Cost-Effectiveness of Take-Home Naloxone for the Prevention of Overdose Fatalities among Heroin Users in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Heroin overdose is a major cause of premature death. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that is effective for the reversal of heroin overdose in emergency situations and can be used by nonmedical responders. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to adults at risk of heroin overdose for use by nonmedical responders compared with no naloxone distribution in a European healthcare setting (United Kingdom). METHODS: A Markov model with an integrated decision tree was developed based on an existing model, using UK data where available. We evaluated an intramuscular naloxone distribution reaching 30% of heroin users. Costs and effects were evaluated over a lifetime and discounted at 3.5%. The results were assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The model estimated that distribution of intramuscular naloxone, would decrease overdose deaths by around 6.6%. In a population of 200,000 heroin users this equates to the prevention of 2,500 premature deaths at an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of £899. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation suggests that the distribution of take-home naloxone decreased overdose deaths by around 6.6% and was cost-effective with an incremental cost per QALY gained well below a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold set by UK decision-makers. The model code has been made available to aid future research. Further study is warranted on the impact of different formulations of naloxone on cost-effectiveness and the impact take-home naloxone has on the wider society.

Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study.

AIMS: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. RESULTS: Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use. LIMITATIONS: The model's 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured. CONCLUSIONS: OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK's willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.

A systematic review of health economic models of opioid agonist therapies in maintenance treatment of non-prescription opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is a chronic condition with substantial health, economic and social costs. The study objective was to conduct a systematic review of published health-economic models of opioid agonist therapy for non-prescription opioid dependence, to review the different modelling approaches identified, and to inform future modelling studies. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in March 2015 in eight electronic databases, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and searches on six National Health Technology Assessment Agency websites. Studies were included if they: investigated populations that were dependent on non-prescription opioids and were receiving opioid agonist or maintenance therapy; compared any pharmacological maintenance intervention with any other maintenance regimen (including placebo or no treatment); and were health-economic models of any type. RESULTS: A total of 18 unique models were included. These used a range of modelling approaches, including Markov models (n = 4), decision tree with Monte Carlo simulations (n = 3), decision analysis (n = 3), dynamic transmission models (n = 3), decision tree (n = 1), cohort simulation (n = 1), Bayesian (n = 1), and Monte Carlo simulations (n = 2). Time horizons ranged from 6 months to lifetime. The most common evaluation was cost-utility analysis reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 11), followed by cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 4), budget-impact analysis/cost comparison (n = 2) and cost-benefit analysis (n = 1). Most studies took the healthcare provider's perspective. Only a few models included some wider societal costs, such as productivity loss or costs of drug-related crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. Costs to individuals and impacts on family and social networks were not included in any model. CONCLUSION: A relatively small number of studies of varying quality were found. Strengths and weaknesses relating to model structure, inputs and approach were identified across all the studies. There was no indication of a single standard emerging as a preferred approach. Most studies omitted societal costs, an important issue since the implications of drug abuse extend widely beyond healthcare services. Nevertheless, elements from previous models could together form a framework for future economic evaluations in opioid agonist therapy including all relevant costs and outcomes. This could more adequately support decision-making and policy development for treatment of non-prescription opioid dependence.

Examining the association between pain severity and quality-of-life, work-productivity loss, and healthcare resource use among European adults diagnosed with pain.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this research was to quantify the association between pain severity and several health outcomes in a large sample of patients diagnosed with some form of pain. METHODS: Responses from patients who had been diagnosed with some form of pain (n = 14,459) were drawn from the 2013 EU National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS; n = 62,000). Respondents reported their subjective pain severity in the past week on a numerical rating scale (0-10) as well as the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), and healthcare resource utilization in the past 6 months (healthcare professional (HCP) visits, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalizations). Associations between pain severity and health outcomes were examined via a series of regression models controlling for a set of demographic and health-related covariates. RESULTS: After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, pain severity in the past week was shown to be significantly negatively associated with Health Utilities (b = -0.022, p < 0.001) and positively associated with overall WPAI scores (b = 0.18, p < 0.001) and healthcare resource use (Hospitalizations: b = 0.13, p < 0.001; ER Visits: b = 0.14, p < 0.001; HCP Visits: b = 0.08, p < 0.001). The nature of these relationships (linear, curvilinear, etc.) is also explored. LIMITATIONS: This study was a self-report cross-sectional study which may have biased the results and does not allow for causal inferences to be made. Finally, the regression models run were limited to available covariates and, hence, some potentially important covariates may not have been included in these models. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that reducing pain severity could result in an increase in patients' quality-of-life and work productivity, and a decrease in healthcare resource use. The equations, linking pain and outcomes, were presented in an accessible format so they could be readily applied in healthcare decision-making.

A Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Stroke, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Head Injury, and Pneumonia.

Oropharyngeal dysphagia is a common condition after stroke, Parkinson's disease (PD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD), and can cause serious complications including malnutrition, aspiration pneumonia, and premature mortality. Despite its high prevalence among the elderly and associated serious complications, dysphagia is often overlooked and under-diagnosed in vulnerable patient populations. This systematic review aimed to improve understanding and awareness of the prevalence of dysphagia in susceptible patient populations. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, PROSPERO, and disease-specific websites were systematically searched for studies reporting oropharyngeal dysphagia prevalence or incidence in people with stroke, PD, AD, traumatic brain injury, and community-acquired pneumonia, from the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Japan, China, and regional studies. The quality of study descriptions were assessed based on STROBE guidelines. A total of 1207 publications were identified and 33 met inclusion criteria: 24 in stroke, six in PD, two in traumatic brain injury, and one in patients with traumatic brain injury. Dysphagia was reported in 8.1-80 % of stroke patients, 11-81 % of PD, 27-30 % of traumatic brain injury patients, and 91.7 % of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. No relevant studies of dysphagia in AD were identified. This review demonstrates that dysphagia is highly prevalent in these populations, and highlights discrepancies between studies, gaps in dysphagia research, and the need for better dysphagia management starting with a reliable, standardized, and validated method for oropharyngeal dysphagia identification.