics. In PSA, routine rapid testing was the optimal strategy in 90% of simulations. Conclusions: Routine rapid HCV testing among 15- to 30-year-olds may be cost-effective when the prevalence of PWID is >0.59%.

Implementation of a nationwide health economic consultation service to assist substance use researchers: Lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluation findings assist stakeholders in improving the quality, availability, scalability, and sustainability of evidence-based services, and in maximizing the efficiency of service delivery. The Center for Health Economics of Treatment Interventions for Substance Use Disorders, HCV, and HIV (CHERISH) is a NIDA-funded multi-institutional center of excellence whose mission is to develop and disseminate health-economic research on healthcare utilization, health outcomes, and health-related behaviors that informs substance use disorder treatment policy, and HCV and HIV care of people who use substances. METHODS: We designed a consultation service that is free to researchers whose work aligns with CHERISH's mission. The service includes up to six hours of consulting time. After prospective consultees submit their request online, they receive a screening call from the consultation service director, who connects them with a consultant with relevant expertise. Consultees and consultants complete web-based evaluations following the consultation; consultees also complete a six-month follow-up. We report on the status of the service from its inception in July 2015 through June 2017. RESULTS: We have received 28 consultation requests (54% Early Stage Investigators, 57% MD or equivalent, 28% PhD, 61% women) on projects typically related to planning a study or grant application (93%); 71% were HIV/AIDS-related. Leading topics included cost-effectiveness (43%), statistical-analysis/econometrics (36%), cost (32%), cost-benefit (21%), and quality-of-life (18%). All consultees were satisfied with their overall experience, and felt that consultation expectations and objectives were clearly defined and the consultant's expertise was matched appropriately with their needs. Results were similar for consultants, who spent a median of 3 hours on consultations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for health-economic methodological guidance among substance use, HCV, and HIV researchers. Lessons learned pertain to the feasibility of service provision, the need to implement systems to measure and improve service value, and strategies for service promotion.

The structural and health policy environment for delivering integrated HIV and substance use disorder treatments in Puerto Rico.

BACKGROUND: HIV prevalence in Puerto Rico is nearly twice that of the mainland United States, a level that was substantially fueled by injection drug use. Puerto Rico has a longstanding history of health provision by the public sector that directly affects how HIV and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services are provided and funded. As part of pre-implementation research for a randomized trial of a community-level intervention to enhance HIV care access for substance users in San Juan, Puerto Rico, we sought to understand the structural and health policy environment for providing HIV and SUD treatments. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 8) with government and program administrators in English and Spanish. Data were analyzed to identify dominant and recurrent themes. RESULTS: Participants discussed how lack of integration among medical and mental health service providers, lack of public transportation, and turnover in appointed government officials were barriers to integrated HIV and SUD treatment. Federal funding for support services for HIV patients was a facilitator. The Affordable Care Act has limited impact in Puerto Rico because provisions related to health insurance reform do not apply to U.S. territories. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Implications for intervention design include the need to provide care coordination for services from multiple providers, who are often physically separated and working in different reimbursement systems, and the potential for mobile and patient transportation services to bridge these gaps. Continuous interaction with political leaders is needed to maintain current facilitators. These findings are relevant as the current economic crisis in Puerto Rico affects funding, and may be relevant for other settings with substance use-driven epidemics.

The cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 infection.

BACKGROUND: Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3 can be treated with sofosbuvir without interferon. Because sofosbuvir is costly, its benefits should be compared with the additional resources used. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection in the United States. DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials, observational cohorts, and national health care spending surveys. TARGET POPULATION: 8 patient types defined by HCV genotype (2 vs. 3), treatment history (naive vs. experienced), and cirrhosis status (noncirrhotic vs. cirrhotic). TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer. INTERVENTION: Sofosbuvir-based therapies, pegylated interferon-ribavirin, and no therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The ICER of sofosbuvir-based treatment was less than $100,000 per QALY in cirrhotic patients (genotype 2 or 3 and treatment-naive or treatment-experienced) and in treatment-experienced noncirrhotic patients but was greater than $200,000 per QALY in treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The ICER of sofosbuvir-based therapy for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection was less than $100,000 per QALY when the cost of sofosbuvir was reduced by approximately 40% and 60%, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, cost-effectiveness conclusions were robust to uncertainty in treatment efficacy. LIMITATION: The analysis did not consider possible benefits of preventing HCV transmission. CONCLUSION: Sofosbuvir provides good value for money for treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection and those with cirrhosis. At their current cost, sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients exceed willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly cited in the United States. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The cost of implementing rapid HIV testing in sexually transmitted disease clinics in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid HIV testing in high-risk populations can increase the number of persons who learn their HIV status and avoid spending clinic resources to locate persons identified as HIV infected. METHODS: We determined the cost to sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics of point-of-care rapid HIV testing using data from 7 public clinics that participated in a randomized trial of rapid testing with and without brief patient-centered risk reduction counseling in 2010. Costs included counselor and trainer time, supplies, and clinic overhead. We applied national labor rates and test costs. We calculated median clinic start-up costs and mean cost per patient tested, and projected incremental annual costs of implementing universal rapid HIV testing compared with current testing practices. RESULTS: Criteria for offering rapid HIV testing and methods for delivering nonrapid test results varied among clinics before the trial. Rapid HIV testing cost an average of US $22/patient without brief risk reduction counseling and US $46/patient with counseling in these 7 clinics. Median start-up costs per clinic were US $1100 and US $16,100 without and with counseling, respectively. Estimated incremental annual costs per clinic of implementing universal rapid HIV testing varied by whether or not brief counseling is conducted and by current clinic testing practices, ranging from a savings of US $19,500 to a cost of US $40,700 without counseling and a cost of US $98,000 to US $153,900 with counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Universal rapid HIV testing in STD clinics with same-day results can be implemented at relatively low cost to STD clinics, if brief risk reduction counseling is not offered.

Cost-effectiveness of blood donor screening for Babesia microti in endemic regions of the United States.

BACKGROUND: Babesia microti is the leading reported cause of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-transmitted infection in the United States. Donor screening assays are in development. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A decision analytic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for preventing transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB) in a hypothetical cohort of transfusion recipients in Babesia-endemic areas of the United States. Strategies included: 1) no screening; 2) Uniform Donor Health History Questionnaire (UDHQ), "status quo"; 3) recipient risk targeting using donor antibody and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening; 4) universal endemic donor antibody screening; and 5) universal endemic donor antibody and PCR screening. Outcome measures were TTB cases averted, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; $/QALY). We assumed a societal willingness to pay of $1 million/QALY based on screening for other transfusion-transmitted infections. RESULTS: Compared to no screening, the UDHQ avoids 0.02 TTB cases per 100,000 RBC transfusions at an ICER of $160,000/QALY whereas recipient risk-targeted strategy using antibody/PCR avoids 1.62 TTB cases per 100,000 RBC transfusions at an ICER of $713,000/QALY compared to the UDHQ. Universal endemic antibody screening avoids 3.39 cases at an ICER of $760,000/QALY compared to the recipient risk-targeted strategy. Universal endemic antibody/PCR screening avoids 3.60 cases and has an ICER of $8.8 million/QALY compared to universal endemic antibody screening. Results are sensitive to blood donor Babesia prevalence, TTB transmission probability, screening test costs, risk and severity of TTB complications, and impact of babesiosis diagnosis on donor quality of life. CONCLUSION: Antibody screening for Babesia in endemic regions is appropriate from an economic perspective based on the societal willingness to pay for preventing infectious threats to blood safety.

Cost-effectiveness of long-term outpatient buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for opioid dependence in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians with appropriate training may prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone (bup/nx) to treat opioid dependence in US office-based settings, where many patients prefer to be treated. Bup/nx is off patent but not available as a generic. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of long-term office-based bup/nx treatment for clinically stable opioid-dependent patients compared to no treatment. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: A decision analytic model simulated a hypothetical cohort of clinically stable opioid-dependent individuals who have already completed 6 months of office-based bup/nx treatment. Data were from a published cohort study that collected treatment retention, opioid use, and costs for this population, and published quality-of-life weights. Uncertainties in estimated monthly costs and quality-of-life weights were evaluated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and the economic value of additional research to reduce these uncertainties was also evaluated. MAIN MEASURES: Bup/nx, provider, and patient costs in 2010 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios ($/QALY); costs and QALYs are discounted at 3% annually. KEY RESULTS: In the base case, office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients has a CE ratio of $35,100/QALY compared to no treatment after 24 months, with 64% probability of being < $100,000/QALY in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With a 50% bup/nx price reduction the CE ratio is $23,000/QALY with 69% probability of being < $100,000/QALY. Alternative quality-of-life weights result in CE ratios of $138,000/QALY and $90,600/QALY. The value of research to reduce quality-of-life uncertainties for 24-month results is $6,400 per person eligible for treatment at the current bup/nx price and $5,100 per person with a 50% bup/nx price reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients may be a cost-effective alternative to no treatment at a threshold of $100,000/QALY depending on assumptions about quality-of-life weights. Additional research about quality-of-life benefits and broader health system and societal cost savings of bup/nx therapy is needed.

Cost of providing co-located hepatitis C treatment at a syringe service program exceeds potential reimbursement: Results from a clinical trial.

Background: Co-located hepatitis C treatment at syringe service programs (SSP) is an emerging model of care for people who inject drugs (PWID). Implementation of these models can be informed by understanding the program costs. Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation of a hepatitis C treatment intervention at an SSP in New York City implemented as one arm of a randomized trial from 2017 to 2021. Start-up and operating costs were determined from the treatment program's perspective using micro-costing and were compared to potential Medicaid reimbursement. We applied nationally representative unit costs and wage rates. Results are reported in 2020 USD. Results: The treatment program was staffed by one physician and one care coordinator. Participants were offered hepatitis C clinical evaluation and treatment, a 45-min reinfection prevention education session, and additional care coordination as needed. The trial enrolled 84 PWID with hepatitis C in the intervention arm; 64 initiated treatment and 55 achieved sustained virological response. Start-up costs including training and equipment totaled $4677. Overhead costs including rent, utilities and software totaled $2229 per month. Clinical and care coordination totaled $4867 per participant, of which $3722 was care coordination. The total cost excluding startup was $6035 per enrolled participant and $7921 per treated participant; estimated potential reimbursement was $628 per enrolled participant. Conclusion: Our results provide insight to US-based SSPs seeking to provide co-located hepatitis C care and highlight the intensive care coordination services provided. Successful implementation likely requires funding sources beyond health insurers or substantial changes to insurance reimbursement for care coordination.

Cost-effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended-release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a US randomized-effectiveness trial comparing extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) with buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) for the prevention of opioid relapse among participants recruited during inpatient detoxification (CTN-0051), the requirement to complete opioid detoxification prior to initiating XR-NTX resulted in lower rates of initiation of XR-NTX (72% XR-NTX versus 94% BUP-NX). DESIGN: This was a retrospective secondary analysis of CTN-0051 trial data, including follow-up data over 24-36 weeks. SETTING: Eight community-based, inpatient-detoxification and follow-up outpatient treatment facilities in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 283 participants randomized to receive XR-NTX. MEASUREMENTS: Efficiency was estimated using a multivariable generalized structural equation model to explore simultaneous determinants of XR-NTX induction and induction duration (detoxification + residential days). Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the health-care sector perspective and included expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). FINDINGS: Treatment site was the only modifiable factor that simultaneously increased the likelihood of XR-NTX induction and decreased induction duration. Incorporating the higher predicted probability of XR-NTX induction, and fewer predicted days of detoxification and subsequent residential treatment into the cost-effectiveness framework, reduced the incremental average 24-week total cost of XR-NTX treatment from $5317 more than that of BUP-NX (P = 0.01) to a non-statistically-significant difference of $1016 (P = 0.63). QALYs gained remained similar across arms. CONCLUSION: Adopting an efficient model of extended-release naltrexone initiation could result in extended-release naltrexone and buprenorphine-naloxone being of comparable economic value from the health-care sector perspective over 24-36 weeks for patients seeking treatment for opioid use disorder at an inpatient detoxification facility.

Harmonizing healthcare and other resource measures for evaluating economic costs in substance use disorder research.

BACKGROUND: Standardization and harmonization of healthcare resource utilization data can improve evaluations of the economic impact of treating people with substance use disorder (SUD), including reductions in use of expensive hospital and emergency department (ED) services, and can ensure consistency with current cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis guidelines. METHODS: We examined self-reported healthcare and other resource utilization data collected at baseline from three National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded Seek, Test, Treat, and Retain intervention studies of individuals living with/at risk for HIV with SUD. Costs were calculated by multiplying mean healthcare resource utilization measures by monetary conversion factors reflecting cost per unit of care. We normalized baseline recall timeframes to past 30 days and evaluated for missing data. RESULTS: We identified measures that are feasible and appropriate for estimating healthcare sector costs including ED visits, inpatient hospital and residential facility stays, and outpatient encounters. We also identified two self-reported measures to inform societal costs (days experiencing SUD problems, participant spending on substances). Missingness was 8% or less for all study measures and was lower for single questions measuring utilization in a recall period. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend including measures representing units of service with specific recall periods (e.g., 6 months vs. lifetime), and collecting healthcare resource utilization data using single-question measures to reduce missingness.

Health-related quality of life and opioid use disorder pharmacotherapy: A secondary analysis of a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) of persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) seeking treatment in an inpatient detoxification or short-term residential setting; continuing treatment as outpatients. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial (N = 508) where participants were randomized to extended-release naltrexone or buprenorphine-naloxone for the prevention of opioid relapse. We used a generalized structural equation regression mixture model to identify associations of HRQoL (EQ-5D) trajectories, including latent characteristics, over the 24-week trial and 36-week follow-up period, among participants who reported HRQoL beyond baseline. This novel framework accounted for baseline and time-varying characteristics, while simultaneously identifying latent classes. RESULTS: We identified two subpopulations: HRQoL "pharmacotherapy responsive" (82.3 %) and HRQoL "characteristic sensitive" (17.7 %). The pharmacotherapy responsive subpopulation was characterized by a shortterm HRQoL improvement and then stable HRQoL over time, and by a positive association between HRQoL and receiving pharmacotherapy in the past 30 days. The characteristic sensitive subpopulation was characterized by an initial improvement in HRQoL with a gradual decline over time, and no significant HRQoL response to pharmacotherapy. HRQoL changes over time in this subpopulation were more influenced by baseline demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial characteristics. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that while HRQoL may be improved and sustained through targeted efforts to promote use of pharmacotherapy for many persons with OUD, an identifiable subpopulation may require additional services that address socioeconomic and psychosocial issues to achieve HRQoL benefits. Our analysis provides insight for improving individualized care for persons with opioid use disorder seeking treatment.

Injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, and buprenorphine utilization and discontinuation among individuals treated for opioid use disorder in a United States commercially insured population.

We investigated prescribing patterns for four opioid use disorder (OUD) medications: 1) injectable naltrexone, 2) oral naltrexone, 3) sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, and 4) sublingual buprenorphine as well as transdermal buprenorphine (which is approved for treating pain, but not OUD) in a nationally representative claims-based database (Truven Health MarketScan®) of commercially insured individuals in the United States. We calculated the prevalence of OUD in the database for each year from 2010 to 2014 and the proportion of diagnosed patient months on OUD medication. We compared characteristics of individuals diagnosed with OUD who did and did not receive these medications with bivariate descriptive statistics. Finally, we fit a Cox proportional hazards model of time to discontinuation of therapy as a function of therapy type, controlling for relevant confounders. From 2010 to 2014, the proportion of commercially insured individuals diagnosed with OUD grew by fourfold (0.12% to 0.48%), but the proportion of diagnosed patient-months on medication decreased from 25% in 2010 (0.05% injectable naltrexone, 0.4% oral naltrexone, 23.1% sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 1.5% sublingual buprenorphine, and 0% transdermal buprenorphine) to 16% in 2014 (0.2% injectable naltrexone, 0.4% oral naltrexone, 13.8% sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 1.4% sublingual buprenorphine, and 0.3% transdermal buprenorphine). Individuals who received medication therapy were more likely to be male, younger, and have an additional substance use disorder compared with those diagnosed with OUD who did not receive medication therapy. Those prescribed injectable naltrexone were more often male, younger, and diagnosed with additional substance use disorders compared with those prescribed other medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs). At 30 days after initiation, 52% for individuals treated with injectable naltrexone, 70% for individuals treated with oral naltrexone, 31% for individuals treated with sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 58% for individuals treated with sublingual buprenorphine, and 51% for individuals treated with transdermal buprenorphine discontinued treatment. In the Cox proportional hazard model, use of injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, sublingual buprenorphine, and transdermal buprenorphine were all associated with significantly greater hazard of discontinuing therapy beginning >30days after MOUD initiation (HR=2.17, 2.54, 1.15, and 2.21, respectively, 95% CIs 2.04-2.30, 2.45-2.64, 1.10-1.19, and 2.11-2.33), compared with the use of sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone. This analysis demonstrates that the use of evidence-based medication therapies has not kept pace with increases in OUD diagnoses in commercially insured populations in the United States. Among those who have been treated, discontinuation rates >30days after initiation are high. The proportion treated with injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, and transdermal buprenorphine grew over time but remains small, and the discontinuation rates are higher among those treated with these medications compared with those treated with sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone. In the face of the opioid overdose and addiction crisis, new efforts are needed at the provider, health system, and policy levels so that MOUD availability and uptake keep pace with new OUD diagnoses and OUD treatment discontinuation is minimized.

Cost of pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorders following inpatient detoxification.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the costs of providing extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) and buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) following inpatient detoxification using data derived from a multisite randomized controlled trial at 8 US community-based treatment programs. STUDY DESIGN: Cost data were collected for 3 intervention phases: program start-up, inpatient detoxification, and up to 24 weeks of medication induction and management visits (post detoxification). Cost analyses were from the healthcare sector perspective (2015 US$); patient costs are also reported. METHODS: We conducted site visits, administered a cost survey to treatment programs, and analyzed study data on medication and services utilization. Nationally representative sources were used to estimate unit costs. Uncertainty was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean start-up costs were $1071 per program for XR-NTX and $828 per program for BUP-NX. Mean costs per participant were $5416 for XR-NTX (57% detoxification, 37% medication, 3% provider, 3% patient) and $4148 for BUP-NX (64% detoxification, 12% medication, 10% provider, 14% patient). Total cost per participant ranged by site from $2979 to $8963 for XR-NTX and from $2521 to $6486 for BUP-NX. CONCLUSIONS: For treatment providers, offering XR-NTX and/or BUP-NX as part of existing detoxification treatment modalities generates modest costs in addition to the costs of detoxification, which vary substantially among the 8 sites. From the patient's perspective, the costs associated with medication management visits may be a barrier for some individuals considering these treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C screening and treatment linkage intervention in US methadone maintenance treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a hepatitis C (HCV) screening and active linkage to care intervention in US methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) patients using data from a randomized trial conducted in New York City and San Francisco. METHODS: We used a decision analytic model to compare 1) no intervention; 2) HCV screening and education (control); and 3) HCV screening, education, and care coordination (active linkage intervention). We also explored an alternative strategy wherein HCV/HIV co-infected participants linked elsewhere. Trial data include population characteristics (67% male, mean age 48, 58% HCV infected) and linkage rates. Data from published sources include treatment efficacy and HCV re-infection risk. We projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime medical costs using an established model of HCV (HEP-CE). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are in 2015 US$/QALY discounted 3% annually. RESULTS: The control strategy resulted in a projected 35% linking to care within 6 months and 31% achieving sustained virologic response (SVR). The intervention resulted in 60% linking and 54% achieving SVR with an ICER of $24,600/QALY compared to no intervention from the healthcare sector perspective and was a more efficient use of resources than the control strategy. The intervention had an ICER of $76,500/QALY compared to the alternative strategy. From a societal perspective, the intervention had a net monetary benefit of $511,000-$975,600. CONCLUSIONS: HCV care coordination interventions that include screening, education and active linkage to care in MMT settings are likely cost-effective at a conventional $100,000/QALY threshold for both HCV mono-infected and HIV co-infected patients.

Criminal justice measures for economic data harmonization in substance use disorder research.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of substance use disorders (SUDs) are varied and broad, affecting many sectors of society and the economy. Economic evaluation translates these consequences into dollars to examine the net economic impact of interventions for SUD, and associated conditions such as HCV and HIV. The nexus between substance use and crime makes criminal justice outcomes particularly significant for estimating the economic impact of SUD interventions, and important for data harmonization. METHODS: We compared baseline data collected in six NIDA-funded Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) intervention studies that enrolled HIV-infected/at-risk individuals with SUDs (total n = 3415). Criminal justice measures included contacts with the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests) and criminal offenses. The objective was to develop a list of recommended measures and methods supporting economic data harmonization opportunities in HIV and SUD research, with an initial focus on crime-related outcomes. RESULTS: Criminal justice contacts and criminal offenses were highly variable across studies. When measures grouped by offense classifications were compared, consistencies across studies emerged. Most individuals report being arrested for property or public order crimes (> 50%); the most commonly reported offenses were prostitution/pimping, larceny/shoplifting, robbery, and household burglary. CONCLUSIONS: We identified four measures that are feasible and appropriate for estimating the economic consequences of SUDs/HIV/HCV: number of arrests, number of convictions, days of incarceration, and times committing criminal offenses, by type of offense. To account for extreme variation, grouping crimes by offense classification or calculating monthly averages per event allows for more meaningful comparisons across studies.

Closing the gaps in opioid use disorder research, policy and practice: conference proceedings.

Drug overdose deaths involving opioids have surged in recent years and the economic cost of the opioid epidemic is estimated to be over $500 billion annually. In the midst of calls for declaring a national emergency, health policy decision makers are considering the best ways to allocate resources to curb the epidemic. On June 9, 2017, 116 invited health researchers, clinicians, policymakers, health system leaders, and other stakeholders met at the University of Pennsylvania to discuss approaches to address the gaps in evidence-based substance use disorder policy and practice, with an emphasis on the opioid epidemic. The conference was sponsored by the Center for Health Economics of Treatment Interventions for Substance Use Disorder, HCV, and HIV (CHERISH), a NIDA-funded National Center of Excellence, and hosted by the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics of the University of Pennsylvania. The conference aims were to: (1) foster new relationships between researchers and policymakers through a collaborative work process and (2) generate evidence-based policy recommendations to address the opioid epidemic. The conference concluded with an interactive work session during which attendees self-identified as researchers or policymakers and were divided equally among 13 tables. These groups met to develop and present policy recommendations based on an opioid use disorder case study. Thirteen policy recommendations emerged across four themes: (1) quality of treatment, (2) continuity of care, (3) opioid prescribing and pain management, and (4) consumer engagement. This conference serves as a proposed model to develop equitable, working relationships among researchers, clinicians, and policymakers.