Association Between Cost-Sharing and Buprenorphine Prescription Abandonment.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest cost-sharing decreases buprenorphine dispensing. However, these studies used databases that only report prescriptions filled by patients, not those that were "abandoned." Consequently, the studies could not calculate the probability of buprenorphine prescription abandonment or evaluate whether cost-sharing is associated with abandonment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cost-sharing and buprenorphine prescription abandonment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, a pharmacy transaction database representing 63% of U.S. retail pharmacies. The database includes transaction records ("claims") for prescriptions even if they are not filled. PARTICIPANTS: Buprenorphine claims in 2022 among commercially insured and Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the association between cost-sharing per 30-day supply and abandonment using logistic regression, controlling for patient characteristics, product type, and buprenorphine use in the prior 180 days. We assessed for effect modification by prior buprenorphine use. KEY RESULTS: Analyses included 2,346,994 and 1,242,596 buprenorphine prescription claims for commercially insured and Medicare patients, respectively. Among these claims, mean (SD) cost-sharing per 30-day supply was $28.1 (46.4) and $8.4 (20.2), and 1.5% and 1.2% were abandoned. Each $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.10) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.10) percentage-point increase in abandonment among commercially insured and Medicare patients. Among commercially insured and Medicare patients without prior buprenorphine use, respectively, a $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.14) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.18) percentage-point higher increase in the probability of abandonment compared with patients with > 90 days of prior buprenorphine use. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured and Medicare patients, buprenorphine prescription abandonment is rare and only minimally associated with cost-sharing. Findings suggest elimination of buprenorphine cost-sharing should only be one component of a larger, multi-faceted campaign to increase buprenorphine dispensing.

Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist. METHODS: Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Reprint of: Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist. METHODS: Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design.

BACKGROUND: The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD. RESULTS: Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions. METHODS: We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News. RESULTS: Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.

Changes in For-Profit Medication-Assisted Therapy Clinics in an Appalachian City.

OBJECTIVES: This study is a follow-up to previous research regarding buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy (MAT) in Johnson City, Tennessee. For-profit MAT clinics were surveyed to determine changes in tapering practice patterns and insurance coverage during the last 3 years. METHODS: Johnson City for-profit MAT clinics; also called office based opioid treatment centers, were surveyed by telephone. Clinic representatives were asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy, insurance coverage, counseling offered onsite, and opportunities for tapering while pregnant. RESULTS: All of the MAT clinics representatives indicated that tapering in pregnancy could be considered even though tapering in pregnancy is contrary to current national guidelines. Forty-three percent of the clinics now accept insurance as compared with 0% in the 2016 study. The average weekly cost per visit remained consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of tapering buprenorphine during pregnancy appears to have become a standard of care for this community, as representatives state it is offered at all of the clinics that were contacted. Representatives from three clinics stated the clinics require tapering, even though national organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine do not recommend this approach. Although patients who have government or other insurance are now able to obtain buprenorphine with no expense at numerous clinics, the high cost for uninsured patients continues to create an environment conducive to buprenorphine diversion.

Financing Buprenorphine Treatment in Primary Care: A Microsimulation Model.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the financial impact to primary care practices of alternative strategies for offering buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: We interviewed 20 practice managers and identified 4 approaches to delivering buprenorphine-based treatment via primary care practice that differed in physician and nurse responsibilities. We used a microsimulation model to estimate how practice variations in patient type, payer, revenue, and cost across primary care practices nationwide would affect cost and revenue implications for each approach for the following types of practices: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban high-poverty areas, non-FQHCs in rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas. RESULTS: The 4 approaches to buprenorphine-based treatment included physician-led visits with nurse-led logistical support; nurse-led visits with physician oversight; shared visits; and solo prescribing by physician alone. Net practice revenues would be expected to increase after introduction of any of the 4 approaches by $18,000 to $70,000 per full-time physician in the first year across practice type. Yet physician-led visits and shared medical appointments, both of which relied on nurse care managers, consistently produced the greatest net revenues ($29,000-$70,000 per physician in the first year). To ensure positive net revenues with any approach, providers would need to maintain at least 9 patients in treatment, with a no-show rate of <34%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a simulation model, we estimate that many types of primary care practices could financially sustain buprenorphine-based treatment if demand and no-show rate requirements are met, but a nurse care manager-based approach might be the most sustainable.

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.

Provision of Buprenorphine to Pregnant Women by For-Profit Clinics in an Appalachian City.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to confirm that patient reports on buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy in for-profit buprenorphine clinics in our community were personally costly. We contacted all 17 for-profit clinics in our community and confirmed the patient reports that a significant financial payment of ≤$100 was required for each visit. We also found that tapering of buprenorphine dosage in pregnancy was offered by several of the clinics. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted with the 17 for-profit buprenorphine clinics located in the Johnson City, Tennessee area. The clinic representative who answered the telephone was asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy and availability of tapering programs for pregnant women. RESULTS: Patient reports that the for-profit clinics are costly were confirmed. None of the clinics accepted insurance reimbursement of any type. The most common weekly costs were $100 per visit. A majority of clinics offered biweekly or monthly visits at significantly increased rates. Clinic representatives stated that a majority of clinics would consider buprenorphine tapering programs for pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The high cost of for-profit clinics is a barrier for patient access to medication-assisted therapy with buprenorphine. Tapering of buprenorphine dosage in pregnant women has penetrated buprenorphine management practice in our community. Further research is needed to determine whether elimination of cost barrier would have a positive effect on the rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Underused Weapon In the War on Addiction.

Buprenorphine could save thousands more lives than it does-if it weren't for legal barriers, a fear of disruptive patients, and insurance red tape. And it can be prescribed in the primary care physician's office.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Medicaid-covered Utilization of Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine has been proven effective in treating opioid use disorder. However, the high cost of buprenorphine and the limited prescribing capacity may restrict access to this effective medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Medicaid expansion and physician prescribing capacity may have impacted buprenorphine utilization covered by Medicaid. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used a quasi experimental difference-in-differences design to compare the pre-post changes in Medicaid-covered buprenorphine prescriptions and buprenorphine spending between the 26 states that implemented Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act in 2014 and those that did not. SUBJECTS: All Medicaid enrollees in the expansion states and the nonexpansion and late-expansion states. MEASURES: Quarterly Medicaid prescriptions for buprenorphine and spending on buprenorphine from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicaid Drug Utilization files 2011 to 2014. RESULTS: State implementation of Medicaid expansions in 2014 was associated with a 70% increase (P<0.05) in Medicaid-covered buprenorphine prescriptions and a 50% increase (P<0.05) in buprenorphine spending. Physician prescribing capacity was also associated with increased buprenorphine utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion has the potential to reduce the financial barriers to buprenorphine utilization and improve access to medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder. Active physician participation in the provision of buprenorphine is needed for ensuring that Medicaid expansion achieves its full potential in improving treatment access.

Interim treatment: Bridging delays to opioid treatment access.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the undisputed effectiveness of agonist maintenance for opioid dependence, individuals can remain on waitlists for months, during which they are at significant risk for morbidity and mortality. To mitigate these risks, the Food and Drug Administration in 1993 approved interim treatment, involving daily medication+emergency counseling only, when only a waitlist is otherwise available. We review the published research in the 20years since the approval of interim opioid treatment. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify all randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of interim treatment for opioid-dependent patients awaiting comprehensive treatment. RESULTS: Interim opioid treatment has been evaluated in four controlled trials to date. In three, interim treatment was compared to waitlist or placebo control conditions and produced greater outcomes on measures of illicit opioid use, retention, criminality, and likelihood of entry into comprehensive treatment. In the fourth, interim treatment was compared to standard methadone maintenance and produced comparable outcomes in illicit opioid use, retention, and criminal activity. CONCLUSIONS: Interim treatment significantly reduces patient and societal risks when conventional treatment is unavailable. Further research is needed to examine the generality of these findings, further enhance outcomes, and identify the patient characteristics which predict treatment response.

Cost-Effectiveness of Injectable Extended-Release Naltrexone Compared With Methadone Maintenance and Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment for Opioid Dependence.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) compared with methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance treatment (MMT and BMT, respectively) for adult males enrolled in treatment for opioid dependence in the United States from the perspective of state-level addiction treatment payers. METHODS: A Markov model with daily time cycles was used to estimate the incremental cost per opioid-free day in a simulated cohort of adult males aged 18-65 over a 6-month period from the state health program perspective. RESULTS: XR-NTX is predicted to be more effective and more costly than methadone or buprenorphine in our target population, with an incremental cost per opioid-free day gained relative to the next-most effective treatment (MMT) of $72. The cost-effectiveness of XR-NTX relative to MMT was driven by its effectiveness in deterring opioid use while receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX is a cost-effective medication for treating opioid dependence if state addiction treatment payers are willing to pay at least $72 per opioid-free day.

Management of opioid-dependent patients: comparison of the cost associated with use of buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone, and their interactions with concomitant treatments for infectious or psychiatric comorbidities.

The objective was to estimate the annual interaction management cost of agonist opioid treatment (AOT) for opioid-dependent (OD) patients with buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) (B/N) or methadone associated with concomitant treatments for infectious (HIV) or psychiatric comorbidities. A costs analysis model was developed to calculate the associated cost of AOT and interaction management. The AOT cost included pharmaceutical costs, drug preparation, distribution and dispensing, based on intake regimen (healthcare center or take-home) and type and frequency of dispensing (healthcare center or pharmacy), and medical visits. The cost of methadone also included single-dose bottles, monthly costs of custody at pharmacy, urine toxicology drug screenings and nursing visits. Potential interactions between AOT and concomitant treatments (antivirals, antibacterials/antifungals, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, antidepressant and anticonvulsants), were identified to determine the additional use of healthcare resources for each interaction management. The annual cost per patient of AOT was €1,525.97 for B/N and €1,467.29 for methadone. The average annual cost per patient of interaction management was €257.07 (infectious comorbidities), €114.03 (psychiatric comorbidities) and €185.55 (double comorbidity) with methadone and €7.90 with B/N in psychiatric comorbidities. Total annual costs of B/N were €1,525.97, €1,533.87 and €1,533.87 compared to €1,724.35, €1,581.32 and €1,652.84 for methadone per patient with infectious, psychiatric or double comorbidity respectively.Compared to methadone, the total cost per patient with OD was lower with B/N (€47.45-€198.38 per year). This is due to the differences in interaction management costs associated with the concomitant treatment of infectious and/or psychiatric comorbidities.

El objetivo fue estimar en pacientes con dependencia a opiáceos (DO), el coste anual del manejo de interacciones del tratamiento sustitutivo con buprenorfina/naloxona (Suboxone®) (B/N) o metadona, asociado con tratamientos concomitantes por comorbilidades infecciosas (VIH) o psiquiátricas. Se realizó un análisis de costes (€, 2013), del tratamiento sustitutivo y del manejo de interacciones. El coste del tratamiento de B/N incluyó costes farmacológicos, elaboración, distribución y dispensación, en función del régimen de administración (centro asistencial o domiciliaria) y del tipo y frecuencia de dispensación (centro asistencial o farmacia), y visitas al especialista para prescripción. El coste de tratamiento con metadona incluyó, además, frascos monodosis, coste de custodia en farmacia, determinación en orina y visitas a enfermería. Se identificaron las interacciones para determinar los recursos sanitarios adicionales consumidos por la administración conjunta del tratamiento sustitutivo y concomitante (antirretrovirales, bactericidas/antifúngicos, antipsicóticos, ansiolíticos, antidepresivos y anticonvulsivos). El coste anual/paciente estimado del tratamiento sustitutivo fue de 1.525,97€ (B/N) y 1.467,29€ (metadona). El coste promedio anual/paciente estimado del manejo de interacciones fue de 257,07€ (infecciosas), 114,03€ (psiquiátricas) y 185,55€ (ambas) con metadona, y de 7,90€ con B/N por comorbilidades psiquiátricas. El coste total anual/paciente estimado de B/N fue 1.525,97€, 1.533,87€ y 1.533,87€ comparado con 1.724,35€, 1.581,32€ y 1.652,84€ de metadona, en pacientes que presentan comorbilidad infecciosa, psiquiátrica o ambas, respectivamente. Comparado con metadona, el coste total por paciente con DO de B/N fue menor (47,45€-198,38€ anuales) derivado de la diferencia del coste por manejo de interacciones del tratamiento concomitante de las comorbilidades infecciosas y/o psiquiátricas.

Economic burden and dosing trends of buprenorphine buccal film and transdermal patch in chronic low back pain.

Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.

What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.

Compared implementation of the long-acting buprenorphine treatment buvidal in four European countries.

BACKGROUND: Buvidal is the only depot buprenorphine currently available in Europe. Buvidal offers a new treatment paradigm, which may require some adjustment in the national regulatory frameworks for opioid agonist treatments (OATs), as well as the national care systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on the national dissemination of Buvidal, types of populations treated, and the national regulatory framework and care organization system through which Buvidal has been implemented were compared between the UK, Finland, Spain, and France, using a qualitative survey. RESULTS: In 2022, the proportion of people on OAT who received Buvidal was 2.1% in the UK, 60-65% in Finland, 1% in Spain, and 0.3% in France. In both Finland and the UK, the cost of the medication is covered by the national health system, whereas, in Spain and France, Buvidal is accessible only in specialized centers, which must carry its cost. Other national features may explain the gaps in Buvidal use, including the baseline level of OAT coverage, which was high in both France and Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Important national discrepancies are found regarding Buvidal dissemination among people on OAT.