Cost-effectiveness of full and partial opioid agonists for opioid use disorder in outpatient settings: United States healthcare sector perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce illicit opioid use, emergency healthcare services, opioid-related overdose, and death. However, few studies have investigated the long-term cost-effectiveness of MOUD in office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) and opioid treatment program (OTP) settings. We aimed to estimate the cost, utility, quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of three MOUD compared to each other and counseling without medication from a US healthcare sector perspective. METHODS: Our study developed a Markov model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of counseling and three MOUD in the OBOT and OTP settings: sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (BUPNX), buprenorphine extended-release (XR-BUP) injection, and oral methadone. The model included five health states representing combinations of receiving or off treatment while either using or not actively using illicit opioids, and death. The cycle length was one month; the time-horizon was ten years. The study obtained model inputs from systematic reviews of published literature and public data. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to cost and utility calculation. The primary outcomes included total costs, life-years (LYs), QALYs, and ICERs. We also conducted a scenario analysis using a hypothetical OBOT outpatient setting with methadone. RESULTS: In the base-case OBOT setting, the total costs and QALYs, respectively, were counseling $22,848, 5.60; BUPNX $29,875, 5.82; and XR-BUP $63,936, 5.87. ICERs were $32,345/QALY (BUPNX vs. counseling) and $625,858/QALY (XR-BUP vs BUPNX). In the OTP setting, the total costs of counseling, methadone, BUPNX, and XR-BUP were $20,124, $27,000, $33,500, and $75,272, respectively. QALYs of methadone were 5.86. QALYs of counseling, BUPNX, and XR-BUP remained the same as in the OBOT setting. Incremental ICERs were $26,714/QALY (methadone vs counseling) and $3,337,623/QALY (XR-BUP vs methadone). BUPNX was dominated by methadone. In the scenario analysis, BUPNX was also dominated by methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient MOUD resulted in important gains in quality of life and life expectancy. In both OBOT and OTP settings, XR-BUP was not cost-effective. BUPNX was cost-effective in the OBOT setting, while it was dominated by methadone in the OTP setting. The cost-effectiveness of BUPNX and XR-BUP could be enhanced if the costs of these medications were reduced.

The Importance of Research and Scholarly Activity in Pharmacy Training.

Regardless of practice setting, it is imperative that pharmacists be able to either participate in generating new knowledge or use the ever-expanding body of literature to guide patient care. However, competing priorities in Pharm.D. curricula and residency training programs have resulted in limited emphasis on acquiring research and scholarly skills. Factors likely contributing to this reduced focus include the lack of curricular and postgraduate training standards emphasizing the development of research skills, time to commit to scholarly activity, and accessibility to experienced mentors. Strategies for increasing scholarly activity for pharmacy students and residents should therefore continue to be a focus of professional degree and residency training programs. Several resources are available for academic planners, program directors, and institutions to augment scholarly experience for pharmacy trainees and clinicians. This commentary highlights the importance of providing research opportunities for students and residents, describes the potential barriers to these activities, and provides recommendations on how to increase the instruction and mentoring of trainees to generate and use research.

A multidisciplinary intervention for reducing readmissions among older adults in a patient-centered medical home.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary practice model consisting of medical providers, clinical pharmacists, and social workers on reducing 30-day all-cause readmissions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: This study included adults 60 years or older discharged from a large academic medical center. Patients were grouped as either receiving the primary care-based transitional care program (intervention group) or usual care (control group) after an index hospitalization. Only 1 index hospitalization was included per patient. All-cause 30-day readmission rates between propensity score matched study groups were analyzed by intention-to-treat, per protocol, and as-treated methods. Secondary outcomes included time to readmission, subgroup analysis, process measures, and cost avoidance influence of covariates on chance of readmission measured by logistic regression. RESULTS: Over 27 months, 19,169 unique patients had 18,668 index hospitalizations and 572 interventions scheduled after discharge. Among matched subjects, 30-day readmission rates were not significantly different between those scheduled for the intervention and those never scheduled (21% vs 17.3%, respectively; P = .133). However, when those completing the intervention (n = 217) were examined, readmission rates were significantly reduced (11.7% vs 17.3%, respectively; P < .001). Likewise, time to readmission was significantly longer among those receiving the intervention (18 ± 9 days compared with 12 ± 9 days with usual care; P = .015) and potential cost avoidance was observed only when the intervention was completed. CONCLUSIONS: A community-based multidisciplinary transitional care program may reduce hospital readmissions among older adults.

Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating fidaxomicin versus oral vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Fidaxomicin is a novel treatment for Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs). This new treatment, however, is associated with a higher acquisition cost compared with alternatives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin or oral vancomycin for the treatment of CDIs. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis comparing fidaxomicin with oral vancomycin for the treatment of CDIs in the United States by creating a decision analytic model from the third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with fidaxomicin compared with oral vancomycin was $67,576/quality-adjusted life-year. A probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis showed that fidaxomicin had an 80.2% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Fidaxomicin remained cost-effective under all fluctuations of both fidaxomicin and oral vancomycin costs. The decision analytic model was sensitive to variations in clinical cure and recurrence rates. Secondary analyses revealed that fidaxomicin was cost-effective in patients receiving concominant antimicrobials, in patients with mild to moderate CDIs, and when compared with oral metronidazole in patients with mild to moderate disease. Fidaxomicin was dominated by oral vancomycin if CDI was caused by the NAP1/Bl/027 Clostridium difficile strain and was dominant in institutions that did not compound oral vancomycin. CONCLUSION: Results of our model showed that fidaxomicin may be a more cost-effective option for the treatment of CDIs when compared with oral vancomycin under most scenarios tested.