Clinical outcomes and health care costs among people entering a safer opioid supply program in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: London InterCommunity Health Centre (LIHC) launched a safer opioid supply (SOS) program in 2016, where clients are prescribed pharmaceutical opioids and provided with comprehensive health and social supports. We sought to evaluate the impact of this program on health services utilization and health care costs. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of London, Ontario, residents who received a diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) and who entered the SOS program between January 2016 and March 2019, and a comparison group of individuals matched on demographic and clinical characteristics who were not exposed to the program. Primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, admissions for infections and health care costs. We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to evaluate the impact of SOS initiation and compared outcome rates in the year before and after cohort entry. RESULTS: In the time series analysis, rates of ED visits (-14 visits/100, 95% confidence interval [CI] -26 to -2; p = 0.02), hospital admissions (-5 admissions/100, 95% CI -9 to -2; p = 0.005) and health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications (-$922/person, 95% CI -$1577 to -$268; p = 0.008) declined significantly after entry into the SOS program (n = 82), with no significant change in rates of infections (-1.6 infections/100, 95% CI -4.0 to 0.8; p = 0.2). In the year after cohort entry, the rate of ED visits (rate ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90), hospital admissions (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), admissions for incident infections (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96) and total health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications ($15 635 v. $7310/person-year; p = 0.002) declined significantly among SOS clients compared with the year before. We observed no significant change in any of the primary outcomes among unexposed individuals (n = 303). INTERPRETATION: Although additional research is needed, this preliminary evidence indicates that SOS programs can play an important role in the expansion of treatment and harm-reduction options available to assist people who use drugs and who are at high risk of drug poisoning.

Potential cost-effectiveness of supervised injection facilities in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Supervised injection facilities (legally sanctioned spaces for supervised consumption of illicitly obtained drugs) are controversial public health interventions. We determined the optimal number of facilities in two Canadian cities using health economic methods. DESIGN: Dynamic compartmental model of HIV and hepatitis C transmission through sexual contact and sharing of drug use equipment. SETTING: Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Simulated population of each city. INTERVENTIONS: Zero to five supervised injection facilities. MEASUREMENTS: Direct health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 20 years, discounted at 5% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: In Toronto, one facility cost $4.1 million and resulted in a gain of 385 QALYs over 20 years, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,763 per QALY [95% credible interval (95CrI): cost-saving to $278,311]. Establishing one facility in Ottawa had an ICER of $6127 per QALY (95CrI: cost-saving to $179,272). At a $50,000 per QALY threshold, three facilities would be cost-effective in Toronto and two in Ottawa. The probability that establishing three, four, or five facilities in Toronto was cost-effective was 17, 21, and 41%, respectively. Establishing one, two, or three facilities in Ottawa was cost-effective with 13, 35, and 41% probability, respectively. Establishing no facility was unlikely to be the most cost-effective option (14% in Toronto and 10% in Ottawa). In both cities, results were robust if the reduction in needle-sharing among clients of the facilities was at least 50% and fixed operating costs were less than $2.0 million. CONCLUSIONS: Using a $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years threshold for cost-effectiveness, it is likely to be cost-effective to establish at least three legally sanctioned spaces for supervised injection of illicitly obtained drugs in Toronto, Canada and two in Ottawa, Canada.