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.