Dynamics in the costs of criminality among opioid dependent individuals

Cost-effectiveness of flexible take-home buprenorphine-naloxone versus methadone for treatment of prescription-type opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of flexible take-home buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX) versus methadone alongside the OPTIMA trial in Canada.

METHODS

The OPTIMA study was a pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority, two-arm randomized controlled trial, to assess the comparative effectiveness of flexible take-home BNX vs. methadone in routine clinical care for individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using a semi-Markov cohort model. Probabilities of overdose were calibrated, accounting for fentanyl prevalence and other overdose risk factors such as naloxone availability. We considered health sector and societal cost perspectives, including costs (2020 CAD) for treatment, health resource use, criminal activity, and health state-specific preference weights as outcomes to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Six-month and lifetime (3% annual discount rate) time-horizons were explored.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime time horizon, individuals accumulated -0.144 [CI: -0.302, -0.025] incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in BNX compared with methadone. Incremental costs were -$2047 [CI: -$39,197, $24,250] from a societal perspective, and -$4549 [CI: -$6332, -$3001] from a health sector perspective. Over a six-month time-horizon, individuals accumulated 0.002 [credible interval (CI): -0.011, 0.016] incremental QALYs in BNX compared with methadone. Incremental costs were -$307 [CI: -$10,385, $8466] from a societal perspective and -$1111 [CI: -$1517, -$631] from a health sector perspective. BNX was dominated (costlier, less effective) in 49.7% of simulations when adopting a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible take-home BNX was not cost-effective versus methadone over a lifetime time horizon, resulting from better treatment retention in methadone compared to BNX.

Attributing health benefits to preventing HIV infections versus improving health outcomes among people living with HIV: an analysis in six US cities

OBJECTIVE

Combination strategies generate health benefits through improved health outcomes among people living with HIV (PLHIV) and prevention of new infections. We aimed to determine health benefits attributable to improved health among PLHIV versus HIV prevention for a set of combination strategies in six US cities.

DESIGN

A dynamic HIV transmission model.

METHODS

Using a model calibrated for Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City (NYC) and Seattle, we assessed the health benefits of city-specific optimal combinations of evidence-based interventions implemented at publicly documented levels and at ideal (90% coverage) scale-up (2020-2030 implementation, 20-year study period). We calculated the proportion of health benefit gains (measured as quality-adjusted life-years) resulting from averted and delayed HIV infections; improved health outcomes among PLHIV; and improved health outcomes due to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

RESULTS

The HIV-specific proportion of total benefits ranged from 68.3% (95% credible interval: 55.3-80.0) in Seattle to 98.5% (97.5-99.3) in Miami, with the rest attributable to MOUD. The majority of HIV-specific health benefits in five of six cities were attributable HIV prevention, and ranged from 33.1% (26.1-41.1) in NYC to 83.1% (79.6-86.6) in Atlanta. Scaling up to ideal service levels resulted in three to seven-fold increases in additional health benefits, mostly from MOUD, with HIV-specific health gains primarily driven by HIV prevention.

CONCLUSION

Optimal combination strategies generated a larger proportion of health benefits attributable to HIV prevention in five of six cities, underlining the substantial benefits of antiretroviral therapy engagement for the prevention of HIV transmission through viral suppression. Understanding to whom benefits accrue may be important in assessing the equity and impact of HIV investments.

ILC-OPI: impulsive lifestyle counselling versus cognitive behavioral therapy to improve retention of patients with opioid use disorders and externalizing behavior: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, controlled, superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders show a high comorbidity with externalizing behavior difficulties, creating treatment challenges, including difficulties with compliance, a high risk of conflict, and a high rate of offending post-treatment. Compared with people with other substance use disorders those with opioid use disorders have the highest risk of criminal activity, but studies on the evidence base for psychosocial treatment in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are scarce. The Impulsive Lifestyle Counselling (ILC) program may be associated with better retention and outcomes among difficult-to-treat patients with this comorbidity.

METHODS

The study is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, superiority clinical trial. Participants will be a total of 137 hard-to-treat individuals enrolled in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Participants will be randomized to either a standard treatment (14 sessions of individual manual-based cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing (MOVE-I)) or six sessions of ILC followed by nine sessions of MOVE-I. All participants will receive personalized text reminders prior to each session and vouchers for attendance, as well as medication as needed. The primary outcome is retention in treatment. Secondary measures include severity of drug use and days of criminal offending for profit three and nine months post-randomization. A secondary aim is, through a case-control study, to investigate whether participants in the trial differ from patients receiving treatment as usual in municipalities where ILC and MOVE-I have not been implemented in OAT. This will be done by comparing number of offences leading to conviction 12 months post-randomization recorded in the national criminal justice register and number of emergency room contacts 12 months post-randomization recorded in the national hospital register.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized, controlled clinical trial in OAT to test the effectiveness of ILC against a standardized comparison with structural elements to increase the likelihood of exposure to the elements of treatment. Results obtained from this study may have important clinical, social, and economic implications for publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN19554367 , registered on 04/09/2020.

Long term pre-treatment opioid use trajectories in relation to opioid agonist therapy outcomes among people who use drugs in a Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) models are generally provided without consideration of how pre-treatment characteristics may be associated with outcome. Therefore, we aimed to first characterize longitudinal trajectories of opioid use before initiating OAT. Then we explored the impact of OAT on opioid use across these pre-treatment trajectories.

METHODS

Data were derived from three prospective cohort studies involving people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada. Latent class growth analysis was applied to identify opioid use trajectories based on individual-level observations three years before starting OAT. Multivariable generalized linear mixed model was used to examine whether engaging in OAT was associated with lower risk of illicit opioid use among participants with different pre-treatment opioid use trajectories.

RESULTS

464 participants were included in the study between September 2005 and November 2018. Two pre-treatment opioid use trajectories were identified: high frequency users (246, 53.0%) and gradually increasing frequency users (218, 47.0%). We observed different strengths of association between OAT engagement and illicit opioid use among high frequency users (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.36, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.20 - 0.63) and gradually increasing frequency users (AOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.53 - 1.56). Unstable housing, any stimulant use, experiencing violence, drug dealing, sex work involvement, and incarceration were independently and positively associated with ongoing illicit opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct pre-treatment opioid use trajectories are likely to influence treatment outcomes. Research is required to determine if tailored strategies specific to people with different pre-treatment opioid use patterns have potential to improve outcomes of OAT.

Changes in substance use in relation to opioid agonist therapy among people who use drugs in a Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have shown that opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is linked to reductions in illicit opioid use, less is known about how OAT impacts the use of other psychoactive substances. We aimed to examine the changes in use of different substances by comparing patterns before and after initiating OAT.

METHODS

Data for this study was derived from three ongoing prospective cohorts involving people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada from 1996 to 2018. We assessed use patterns for heroin, illicit prescription opioid, cocaine, crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, cannabis, daily alcohol use, and benzodiazepines. Segmented regression was conducted to compare the trends of substance use between pre-treatment and post-treatment periods.

RESULTS

The study included 1107 participants. After OAT engagement, we observed an immediate decline in the proportion as well as a decreasing trend for heroin (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77, 0.83), illicit prescription opioid (AOR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.90), and benzodiazepines (AOR: 0.73, 95 % CI: 0.67, 0.80). There was no significant difference comparing the pre-treatment and post-treatment trends for cocaine, crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and cannabis. However, higher growth slope was noted during the post-treatment period for daily alcohol use (P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significant reduction in illicit opioids use following OAT initiation, but not for stimulant and cannabis. The increasing problematic use of alcohol may pose challenges to the safety and effectiveness of OAT. Development of comprehensive and tailored treatment strategies is needed for poly-substance users accessing OAT.

Sociodemographic Profiles and Clinical Outcomes for Clients on Methadone Maintenance Treatment in a Western Canadian Clinic: Implications for Practice

INTRODUCTION

Clients on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) have high attrition rates that are attributed to personal and system-related factors. To develop supportive interventions for these clients, it is imperative to understand social demographic characteristics and challenges that clients in the MMT program face.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to describe (a) the sociodemographic characteristics and clinical profiles of clients in a MMT program, (b) factors that impact their positive clinical outcomes, and (c) the study's implications for practice.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 101 randomly selected electronic medical records representing one third of all the records were examined for sociodemographic characteristics, clinical profiles, and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze these variables. Interviews with 18 healthcare providers focusing on their experiences of caring for clients in the MMT program were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

The average age of clients on MMT is 35.5 years. Clients had early exposure to alcohol and drugs, and at the time of enrollment to the program, they presented with complex healthcare needs, borne from chronic use, and exposure to adverse traumatic events. Personal and systemic factors impact clients' recovery. These include poverty, homelessness, and inadequate healthcare services. Understanding sociodemographic characteristics, clinical profiles, and clients' challenges is central to the development of supportive interventions that enhance retention to care and recovery.

The effect of entry and retention in opioid agonist treatment on contact with the criminal justice system among opioid-dependent people: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the effectiveness of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in reducing crime is mixed. We aimed to assess the effect of OAT on crime in terms of delaying time to first charge and reducing overall charge rates, as well as the relationship between OAT retention and overall charge rates.

METHODS

We did a retrospective cohort study of opioid-dependent people who entered OAT for the first time between Jan 1, 2004, and Dec 30, 2010, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We used three linked NSW and national administrative datasets. Data on OAT were obtained from the Pharmaceutical Drugs of Addiction System, data on charges were obtained from the Reoffending Database, and data on mortality were obtained from the National Death Index. The cohort was followed up until Dec 31, 2011. Time-dependent OAT exposure was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models (time to first charge) and Andersen-Gill intensity models (total charge-days). Retention in OAT was modelled using two features of treatment engagement, number of OAT episodes and proportion of follow-up time in OAT (presented in quartile groupings: lowest, low-mid, low-high, highest) using zero-inflated negative binomial regression (total charges). All models were adjusted for sociodemographic, criminographic, and treatment-related variables.

FINDINGS

10 744 new OAT entrants were included in the study. 5751 (53·5%) people were charged with an offence. In adjusted analyses, OAT was associated with an initial benefit in delaying the time to first charge (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·33-0·55) and reducing total charge-days (0·39, 95% CI 0·30-0·52); however, these protective effects reduced over time. Total charge rates were higher as the number of OAT episodes increased (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1·13, 95% CI 1·11-1·15), and when relatively lower proportions of time were spent in OAT (IRR among the lowest three quartiles ranged from 1·11 [95% CI 1·02-1·21] to 1·22 [95% CI 1·12-1·33]).

INTERPRETATION

OAT was associated with a reduction in overall charge rates and was more protective as treatment engagement increased. Maximising treatment retention is crucial to achieving long-term health and social benefits of OAT.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Australian Government Department of Health, UNSW Sydney.

Unit Costs of Delinquent Acts for Use in Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Youth mental health interventions aimed at reducing substance use and delinquency in adolescents compete with other types of interventions for reimbursement from public funding. Within the youth mental health domain, delinquent acts impose high costs on society. These costs should be included in economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. Although the relevance of these costs is recognized, they are often left out because the unit costs of delinquent acts are unknown.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study aims to provide a method for estimating the unit costs per perpetrator of 14 delinquent acts common in the Netherlands and included in self reported delinquency questionnaires: robbery/theft with violence, simple theft/pickpocketing, receiving stolen goods, destruction/vandalism of private or public property, disorderly conduct/discrimination, arson, cybercrime, simple and aggravated assault, threat, forced sexual contact, unauthorised driving, driving under the influence, dealing in soft drugs, and dealing in hard drugs.

METHODS

Information on government expenditures and the incidence of crimes, number of perpetrators, and the percentage of solved and reported crimes was obtained from the national database on crime and justice of the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice and Security, Statistics Netherlands, and the Council for the Judiciary in the Netherlands. We applied a top-down micro costing approach to calculate the point estimate of the unit costs for each of the delinquent acts and, subsequently, estimated the mean (SD) unit costs for each of the delinquent acts by taking random draws from a triangular distribution while taking into account a 10% uncertainty associated with the associated point estimate.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) unit costs per delinquent act per perpetrator ranged between EUR495 (EUR1.30) for "Driving under the influence" and EUR33,813 (EUR78.30) for a "Cybercrime". These unit costs may be considered as outliers as most unit costs ranged between EUR 2,600 and EUR 13,500 per delinquent act per perpetrator.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to estimate the unit costs per delinquent act per perpetrator in the Netherlands. The results of this study enable the inclusion of government expenditures associated with crime and justice in economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE

Youth mental health interventions aimed at reducing substance use and delinquency in adolescents are increasingly subjected to economic evaluations. These evaluations are used to inform decisions concerning the allocation of scarce healthcare resources and should cover all the costs and benefits for society, including those associated with delinquent acts.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES

The results of this study facilitate economic evaluations of youth mental health interventions aimed at reducing substance use and delinquency in adolescents, conducted from a societal perspective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Based on health-economic evaluations conducted in the field of youth mental health and the results of the current study, we recommend including the estimated unit costs in guidelines for health-economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. Future research could aim at examining whether these unit costs require regular updating. The methodology applied in this study allows for this.

The value of harm reduction for injection drug use: A clinical and public health ethics analysis

The US is facing dual public health crises related to opioid overdose deaths and HIV. Injection drug use is fueling both of these epidemics. The War on Drugs has failed to stem injection drug use and has contributed to mass incarceration, poverty, and racial disparities. Harm reduction is an alternative approach that seeks to decrease direct and indirect harms associated with drug use without necessarily decreasing drug consumption. Although overwhelming evidence demonstrates that harm reduction is effective in mitigating harms associated with drug use and is cost-effective in providing these benefits, harm reduction remains controversial and the ethical implications of harm reduction modalities have not been well explored. This paper analyzes harm reduction for injection drug use using the core principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice from both clinical ethics and public health ethics perspectives. This framework is applied to harm reduction modalities currently in use in the US, including opioid maintenance therapy, needle and syringe exchange programs, and opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution. Harm reduction interventions employed outside of the US, including safer injection facilities, heroin-assisted treatment, and decriminalization/legalization are then discussed. This analysis concludes that harm reduction is ethically sound and should be an integral aspect of our nation's healthcare system for combating the opioid crisis. From a clinical ethics perspective, harm reduction promotes the autonomy of, prevents harms to, advances the well-being of, and upholds justice for persons who use drugs. From a public health ethics perspective, harm reduction advances health equity, addresses racial disparities, and serves vulnerable, disadvantaged populations in a cost-effective manner.

Using routinely collected data to understand and predict adverse outcomes in opioid agonist treatment: Protocol for the Opioid Agonist Treatment Safety (OATS) Study

INTRODUCTION

North America is amid an opioid use epidemic. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) effectively reduces extramedical opioid use and related harms. As with all pharmacological treatments, there are risks associated with OAT, including fatal overdose. There is a need to better understand risk for adverse outcomes during and after OAT, and for innovative approaches to identifying people at greatest risk of adverse outcomes. The Opioid Agonist Treatment and Safety study aims to address these questions so as to inform the expansion of OAT in the USA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a retrospective cohort study using linked, routinely collected health data for all people seeking OAT in New South Wales, Australia, between 2001 and 2017. Linked data include hospitalisation, emergency department presentation, mental health diagnoses, incarceration and mortality. We will use standard regression techniques to model the magnitude and risk factors for adverse outcomes (eg, mortality, unplanned hospitalisation and emergency department presentation, and unplanned treatment cessation) during and after OAT, and machine learning approaches to develop a risk-prediction model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee (2018HRE0205). Results will be reported in accordance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data statement.

An investigation of an open-access model for scaling up methadone maintenance treatment

AIMS

To examine retrospectively patient and programmatic outcomes following the development and implementation of an 'open-access' model in which prospective patients were enrolled rapidly in methadone maintenance treatment, irrespective of ability to pay, and provided real-time access to multiple voluntary treatment options.

DESIGN

Medical and administrative records were abstracted to compare data for 1 year before and 9 years after initiating the implementation of an open-access treatment model in May 2007.

SETTING

Methadone maintenance treatment center in Connecticut, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with opioid use disorder entering treatment between July 2006 and June 2015. In June 2015, 64% (n = 2594) of the sample were men and 80% (n = 3133) reported that they were white.

INTERVENTION

The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment-informed open-access treatment model uses process improvement strategies to improve treatment access and capacity.

MEASUREMENTS

Census, waiting time, retention, non-medical opioid use, patient mortality and financial sustainability (net income and state-block grants as proportions of revenue).

FINDINGS

In the 9 years following the initial implementation of the open-access model, patient census increased by 183% from 1431 to 4051, and average waiting-time days decreased from 21 to 0.3 (same day) without apparent deleterious effects on rates of retention, non-medical opioid use or mortality. Between fiscal years (FY) 06 and FY 15, net operating margin rose from 2 to 10%, while state-block grant revenues declined 14% and the proportion of total revenue from state-block grant revenue decreased from 49 to 24%.

CONCLUSIONS

An open-access model for rapid enrolment of people with opioid use disorder in methadone treatment appears to improve treatment access, capacity, and financial sustainability without evidence of deleterious effects on treatment outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of hydromorphone for severe opioid use disorder: findings from the SALOME randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous research has found diacetylmorphine, delivered under supervision, to be cost-effective in the treatment of severe opioid use disorder, but diacetylmorphine is not available in many settings. The Study to Assess Long-term Opioid Maintenance Effectiveness (SALOME) randomized controlled trial provided evidence that injectable hydromorphone is non-inferior to diacetylmorphine. The current study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydromorphone directly with diacetylmorphine and indirectly with methadone maintenance treatment.

DESIGN

A within-trial analysis was conducted using the patient level data from the 6-month, double-blind, non-inferiority SALOME trial. A life-time analysis extrapolated costs and outcomes using a decision analytical cohort model. The model incorporated data from a previous trial to include an indirect comparison to methadone maintenance.

SETTING

A supervised clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 202 long-term street opioid injectors who had at least two attempts at treatment, including one with methadone (or other substitution), were randomized to hydromorphone (n = 100) or diacetylmorphine (n = 102).

MEASUREMENTS

We measured the utilization of drugs, visits to health professionals, hospitalizations, criminal activity, mortality and quality of life. This enabled us to estimate incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses considered different sources of evidence, assumptions and perspectives.

FINDINGS

The within-trial analysis found hydromorphone provided similar QALYs to diacetylmorphine [0.377, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.361-0.393 versus 0.375, 95% CI = 0.357-0.391], but accumulated marginally greater costs [$49 830 ($28 401-73 637) versus $34 320 ($21 780-55 998)]. The life-time analysis suggested that both diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone provide more benefits than methadone [8.4 (7.4-9.5) and 8.3 (7.2-9.5) versus 7.4 (6.5-8.3) QALYs] at lower cost [$1.01 million ($0.6-1.59 million) and $1.02 million ($0.72-1.51 million) versus $1.15 million ($0.71-1.84 million)].

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe opioid use disorder enrolled into the SALOME trial, injectable hydromorphone provided similar outcomes to injectable diacetylmorphine. Modelling outcomes during a patient's life-time suggested that injectable hydromorphone might provide greater benefit than methadone alone and may be cost-saving, with drug costs being offset by costs saved from reduced involvement in criminal activity.

Associations between methadone maintenance treatment and crime: a 17-year longitudinal cohort study of Canadian provincial offenders

AIMS

To estimate and test the difference in rates of violent and non-violent crime during medicated and non-medicated methadone treatment episodes.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study involved linkage of population level administrative data (health and justice) for all individuals (n = 14 530) in British Columbia, Canada with a history of conviction and who filled a methadone prescription between 1 January 1998 and 31 March 2015. Methadone maintenance treatment was the primary independent variable and was treated as a time-varying exposure. Each participant's follow-up (mean: 8 years) was divided into medicated (methadone was dispensed) and non-medicated (methadone was not dispensed) periods with mean durations of 3.3 and 4.6 years, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

Socio-demographics of participants were examined along with the main outcomes of violent and non-violent offences.

FINDINGS

During the first 2 years of treatment (≤ 2.0 years), periods in which methadone was dispensed were associated with a 33% lower rate of violent crime [0.67 adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.59, 0.76] and a 35% lower rate of non-violent crime (0.65 AHR, 95% CI = 0.62, 0.69) compared with non-medicated periods. This equates to a risk difference of 3.6 (95% CI = 2.6, 4.4) and 37.2 (95% CI = 33.0, 40.4) fewer violent and non-violent offences per 100 person-years, respectively. Significant but smaller protective effects of dispensed methadone were observed across longer treatment intervals (2.0 to ≤ 5.0 years, 5.0 to ≤ 10.0 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a cohort of Canadian offenders, rates of violent and non-violent offending were lower during periods when individuals were dispensed methadone compared with periods in which they were not dispensed methadone.

The costs of crime associated with stimulant use in a Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

Costs attributable to criminal activity are a major component of the economic burden of substance use disorders, yet there is a paucity of empirical evidence on this topic. Our aim was to estimate the costs of crime associated with different forms and intensities of stimulant use.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study, including individuals from three prospective cohorts in Vancouver, Canada, measured biannually (2011-2015), reporting stimulant use at baseline assessment. Monthly crime costs included policing, court, corrections, and criminal victimization (2016 CAD). We estimated monthly crime costs associated with mutually exclusive categories of crack, cocaine, methamphetamine, and polystimulant use, stratified by daily/non-daily use, relative to stimulant abstinence, as well as the independent effects of treatment (opioid agonist (OAT) and other addiction treatment). We used a two-part model, capturing the probability of criminal activity and costs of crime with generalized linear logistic and gamma regression models, respectively, controlling for age, gender, education, homelessness, mental health issues, employment, prior incarceration, alcohol and opioid use.

RESULTS

The study sample included 1599 individuals (median age 39, 65.9% male) assessed over 5299 biannual interviews. Estimates of associated monthly crime costs ranged from $5449 [95% C.I.: $2180, $8719] for non-daily polystimulant use, to $8893 [$4196, $13,589] for daily polystimulant use. Cost differences between daily/non-daily use, injection/non-injection, and stimulant type were not statistically significant. Drug treatment was not associated with lower monthly crime costs in our sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial crime-related costs were associated with stimulant use, emphasizing the urgency for development and implementation of efficacious treatment regimens.

Estimating State Transitions for Opioid Use Disorders

AIM

The aim was to estimate transitions between periods in and out of treatment, incarceration, and legal supervision, for prescription opioid (PO) and heroin users.

METHODS

We captured all individuals admitted for the first time for publicly funded treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in California (2006 to 2010) with linked mortality and criminal justice data. We used Cox proportional hazards and competing risks models to assess the effect of primary PO use (v. heroin) on the hazard of transitioning among 5 states: (1) opioid detoxification treatment; (2) opioid agonist treatment (OAT); (3) legal supervision (probation or parole); (4) incarceration (jail or prison); and (5) out-of-treatment. Transitions were conditional on survival, and death was modeled as an absorbing state.

RESULTS

Both primary PO (n = 11,733) and heroin (n = 19,926) users spent most of their median 2.3 y of observation out of treatment. Primary PO users were significantly younger (median age 30 v. 34 y), and a higher percentage were female (43.1% v. 31.5%; P < 0.001), white (74.6% v. 63.1%; P < 0.001), and had completed high school (31.8% v. 18.9%; P < 0.001). When compared to primary heroin users, PO users had a higher hazard of transitioning from detoxification to OAT (Hazard Ratio (HR), 1.65; 95% CI, 1.54 to 1.77), and had a lower hazard of transitioning from out-of-treatment to either detoxification (0.75 [0.70, 0.81]) or OAT (0.90 [0.85, 0.96]).

CONCLUSION

Our findings can be applied directly in state transition modeling to improve the validity of health economic evaluations. Although PO users tended to remain in treatment for longer durations than heroin users, they also tended to remain out of treatment for longer after transitioning to an out-of-treatment state. Despite the proven effectiveness of time-unlimited treatment, individuals with OUD spend most of their time out of treatment.

The costs of crime during and after publicly funded treatment for opioid use disorders: a population-level study for the state of California

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) reduces the risk of mortality and infectious disease transmission; however, opportunities to quantify the potential economic benefits of associated decreases in drug-related crime are scarce. This paper aimed to estimate the costs of crime during and after periods of engagement in publicly funded treatment for OUD to compare total costs of crime during a hypothetical 6-month period following initiation of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) versus detoxification.

DESIGN

Retrospective, administrative data-based cohort study with comprehensive information on drug treatment and criminal justice systems interactions.

SETTING

Publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA (2006-10).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 31 659 individuals admitted for the first time to treatment for OUD, and who were linked with criminal justice and mortality data, were followed during a median 2.3 years. Median age at first treatment admission was 32, 35.8% were women and 37.1% primarily used prescription opioids.

MEASUREMENTS

Daily costs of crime (US$2014) were calculated from a societal perspective and were composed of the costs of policing, court, corrections and criminal victimization. We estimated the average marginal effect of treatment engagement in OAT or detoxification adjusting for potential fixed and time-varying confounders, including drug use and criminal justice system involvement prior to treatment initiation.

FINDINGS

Daily costs of crime during treatment compared with after treatment were $126 lower for OAT [95% confidence interval (CI) = $116, $136] and $144 lower for detoxification (95% CI = $135, $154). Summing the costs of crime during and after treatment over a hypothetical 6-month period using the observed median durations of OAT (161 days) and detoxification (19 days), we estimated that enrolling an individual in OAT as opposed to detoxification would save $17 550 ($16 840, $18 383).

CONCLUSIONS

In publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA, engagement in treatment for opioid use disorders is associated with lower costs of crime in the 6 months following initiation of treatment, and the economic benefits were far greater for individuals receiving time-unlimited treatment.

Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions

BACKGROUND

The economic costs associated with opioid misuse are immense. Effective interventions for opioid use disorders are available; however, given the scarce resources faced by substance use treatment providers and payers of all kinds, evidence of effectiveness is not always sufficient to encourage adoption of a given therapy-nor should it be. Economic evaluations can provide evidence that will help stakeholders efficiently allocate their resources.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review the literature on economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the major electronic databases from inception until August 2015. A sensitive approach was used to ensure a comprehensive list of relevant articles. Given the quality of the existing reviews, we narrowed our search to studies published since 2007. The Drummond checklist was used to evaluate and categorize economic evaluation studies according to their quality.

RESULTS

A total of 98 articles were identified as potentially relevant to the current study. Of these 98 articles, half (n = 49) were included in this study. Six of the included articles were reviews. The remaining 43 articles reported economic evaluation studies of interventions for opioid use disorders. In general, the evidence on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) supports previous findings that MMT is an economically advantageous opioid use disorder therapy. The economic literature comparing MMT with other opioid use disorder pharmacotherapies is limited, as is the literature on other forms of therapy.

CONCLUSION

With the possible exception of MMT, additional high-quality economic evaluations are needed in order to assess the relative value of existing opioid use disorder interventions.