Budgetary impact analysis of buprenorphine-naloxone combination (Suboxone®) in Spain

Characteristics and experiences of buprenorphine-naloxone use among polysubstance users

BACKGROUND

With a rise in overdoses and medical emergencies related to opioids, buprenorphine-naloxone (bup-nx) is seen as a preferred treatment for opioid dependence. However, the research examining experiences with bup-nx among polysubstance users who may or may not be opioid dependent has been limited.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to examine use, characteristics of users, and experiences of bup-nx use among polysubstance users entering drug-free recovery programs.

METHODS

This study examined secondary data on 896 opioid or opiate user individuals (53.4% male) collected by drug-free, self-help-based residential recovery centers during intake.

RESULTS

One-quarter of users said bup-nx helped them with their substance use while 75% of bup-nx users reported that bup-nx either had no effect or a negative effect on their drug problems. Of the very few (4%-7%) obtaining bup-nx solely through a prescription, over 90% reported relief from withdrawal. However, over 80% of those who obtained bup-nx through illicit means reported using bup-nx until their preferred drug could be obtained and used it for its euphoriant effect. Three groups of opioid users were created including one group with no bup-nx use, one with lifetime but not recent bup-nx use, and one with recent (past 6 month) use. There were differences in substance use patterns and characteristics of bup-nx experiences between the different groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that the views of bup-nx by individuals in drug-free recovery centers are varied, with many seeing bup-nx as not unlike other opioids while others report bup-nx as self-medication.

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.

The impact of dispensing fees on compliance with opioid substitution therapy: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Opioid substitution therapy (OST) programs involve the dispensing of OST medicines to patients to address their dependence on heroin and/or other opioid substances. OST medicines are subsidised by the Australian government but patients need to pay the dispensing fees. This study explored opinions from OST patients and stakeholders about the potential impact of dispensing fees on compliance and OST program retention. Current and past experiences and the potential impact of OST dispensing fees were evaluated.

METHODS

Mixed methodology was used to obtain data from OST patients and stakeholders. This involved 1) interviews with OST stakeholders, 2) a focus group of OST patients and 3) surveys of OST patients in Perth, Australia, between June and August 2013.

RESULTS

The majority of the eight stakeholders declared cost as the factor mostly impacting on OST compliance. Almost all of the stakeholders commented that there was a positive correlation between time on the OST program and success in terms of relapse. Most stakeholders advocated for OST fees to contribute towards the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net, and for fee subsidy. Focus group themes supported stakeholder interview findings. A total of 138 surveys were completed. Survey analysis illustrated a strong correlation between patient debt and impacted lifestyle: 82.4% (p < 0.001, Chi-square test) of the 138 survey participants stated that dispensing fees impacted significantly on patients' finances and lifestyle, specifically those patients with major debt. The cost of dispensing fees was identified by 46.3% (64/138) of survey participants as the biggest impacting factor on patient success. Logistic regression models showed that the cost of dispensing fees was also found to significantly influence both the occurrence of debt (57.7%, p < 0.0001) and lifestyle difficulties (80.0%, p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

Findings provided insight into OST patients' financial difficulties with data suggesting that dispensing fees are likely to have a negative impact on OST patients' compliance with therapy, retention in the OST program and lifestyle. Government sponsorship of the OST dispensing fees should be considered as sponsorship would potentially increase the retention rates of income-poor OST program recipients.

Economic evaluation: a comparison of methadone versus buprenorphine for opiate substitution treatment

BACKGROUND

The cost of opiate substitution is usually considered lower in cost when methadone is used, as compared to that of buprenorphine, however the overall cost effectiveness of substitution programmes comparing the two drugs remains largely unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated the treatment cost and effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine when used in an opiate substitution programme in Norfolk, UK. All programme costs, estimated from the perspective of the drug treatment clinic, were collected on 361 opiate-dependent participants over a six-month period. Total costs comprised medication (methadone or buprenorphine) costs, pharmacy supervision and dispensing costs, and drug service clinic costs. Effectiveness was measured in terms of (1) each programmes ability to retain participants in the programme for six months, and (2) the ability of the programme to accomplish complete abstinence from illicit opiate consumption.

RESULTS

Overall, mean medication-only costs of methadone were lower than that of buprenorphine, however, pharmacy and clinic costs were lower for the buprenorphine programme. The covariate-adjusted mean total cost of the two programmes was not significantly different. Mean six-month retention rates were higher on the methadone programme, therefore, the methadone programme "dominates" the buprenorphine programme as it was slightly more effective for the same cost. Conversely, when ability to stop taking illicit opiates concomitant with opiate substitution medication was considered, the buprenorphine programme was more effective with an additional cost of £903 per individual who stopped illicit opiate use.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of buprenorphine should be considered an appropriate treatment if cessation of illicit opiate use, concomitant with programme retention is considered an important outcome.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2012

This paper is the thirty-fifth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2012 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).