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.

Missouri's Overdose Field Report: descriptive analysis, survival trends, and naloxone dosing patterns from a community-based survey tool, 2018-2022.

Background: Missouri's Overdose Field Report (ODFR) is a community-based reporting system which intends to capture overdoses which may not be otherwise recorded.Objectives: Describe the factors related to non-fatal overdoses reported to Missouri's ODFR.Methods: This study used a descriptive epidemiological approach to examine the demographics and circumstances of overdoses reported to the ODFR. We used binary logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with survival and ordinal logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with number of doses used. Factors were chosen based on their relevance to overdose education and survival, and naloxone distribution.Results: Between 2018 and 2022, 12,225 overdoses (67% male; 78% White) were reported through the ODFR, with a 96% (n = 11,225) survival rate. Overdose survival (ps < .02) was associated with younger age (OR = .58), no opioid and stimulant co-involvement (OR = .61), and private location (OR = .48). Intramuscular naloxone in particular was associated with a significantly higher odds of survival compared to nasal naloxone (OR = 2.11). An average of 1.6 doses of naloxone per incident were administered. Additional doses were associated (ps < .02) with being older (OR = .45), female (OR = .90), nasal naloxone (versus intravenous) (OR = .65), and the belief fentanyl was present (OR = 1.49).Conclusion: Our reporting form provides a comprehensive picture of the events surrounding reported overdoses, including factors associated with survival, how much naloxone was used, and the effects of respondents believing fentanyl was involved. Missouri's report can provide support for current naloxone dosing, contextualize refusing post-overdose transport, and can be used to improve overdose response by community and first responders.

Community-led approaches to making naloxone available in public settings: Implementation experiences in the HEALing communities study.

BACKGROUND: Expanding public naloxone access is a key strategy to reduce opioid overdose fatalities. We describe tailored community-engaged, data-driven approaches to install and maintain naloxone housing units (naloxone boxes) in New York State and estimate the cost of these approaches. METHODS: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we collected data from administrative records and key informant interviews that documented the unique processes employed by four counties enrolled in the HEALing Communities Study to install and maintain naloxone housing units. We conducted a prospective micro-costing analysis to estimate the cost of each naloxone housing unit strategy from the community perspective. RESULTS: While all counties used a coalition to guide action planning for naloxone distribution, we identified unique approaches to implementing naloxone housing units: 1) County-led with technology expansion; 2) County-led grassroots; 3) Small-scale rural opioid overdose prevention program (OOPP) contract and 4) Comprehensive OOPP contract including overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to individuals. The first two county-led approaches had lower cost per naloxone dose disbursed ($28-$38) compared to outsourcing to an OOPP ($183-$266); costs depended on services added to installing and maintaining units, such as OEND. Barriers included competing demands on public health resources (i.e., COVID-19) and stigma toward naloxone and opioid use disorder. Geographic access was a barrier in rural areas whereas existing infrastructure was a facilitator in urban counties. The policy landscape in New York State, which provides free naloxone kits and financial support to OOPPs, facilitated implementation in all counties. CONCLUSIONS: If a community has the resources, installing and maintaining naloxone housing units in-house can be less expensive than contracting with an outside partner. However, contracts that include OEND may be more effective at reaching target populations. Financial support from health departments and legislative authorization are important facilitators to making naloxone available in public settings.

Evaluation of Strategies to Enhance Community-Based Naloxone Distribution Supported by an Opioid Settlement.

Importance: Many US states are substantially increasing community-based naloxone distribution, supported in part through settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors. Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of increased naloxone availability on opioid overdose deaths (OODs) and explore strategies to enhance this impact by integrating interventions to address solitary drug use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study used PROFOUND (Prevention and Rescue of Fentanyl and Other Opioid Overdoses Using Optimized Naloxone Distribution Strategies), a previously published simulation model, to forecast annual OODs between January 2023 and December 2025. The simulated study population included individuals from Rhode Island who misused opioids and stimulants and were at risk for opioid overdose. Exposures: The study modeled expanded naloxone distribution supported by the state's opioid settlement (50 000 naloxone nasal spray kits each year). Two approaches to expanding naloxone distribution were evaluated: one based on historical spatial patterns of naloxone distribution (supply-based approach) and one based on the spatial distribution of individuals at risk (demand-based approach). In addition, hypothetical interventions to enhance the likelihood of witnessed overdoses in private or semiprivate settings were considered. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual number of OODs and ratio of fatal to nonfatal opioid overdoses. Results: Modeling results indicated that distributing more naloxone supported by the state's opioid settlement could reduce OODs by 6.3% (95% simulation interval [SI], 0.3%-13.7%) and 8.8% (95% SI, 1.8%-17.5%) in 2025 with the supply-based and demand-based approaches, respectively. However, increasing witnessed overdoses by 20% to 60% demonstrated greater potential for reducing OODs, ranging from 8.5% (95% SI, 0.0%-20.3%) to 24.1% (95% SI, 8.6%-39.3%). Notably, synergistic associations were observed when combining both interventions: increased naloxone distribution with the 2 approaches and a 60% increase in witnessed overdoses could reduce OODs in 2025 by 33.5% (95% SI, 17.1%-50.4%) and 37.4% (95% SI, 19.6%-56.3%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions to address solitary drug use are needed to maximize the impact of continued efforts to increase community-based naloxone distribution, which may be particularly important for jurisdictions that have strong community-based naloxone distribution programs.

Cost of start-up activities to implement a community-level opioid overdose reduction intervention in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: Communities That HEAL (CTH) is a novel, data-driven community-engaged intervention designed to reduce opioid overdose deaths by increasing community engagement, adoption of an integrated set of evidence-based practices, and delivering a communications campaign across healthcare, behavioral-health, criminal-legal, and other community-based settings. The implementation of such a complex initiative requires up-front investments of time and other expenditures (i.e., start-up costs). Despite the importance of these start-up costs in investment decisions to stakeholders, they are typically excluded from cost-effectiveness analyses. The objective of this study is to report a detailed analysis of CTH start-up costs pre-intervention implementation and to describe the relevance of these data for stakeholders to determine implementation feasibility. METHODS: This study is guided by the community perspective, reflecting the investments that a real-world community would need to incur to implement the CTH intervention. We adopted an activity-based costing approach, in which resources related to hiring, training, purchasing, and community dashboard creation were identified through macro- and micro-costing techniques from 34 communities with high rates of fatal opioid overdoses, across four states-Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Resources were identified and assigned a unit cost using administrative and semi-structured-interview data. All cost estimates were reported in 2019 dollars. RESULTS: State-level average and median start-up cost (representing 8-10 communities per state) were $268,657 and $175,683, respectively. Hiring and training represented 40%, equipment and infrastructure costs represented 24%, and dashboard creation represented 36% of the total average start-up cost. Comparatively, hiring and training represented 49%, purchasing costs represented 18%, and dashboard creation represented 34% of the total median start-up cost. CONCLUSION: We identified three distinct CTH hiring models that affected start-up costs: hospital-academic (Massachusetts), university-academic (Kentucky and Ohio), and community-leveraged (New York). Hiring, training, and purchasing start-up costs were lowest in New York due to existing local infrastructure. Community-based implementation similar to the New York model may have lower start-up costs due to leveraging of existing infrastructure, relationships, and support from local health departments.

Medicaid-Covered Peer Support Services Used by Enrollees With Opioid Use Disorder.

This cross-sectional study provides a multistate description of utilization of Medicaid-covered peer support services in 2019 by enrollees with opioid use disorder (OUD).