Cost-effectiveness of strong opioids focussing on the long-term effects of opioid-related fractures: a model approach

Opioid analgesics are known to impact on the central nervous system (CNS). These CNS side effects, such as dizziness and confusion, have been shown to lead to an increased risk of falling with subsequent fractures in elderly patients being treated with opioids. The risk of experiencing fractures has been shown to be dependent on the substance administered. Therefore, a health economic model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly used strong opioids in Germany, focussing on opioid-related fractures. By means of a Markov model, the consequences of hip, spine and forearm fractures due to the prior administration of transdermal (TD) buprenorphine, TD fentanyl, oral oxycodone as well as oral morphine were assessed from the perspectives of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) and the German social security (GSS) system over a time horizon of 6 years. The most frequently prescribed strength/package-size combinations of these opioids were taken into consideration, including generics where available. The results of the present analysis predict that TD buprenorphine is dominant compared to TD fentanyl and oxycodone by showing better effects [life years gained/quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained] at lower cost. From the SHI perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to morphine is <euro> 6,801.61 per life year gained, and <euro> 7,766.11 per QALY gained. From the GSS perspective, the ICER is <euro> 2,496.77 per life year gained and <euro> 2,850.83 per QALY gained. The model is robust regarding probabilistic variations of all parameters in the sensitivity analyses. Focussing on fractures due to the prior administration of strong opioids, TD buprenorphine is less costly and more effective than TD fentanyl and oxycodone and represents a cost-effective treatment option versus morphine in patients with chronic pain from both the SHI and GSS perspective in Germany.

A critical appraisal of the Australian comparative trial of methadone and buprenorphine maintenance

While there are serious problems with the analyses and reports, the Australian comparative trial of methadone and buprenorphine maintenance has generated very useful data. Contrary to the triallists' conclusions, their study provides good evidence that methadone is better than buprenorphine at retaining addicts in programmes where clinicians can adjust their patients' daily doses. The trial also provides the first evidence that methadone is significantly cheaper than buprenorphine maintenance. The savings from less frequent clinic attendance were more than offset by the extra time spent dispensing buprenorphine and the greater cost of the buprenorphine itself. In cost-effectiveness terms, the trial's results show methadone 'dominates' buprenorphine as an opioid maintenance drug because it is not only more effective but also cheaper.

The impact of community pharmacy dispensing fees on the introduction of buprenorphine-naloxone in Australia

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The introduction of buprenorphine - naloxone in Australia in April 2006 has permitted the revision of takeaway policies in many states and has introduced the possibility of unsupervised treatment. This study explored the implications of the introduction of buprenorphine - naloxone in terms of cost to patients through a survey of pharmacists' intended pricing practices. The aim of the research was to examine the intentions of pharmacists in relation to fees for buprenorphine - naloxone and study the potential implications to patients when compared with the existing fee structure for methadone and for buprenorphine alone.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A self-complete questionnaire was mailed to every community pharmacy in New South Wales (NSW) (n = 593) dispensing methadone or buprenorphine to people with opioid dependence. A response rate of 68.6% (n = 407) was achieved after three mailouts.

RESULTS

The majority of pharmacies charged a flat weekly fee for methadone (92.2%; mean = $31.90) and buprenorphine (74.8%; mean = $31.00). The mean intended fees for buprenorphine - naloxone according to different dosing and takeaway regimens ranged from $19.19 per week for no supervised doses and fortnightly takeaways to a $30.88 per week flat fee. There appeared to be little variation in fee structure irrespective of the takeaway regimen, until reaching the 2 weeks' unsupervised dose regimen.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of the early dissemination of unambiguous information regarding the introduction of a new medication, especially where supervised dispensing through community pharmacies is essential to the provision of treatment. The potential impact upon the successful rollout of a new treatment paradigm that was developed to benefit stable patients in the community may be jeopardised when such processes are not followed.

Abuse liability of prescription opioids compared to heroin in morphine-maintained heroin abusers

Abuse of prescription opioid medications has increased dramatically in the United States during the past decade, as indicated by a variety of epidemiological sources. However, few studies have systematically examined the relative reinforcing effects of commonly abused opioid medications. The current double-blind, placebo-controlled in-patient study was designed to compare the effects of intravenously delivered fentanyl (0, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.187, and 0.250 mg/70 kg), oxycodone (0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 mg/70 kg), morphine (0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 mg/70 kg), buprenorphine (0, 0.125, 0.5, 2, and 8 mg/70 kg), and heroin (0, 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg/70 kg) in morphine-maintained heroin abusers (N=8 completers maintained on 120 mg per day oral morphine in divided doses (30 mg q.i.d.)). All of the participants received all of the drugs tested; drugs and doses were administered in non-systematic order. All of the drugs produced statistically significant, dose-related increases in positive subjective ratings, such as 'I feel a good drug effect' and 'I like the drug.' In general, the order of potency in producing these effects, from most to least potent, was fentanyl>buprenorphine>or=heroin >morphine=oxycodone. In contrast, buprenorphine was the only drug that produced statistically significant increases in ratings of 'I feel a bad drug effect' and it was the only drug that was not self-administered above placebo levels at any dose tested. These data suggest that the abuse liability of buprenorphine in heroin-dependent individuals may be low, despite the fact that it produces increases in positive subjective ratings. The abuse liabilities of fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, and heroin, however, appear to be similar under these experimental conditions.

Availability of addiction medications in private health plans

Health plans have implemented cost sharing and administrative controls to constrain escalating prescription expenditures. These policies may impact physicians' prescribing and patients' use of these medications. Important clinical advances in the pharmacological treatment of addiction highlight the need to examine how pharmacy benefits consider medications for substance dependence. The extent of restrictions influencing the availability of these medications to consumers is unknown. We use nationally representative survey data to examine the extent and stringency of private health plans' management of naltrexone and disulfiram for alcohol dependence, and buprenorphine for opiate dependence. Thirty-one percent of insurance products excluded buprenorphine from formularies, whereas 55% placed it on the highest cost-sharing tier. Generic naltrexone is the only substance dependence medication that is both rarely excluded from formularies and usually placed on a lower cost-sharing tier. These findings demonstrate that pharmacy benefits have an impact on access to medications for substance abuse.

Opioid drug utilization and cost outcomes associated with the use of buprenorphine-naloxone in patients with a history of prescription opioid use

BACKGROUND

Management of opioid dependence is associated with many challenges such as the misuse of prescribed treatment and lack of medication adherence that can affect the clinical outcome of the patient. Buprenorphine-naloxone was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2002 as the first outpatient treatment indicated for opioid dependence. There is only 1 report in the literature on the effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone in a real-world setting and no reports on persistence and cost obtained from administrative claims data.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) the length and cost of therapy with oral buprenorphine-naloxone, and (2) the cost avoidance for opioid dependence as measured by opioid utilization and opioid drug cost obtained from pharmacy claim records.

METHODS

The patients for this drug use evaluation (DUE) were identified from a New Jersey managed care organization (MCO) with approximately 1.8 million members with pharmacy benefits who (a) were continuously enrolled from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2006; (b) had their first buprenorphine-naloxone pharmacy claim during the fixed 6-month initiation period (April 1, 2005, through September 30, 2005); and (c) had at least 1 opioid pharmacy claim in the 6-month pre period preceding the 6-month initiation period. The outcome measures included the number of opioid pharmacy claims, daily dose, days supply, and cost defined as opioid ingredient cost. Member cost share and net plan cost (after subtraction of member cost share) were also measured. The measurement periods for opioid use and cost were the fixed calendar periods for 6 months from October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, and for 12 months from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. Persistence in the 12-month follow-up period was defined as a gap of 30 days or less between depletion of the days supply for the preceding pharmacy claim for buprenorphinenaloxone and the date of service (refill date) for the succeeding pharmacy claim for buprenorphine-naloxone.

RESULTS

Of the 160 new buprenorphine-naloxone users with continuous pharmacy enrollment for the 2-year period ending September 30, 2006, 84 patients (52.5%) had at least 1 opioid pharmacy claim in the 6-month pre period from October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, and were included in this DUE. In the 12-month post period from October 1, 2005, through September 2006, the median length of therapy with buprenorphinenaloxone was 1 month, and the mean length of therapy was 3.5 months. Only 40 patients (47.6%) had a pharmacy claim for buprenorphine-naloxone at month 1 in the 12-month post period. Persistence was 27.4% (n = 23) at 6 months (March 2006) and 20.2% (n = 17) at 12 months (September 2006) in the post period. A total of 24 study patients (28.6%) had no opioid pharmacy claims other than buprenorphine-naloxone in the 12-month post period. Utilization of opioids decreased by 18.8%, from 1.49 opioid pharmacy claims per patient per month (PPPM) in the pre period to 1.21 claims PPPM in the post period (P = 0.031). Excluding the 0.42 buprenorphine-naloxone claims PPPM, opioid utilization decreased by 47.0%, from 1.49 claims PPPM to 0.79 claims PPPM (P < 0.001) in the 12-month post period. Before subtraction of member cost share, the actual drug cost of opioids including buprenorphine-naloxone appeared to be 26.9% lower ($156.24 PPPM) in the post period compared with $213.74 PPPM in the pre period, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.254). Excluding the cost of the buprenorphine-naloxone, actual opioid drug cost decreased 66.5% from $213.74 PPPM pre period to $71.65 PPPM post period (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one half of the patients who had a new claim for buprenorphine-naloxone were excluded from this study because there was no utilization of prescription opioids in the 6 months prior to initiation. For patients with documented use of prescription opioids prior to initiation, treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone was associated with a reduction in opioid utilization and cost in the first year of follow-up. Persistence was only 27% at 6 months and 20% at 12 months, and there were no drug cost savings in the follow-up period when the actual cost of the buprenorphine-naloxone therapy was included.

Altered states: the impact of immediate craving on the valuation of current and future opioids

Based on prior research showing that people underestimate the influence of motivational states they are not currently experiencing, we predicted and found that heroin addicts would value an extra dose of the heroin substitute Buprenorphine more highly when they were currently craving (right before receiving BUP) than when they were currently satiated (right after receiving BUP) -- even when the extra BUP was to be received 5 days later. If addicts cannot appreciate the intensity of craving when they are not currently experiencing it, as these results suggest, it seems unlikely that those who have never experienced craving could predict its motivational force. Under-appreciation of craving by non-addicts may contribute to initial decisions to experiment with drugs.

Abuse liability of buprenorphine-naloxone tablets in untreated IV drug users

Buprenorphine (Subutex) is widely abused in Finland. A combination of buprenorphine plus naloxone (Suboxone) has been available since late 2004, permitting a comparison of the abuse of the two products among untreated intravenous (IV) users. A survey was distributed to attendees at a Helsinki needle exchange program over 2-weeks in April, 2005, At least 30% were returned anonymously. Survey variables included: years of prior IV opioid abuse, years of buprenorphine abuse, frequency, dosage, route of administration and reasons for use, concomitant IV abuse of other substances and amount paid on the street for both buprenorphine and buprenorphine+naloxone. Buprenorphine was the most frequently used IV drug for 73% of the respondents. More than 75% said they used IV buprenorphine to self-treat addiction or withdrawal. Most (68%) had tried the buprenorphine+naloxone combination IV, but 80% said they had a "bad" experience. Its street price was less than half that of buprenorphine alone. The buprenorphine+naloxone combination appears to be a feasible tool, along with easier access to addiction treatment, for decreasing IV abuse of buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine and HIV primary care: report of a forum for collaborative HIV research workshop

On 3-4 June 2004, in Washington, DC, the Forum for Collaborative HIV Research convened experts from academia, community and private practices, US government agencies, and industry to develop recommendations for increased uptake of buprenorphine integrated into human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) primary care, with special emphasis on Ryan White CARE Act-funded programs. Workshop participants evaluated knowledge gaps requiring research; barriers to integration at the patient, clinic, and systems level; policy and financing issues; and program impacts. Recommendations were developed for training, including medical school and post-medical school training of clinical teams as well as training of patients; for improving programs and services, including integration of opioid dependence and HIV infection into chronic disease models, providing flexible access to core and support services, and monitoring and evaluation of programs; for changes in policy supportive of program and services goals; for financing buprenorphine treatment by use of existing models of integrated treatment and merging funding streams at the local level; and for addressing research gaps, including cost-effectiveness research.

Overcoming policy and financing barriers to integrated buprenorphine and HIV primary care

Treatment for substance abuse and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection historically have come from different providers, often in separate locations, and have been reimbursed through separate funding streams. We describe policy and financing challenges faced by health care providers seeking to integrate buprenorphine, a new treatment for opioid dependence, into HIV primary care. Regulatory challenges include licensing and training restrictions imposed by the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 and confidentiality regulations for alcohol and drug treatment records. Potential responses include the development of local training programs and electronic medical records. Addressing the complexity of funding sources for integrated care will require administrative support, up-front investments, and federal and state leadership. A policy and financing research agenda should address evidence gaps in the rationales for regulatory restrictions and should include cost-effectiveness studies that quantify the "value for money" of investments in integrated care to improve health outcomes for HIV-infected patients with opioid dependence.

Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) for the management of opioid-dependent individuals.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2005. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence were accessed.

REVIEW METHODS

The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on a review of existing reviews plus an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A decision tree with Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of BMT and MMT. Retention in treatment and opiate abuse parameters were sourced from the meta-analysis of RCTs directly comparing flexible MMT with flexible dose BMT. Utilities were derived from a panel representing a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Most of the included systematic reviews and RCTs were of moderate to good quality, and focused on short-term (up to 1-year follow-up) outcomes of retention in treatment and the level of opiate use (self-report or urinalysis). Most studies employed a trial design that compared a fixed-dose strategy (i.e. all individuals received a standard dose) of MMT or BMT and were conducted in predominantly young men who fulfilled criteria as opiate-dependent or heroin-dependent users, without significant co-morbidities. RCT meta-analyses have shown that a fixed dose of MMT or BMT has superior levels of retention in treatment and opiate use than placebo or no treatment, with higher fixed doses being more effective than lower fixed doses. There was evidence, primarily from non-randomised observational studies, that fixed-dose MMT reduces mortality, HIV risk behaviour and levels of crime compared with no therapy and one small RCT has shown the level of mortality with fixed-dose BMT to be significantly less than with placebo. Flexible dosing (i.e. individualised doses) of MMT and BMT is more reflective of real-world practice. Retention in treatment was superior for flexible MMT than flexible BMT dosing but there was no significant difference in opiate use. Indirect comparison of data from population cross-sectional studies suggests that mortality with BMT may be lower than that with MMT. A pooled RCT analysis showed no significant difference in serious adverse events with MMT compared with BMT. Although treatment modifier evidence was limited, adjunct psychosocial and contingency interventions (e.g. financial incentives for opiate-free urine samples) appeared to enhance the effects of both MMT and BMT. Also, MMT and BMT appear to be similarly effective whether delivered in a primary care or outpatient clinic setting. Although most of the included economic evaluations were considered to be of high quality, none used all of the appropriate parameters, effectiveness data, perspective and comparators required to make their results generalisable to the NHS context. One company (Schering-Plough) submitted cost-effectiveness evidence based on an economic model that had a 1-year time horizon and sourced data from a single RCT of flexible-dose MMT compared with flexible-dose BMT and utility values obtained from the literature; the results showed that for MMT vs no drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was pound 12,584/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for BMT versus no drug therapy, the ICER was pound 30,048/QALY and in a direct comparison, MMT was found to be slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. The assessment group model found for MMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 13,697/QALY, for BMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 26,429/QALY and, as with the industry model, in direct comparison, MMT was slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. When considering social costs, both MMT and BMT gave more health gain and were less costly than no drug treatment. These findings were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Both flexible-dose MMT and BMT are more clinically effective and more cost-effective than no drug therapy in dependent opiate users. In direct comparison, a flexible dosing strategy with MMT was found be somewhat more effective in maintaining individuals in treatment than flexible-dose BMT and therefore associated with a slightly higher health gain and lower costs. However, this needs to be balanced by the more recent experience of clinicians in the use of buprenorphine, the possible risk of higher mortality of MMT and individual opiate-dependent users' preferences. Future research should be directed towards the safety and effectiveness of MMT and BMT; potential safety concerns regarding methadone and buprenorphine, specifically mortality and key drug interactions; efficacy of substitution medications (in particular patient subgroups, such as within the criminal justice system, or within young people); and uncertainties in cost-effectiveness identified by current economic models.

Clinic-based treatment for opioid dependence: a qualitative inquiry

OBJECTIVES

To identify barriers and facilitators to treatment of opioid dependence in primary care clinics.

METHODS

In-depth interviews with 27 New York State clinic directors.

RESULTS

Stigmatizing attitudes emerged as a major barrier. Respondents often viewed opioid-dependent persons as manipulative, demanding, and disruptive. Commonly cited facilitators were physician training, increased office staffing, and greater mental health, social services, and addictions support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals attitudinal barriers to address and supportive factors to promote in order to increase the limited availability of office-based treatment of opioid dependence in the United States compared with other countries.

Economic evaluation of Durogesic in moderate to severe, nonmalignant, chronic pain in Germany

We carried out a cost-effectiveness evaluation of transdermal fentanyl compared to three other widely used opioids: transdermal buprenorphine, sustained-release morphine, and controlled-release oxycodone from a third-party-payers perspective. A decision analytic model with data from a structured database search and from panel data and assumptions was used to derive both cost and utility results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to ensure the findings. Transdermal fentanyl patients gain more quality adjusted life-days or quality-adjusted life-years per euro. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year is 1,625.65 euro for transdermal fentanyl compared to sustained-release morphine and 1,003.03 euro compared to CO, and it is cost-saving compared to transdermal buprenorphine (-203.38 euro per patient). Transdermal fentanyl is thus cost-effective compared to both sustained-release morphine and CO and dominant compared to transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of adults with nonmalignant moderate to severe chronic pain.

Behavioral economic analysis of opioid consumption in heroin-dependent individuals: effects of unit price and pre-session drug supply

Behavioral economic analysis has been used to investigate factors underlying drug consumption in laboratory animals and, increasingly, in human drug abusers. However, there are few studies in heroin abusers, especially those who are not in treatment; such studies may be valuable for understanding the mechanisms of persistent drug use. This study investigated effects of unit price (UP) and pre-session supply of hydromorphone (HYD) on choice and consumption of HYD. Heroin-dependent research volunteers (n=13) stabilized on buprenorphine 8 mg/day completed this eight-session inpatient study. In sessions 1-2, participants sampled two total HYD doses (12 and 24 mg IM) that could be earned in later sessions. In each of the final six sessions, volunteers were given access to a 12-trial choice progressive ratio schedule lasting 3h. On each trial, volunteers could earn a HYD unit dose (1 or 2 mg, for a maximum of 12 or 24 mg, respectively) or money (US dollars 2, for a maximum of US dollars 24). Fixed ratio requirements increased exponentially, generating 24 unit prices for behavioral economic analysis. Before some choice sessions, volunteers could choose (FR 1) to receive extra HYD (12 or 24 mg; at 0915), whereas on other days no supplement was available. HYD choice and peak responding (breakpoint, O(max)) measures increased with unit dose, decreased with pre-session supplements, and were greater among volunteers who used cocaine prior to the experiment. Taking pre-session supplements decreased P(max) and made group-percent HYD consumption more demand-elastic. Consumption was functionally equivalent at differing FR/unit dose combinations. Thus, opioid demand in heroin-dependent individuals not in treatment is a function of drug supply, unit price, and cocaine use.

Pharmaco-economics of community maintenance for opiate dependence: a review of evidence and methodology

This literature review synthesizes and appraises evidence on the pharmaco-economic value of community maintenance for opiate dependence. Included studies enrolled opiate-dependent subjects aged 18 years or over participating in a community maintenance programme. Cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses provided some evidence supporting the value of methadone maintenance in combination with psychosocial services and of heroin co-prescription. Evidence on the pharmaco-economic profile of maintenance with buprenorphine as compared with methadone is mixed. Few studies carried out an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial and studies adopting a modelling approach suffered from problems with the quality and validity of parameter estimates. Studies were also limited in the range of costs and consequences considered. The cost-benefit literature showed positive net benefits from community maintenance programmes. A longer length of stay of subjects in methadone maintenance was associated with greater reductions in criminal activity. However, measurement of benefits was limited to savings from reduced crime rates. Health benefits were rarely considered. Cost-benefit studies based on a before-and-after comparison were not able to consider the impact of treatment on mortality of opiate-dependent subjects. There is a need for better-designed economic evaluations that examine whether treatment benefits exceed costs, in terms of both financial benefits and health gain.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD 491 dollars(buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD 605 dollars for conventional outpatient; AUD 1404 dollars for conventional inpatient; AUD 1990 dollars for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD 2689 dollars for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most cost-effective inpatient method.

Buprenorphine: Its Role in Preventing HIV Transmission and Improving the Care of HIV-Infected Patients with Opioid Dependence

In the United States, approximately 25% of the 40,000 new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections each year are secondary to injection drug use. Worldwide, there are an estimated 12.6 million injection drug users, and 10% of HIV infections (420,000 infections in 2003) are associated with this practice. Buprenorphine is a new medication used to treat opioid dependence that shows promise for reducing the rate of HIV transmission and improving the care of opioid-dependent patients with HIV infection. Although buprenorphine faces fewer clinical and regulatory barriers than does methadone, the optimal strategy for integration of office-based treatment of opioid dependence and HIV disease is an area of ongoing research. This review addresses the introduction of buprenorphine, in terms of public health, policy, and clinical implications for HIV-infected patients and for HIV care providers.

The rise of buprenorphine prescribing in England: analysis of NHS regional data, 2001-03

AIMS

Since its launch in the prescribing market in 1999 for the treatment of opiate dependence, buprenorphine has rapidly become established as an alternative to methadone treatment in the United Kingdom. In the absence of evidence of its clinical superiority over methadone, and given its high relative cost, we sought to examine the impact of buprenorphine availability on opiate treatment services in England.

METHODS

Quarterly buprenorphine and methadone community prescription figures were obtained for 28 Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) in England, for the 2-year period September 2001 to September 2003. Rates of buprenorphine prescribing (as proportion of all opiate prescriptions) were examined over time by number of prescriptions and net ingredient cost.

RESULTS

Buprenorphine prescription rates increased disproportionately to methadone in all 28 SHAs. By the end of 2003 the number of buprenorphine prescriptions had increased to 23% of all opiate prescriptions, but accounted for 45% of opiate prescription costs in England. Buprenorphine prescribing rates varied substantially across different regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine prescribing has increased dramatically and represents a disproportionately large fraction of community opiate prescribing costs. The marked regional variation suggests the need for further research and the development of national guidelines to support rational prescribing and equitable access to treatment.

A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Buprenorphine offers an alternative to methadone in the treatment of heroin dependence, and has the advantage of allowing alternate-day dosing. This study is the first to examine the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting using economic and clinical data collected within a randomised trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was a randomised, open-label, 12-month trial of 139 heroin-dependent patients in a community setting receiving individualised treatment regimens of buprenorphine or methadone. Those who were currently on a methadone program (n = 57; continuing therapy subgroup) were analysed separately from new treatment recipients (n = 82; initial therapy subgroup). The study took a broad societal perspective and included health, crime and personal costs. Data on resource use and outcomes were a combination of clinical records and self report at interview. The main outcomes were incremental cost per additional day free of heroin use and per QALY. An analysis of uncertainty calculated the likelihood of net benefits for a range of acceptable money values of outcomes. All costs were in 1999 Australian dollars (DollarA).

RESULTS

The estimated mean number of heroin-free days did not differ significantly between those randomised to methadone (225 [95% CI 91, 266]), or buprenorphine (222 [95% CI 194, 250]) over the year of the trial. Buprenorphine was associated with an average 0.03 greater QALYs over 52 weeks (not significant). The total cost was DollarA 17,736 (95% CI -DollarA 2981, DollarA 38,364) with methadone and DollarA 11,916 (95% CI DollarA 7697, DollarA 16,135) with buprenorphine; costs excluding crime were DollarA 4513 (95% CI DollarA 3495, DollarA 5531) and DollarA 5651 (95% CI DollarA 4202, DollarA 7100). With additional heroin-free days as the outcome, and crime costs included buprenorphine has a lower cost but less heroin-free days. If crime costs are excluded buprenorphine has a higher cost and worse outcome than methadone. With additional QALYs as the outcome, the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine is DollarA 39,404 if crime is excluded, but buprenorphine is dominant if crime is included.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial found no significant differences in costs or outcomes between methadone and buprenorphine maintenance in this particular setting. Although some of the results suggest that methadone may have a cost advantage, it is difficult to infer from the trial data that offering buprenorphine as an alternative would have a significant effect on total costs or outcomes. The point estimates of costs and outcomes suggest that buprenorphine may have an advantage in those initiating therapy. The confidence intervals were wide, however, and the likelihood of net benefits from substituting one treatment for another was close to 50%.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of buprenorphine-assisted heroin withdrawal

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of detoxification from heroin using buprenorphine in a specialist clinic versus a shared care setting. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with a total of 115 heroin-dependent patients receiving a 5-day treatment regime of buprenorphine. The specialist clinic was a community-based treatment agency in inner-city Sydney. Shared care involved treatment by a general practitioner supplemented by weekend dispensing and some concurrent counselling at the specialist clinic. Quantification of resource use was limited to inputs for treatment provision. The primary outcome measure used in the economic analysis was the proportion of each group that completed detoxification and achieved an initial 7-day period of abstinence. Buprenorphine detoxification in the shared care setting was estimated to be 24 dollars more expensive per patient than treatment at the clinic, which had an average treatment cost of 332 dollars per patient. Twenty-three per cent of the shared care patients and 22% of the clinic patients reported no opiate use during the withdrawal period. These results suggest that the provision of buprenorphine treatment for heroin dependence in shared care and clinic appear to be equally cost-effective.

Implementing Buprenorphine Treatment in Community Settings in Australia: Experiences from the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial

Buprenorphine was registered in Australia as a maintenance and detoxification agent for the management of opioid dependence in November, 2000, and became widely available in August, 2001. This paper provides an overview of key developments in the introduction of buprenorphine treatment in Australia, with an emphasis upon the delivery of services in community-based (primary care) settings. A central study in this work was the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial (BIT), a randomized, controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment delivered under naturalistic conditions by specialist and community-based service providers (general practitioners and community pharmacists) in 139 subjects across nineteen treatment sites. In addition to conventional patient outcome measures (treatment retention, drug use, psychosocial functioning, and cost effectiveness), the BIT study also involved the development and evaluation of clinical guidelines, training programs for clinicians, and client literature, which are described here. Integration of treatment systems (methadone with buprenorphine, specialist and primary-care programs) and factors thought to be important in the uptake of buprenorphine treatment in Australia since registration are discussed.