Retrospective study investigating naloxone prescribing and cost in US Medicaid and Medicare patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdoses in the USA have increased to unprecedented levels. Administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can prevent overdoses.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to reveal the pharmacoepidemiologic patterns in naloxone prescribing to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 as well as Medicare in 2019.

DESIGN

Observational pharmacoepidemiologic study SETTING: US Medicare and Medicaid naloxone claims INTERVENTION: The Medicaid State Drug Utilisation Data File was utilised to extract information on the number of prescriptions and the amount prescribed of naloxone at a national and state level. The Medicare Provider Utilisation and Payment was also utilised to analyse prescription data from 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

States with naloxone prescription rates that were outliers of quartile analysis were noted.

RESULTS

The number of generic naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 Medicaid enrollees decreased by 5.3%, whereas brand naloxone prescriptions increased by 245.1% from 2018 to 2021. There was a 33.1-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico=1809.5) and lowest (South Dakota=54.6) states in 2019. Medicare saw a 30.4-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico) and lowest states (also South Dakota) after correcting per 100 000 enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

This pronounced increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 indicates a national response to this widespread public health emergency. Further research into the origins of the pronounced state-level disparities is warranted.

Naloxone Accessibility by Standing Order in North Carolina Community Pharmacies

BACKGROUND

According to a standing order in North Carolina (NC), naloxone can be purchased without a provider prescription.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine whether same-day naloxone accessibility and cost vary by pharmacy type and rurality in NC.

METHODS

A cross-sectional telephone audit of 202 NC community pharmacies stratified by pharmacy type and county of origin was conducted in March and April 2023. Trained "secret shoppers" enacted a standardized script and recorded whether naloxone was available and its cost. We examined the relationship between out-of-pocket naloxone cost, pharmacy type, and rurality.

RESULTS

Naloxone could be purchased in 53% of the pharmacies contacted; 26% incorrectly noting that naloxone could be filled only with a provider prescription and 21% did not sell naloxone. Naloxone availability by standing order was statistically different by pharmacy type (chain/independent) (χ2 = 20.58, df = 4, P value < 0.001), with a higher frequency of willingness to dispense according to the standing order by chain pharmacies in comparison to independent pharmacies. The average quoted cost for naloxone nasal spray at chain pharmacies was $84.69; the cost was significantly more ($113.54; P < 0.001) at independent pharmacies. Naloxone cost did not significantly differ by pharmacy rurality (F2,136 = 2.38, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of NC community pharmacies audited dispense naloxone according to the statewide standing order, limiting same-day access to this life-saving medication. Costs were higher at independent pharmacies, which could be due to store-level policies. Future studies should further investigate these cost differences, especially as intranasal naloxone transitions from a prescription only to over-the-counter product.

Trends in Out-of-Pocket Costs for and Characteristics of Pharmacy-Dispensed Naloxone by Payer Type

This study examines mean yearly out-of-pocket cost for naloxone dispensed from retail pharmacies by payer between 2018 and 2022 and by prescription characteristics and payer in 2022.

Rates and Costs of Dispensing Naloxone to Patients at High Risk for Opioid Overdose in the United States, 2014-2018

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines recommend co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but few such patients receive naloxone. High costs of naloxone may contribute to limited dispensing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate rates and costs of dispensing naloxone to patients receiving opioid prescriptions and at high risk for opioid overdose.

METHODS

Using claims data from a large US commercial insurance company, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of new opioid initiators between January 2014 and December 2018. We identified patients at high risk for overdose defined as a diagnosis of opioid use disorder, prior overdose, an opioid prescription of ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents/day for ≥ 90 days, and/or concurrent benzodiazepine prescriptions.

RESULTS

Among 5,292,098 new opioid initiators, 616,444 (12%) met criteria for high risk of overdose during follow-up, and, of those, 3096 (0.5%) were dispensed naloxone. The average copayment was US$24.83 for naloxone (standard deviation [SD] 67.66) versus US$9.74 for the index opioid (SD 19.75). The average deductible was US$6.18 for naloxone (SD 27.32) versus US$3.74 for the index opioid (SD 25.56), with 94% and 88% having deductibles of US$0 for their naloxone and opioid prescriptions, respectively. The average out-of-pocket cost was US$31.01 for naloxone (SD 73.64) versus US$13.48 for the index opioid (SD 34.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of dispensing naloxone to high risk patients were extremely low, and prescription costs varied greatly. Since improving naloxone's affordability may increase access, whether naloxone's high cost is associated with low dispensing rates should be evaluated.

Naloxone's role in the national opioid crisis-past struggles, current efforts, and future opportunities

Over the past 25 years, naloxone has emerged as a critical lifesaving overdose antidote. Public health advocates and community activists established early methods for naloxone distribution to people who inject drugs, but a legacy of stigmatization and opposition to universal naloxone access continues to limit the drug's full potential to reduce opioid-related mortality. The establishment of naloxone distribution programs under the umbrella of syringe exchange programs faces the same practical, ideological and financial barriers to expansion similar to those faced by syringe exchange programs themselves. The expansion of naloxone from the confines of a few syringe exchange programs to what we see today represents an enormous triumph for the grass-roots activists, service providers, and public health professionals who have fought to guarantee lay access to naloxone. Despite the extensive efforts to expand access to naloxone, naloxone continues to remains a scarce resource in many US localities. Considerable naloxone "deserts" remain and even where there is naloxone access, it does not always reach those at risk. Promising areas for expansion include the development of more robust telehealth methods for naloxone distribution, including subsidized mail delivery programs; lowering barriers to pharmacy access; working with hospitals, ambulances, and law enforcement to expand naloxone "leave behind" programs; providing naloxone co-prescription with medications for opioid use disorder; and working with prisons, shelters, and networks of people who use drugs to increase access to the lifesaving medication. Efforts to ensure over-the-counter and low- or no-cost naloxone are ongoing and stand alongside medication-assisted treatments as efficacious, readily-actionable, and cost-efficient population-level interventions available for combatting opioid-related overdose in the United States.

Socio-ecological and pharmacy-level factors associated with naloxone stocking at standing-order naloxone pharmacies in New York City

BACKGROUND

Research on socio-ecological factors that may impede or facilitate access to naloxone in pharmacies remains limited. This study investigated associations between socio-ecological factors, pharmacy participation in the naloxone cost assistance program (NCAP), pharmacy characteristics and having naloxone in stock among pharmacies in New York City.

METHODS

Phone interviews were conducted with 662 pharmacies selected from the New York City Naloxone Standing Order List. Multi-level generalized linear modeling estimated associations between neighborhood racial and ethnic composition, poverty rates, overdose fatality rates, pharmacy participation in N-CAP, having private physical spaces within the pharmacy, knowledge of where to refer people to obtain naloxone and adjusted relative risk (aRR) that the pharmacy would have naloxone in stock.

RESULTS

Findings from this study supported several of the hypotheses. Greater neighborhood poverty was associated with a lower likelihood of carrying naloxone compared to neighborhoods with less poverty (aRR = .79, CI95 % = .69, .90, p < .001). Pharmacies that provided a private window for consultations (aRR = 1.34, CI95 % = 1.19, 1.51, p < .001), a private room (aRR = 1.42, CI95 % = 1.30, 1.56, p < .001), and a private area (aRR = 1.42, CI95 % = 1.30, 1.56, p < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood of carrying naloxone compared than those that did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study suggest that community-level socioeconomic marginalization is a contributor to disparities in naloxone availability among pharmacies in New York City. Findings support harm reduction interventions tailored to the built environment of pharmacies that respect privacy to those seeking naloxone.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Address Opioid Misuse: A Systematic Review of Methods Used in Simulation Modeling Studies

OBJECTIVES

Several evidence-based interventions exist for people who misuse opioids, but there is limited guidance on optimal intervention selection. Economic evaluations using simulation modeling can guide the allocation of resources and help tackle the opioid crisis. This study reviews methods employed by economic evaluations using computer simulations to investigate the health and economic effects of interventions meant to address opioid misuse.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic mapping review of studies that used simulation modeling to support the economic evaluation of interventions targeting prevention, treatment, or management of opioid misuse or its direct consequences (ie, overdose). We searched 6 databases and extracted information on study population, interventions, costs, outcomes, and economic analysis and modeling approaches.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All of the studies considered only one segment of the continuum of care. Of the studies, 13 evaluated medications for opioid use disorder, and 5 evaluated naloxone distribution programs to reduce overdose deaths. Most studies estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years and used health system and/or societal perspectives. Models were decision trees (n = 4), Markov (n = 10) or semi-Markov models (n = 3), and microsimulations (n = 1). All of the studies assessed parameter uncertainty though deterministic and/or probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 4 conducted formal calibration, only 2 assessed structural uncertainty, and only 1 conducted expected value of information analyses. Only 10 studies conducted validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Future economic evaluations should consider synergies between interventions and examine combinations of interventions to inform optimal policy response. They should also more consistently conduct model validation and assess the value of further research.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intranasal Naloxone Distribution to High-Risk Prescription Opioid Users

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based intranasal naloxone distribution to high-risk prescription opioid (RxO) users.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with an attached tree for pharmacy-based naloxone distribution to high-risk RxO users using 2 approaches: one-time and biannual follow-up distribution. The Markov structure had 6 health states: high-risk RxO use, low-risk RxO use, no RxO use, illicit opioid use, no illicit opioid use, and death. The tree modeled the probability of an overdose happening, the overdose being witnessed, naloxone being available, and the overdose resulting in death. High-risk RxO users were defined as individuals with prescription opioid doses greater than or equal to 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day. We used a monthly cycle length, lifetime horizon, and US healthcare perspective. Costs (2018) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3% annually. Microsimulation was performed with 100 000 individual trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

One-time distribution of naloxone prevented 14 additional overdose deaths per 100 000 persons, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $56 699 per QALY. Biannual follow-up distribution led to 107 additional lives being saved with an ICER of $84 799 per QALY compared with one-time distribution. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that a biannual follow-up approach would be cost-effective 50% of the time at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Naloxone effectiveness and proportion of overdoses witnessed were the 2 most influential parameters for biannual distribution.

CONCLUSION

Both one-time and biannual follow-up naloxone distribution in community pharmacies would modestly reduce opioid overdose deaths and be cost-effective at a WTP of $100 000 per QALY.

Impact of a community-based naloxone distribution program on opioid overdose death rates

BACKGROUND

In August 2013, a naloxone distribution program was implemented in North Carolina (NC). This study evaluated that program by quantifying the association between the program and county-level opioid overdose death (OOD) rates and conducting a cost-benefit analysis.

METHODS

One-group pre-post design. Data included annual county-level counts of naloxone kits distributed from 2013 to 2016 and mortality data from 2000-2016. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between cumulative rates of naloxone kits distributed and annual OOD rates. Costs included naloxone kit purchases and distribution costs; benefits were quantified as OODs avoided and monetized using a conservative value of a life.

RESULTS

The rate of OOD in counties with 1-100 cumulative naloxone kits distributed per 100,000 population was 0.90 times (95% CI: 0.78, 1.04) that of counties that had not received kits. In counties that received >100 cumulative kits per 100,000 population, the OOD rate was 0.88 times (95% CI: 0.76, 1.02) that of counties that had not received kits. By December 2016, an estimated 352 NC deaths were avoided by naloxone distribution (95% CI: 189, 580). On average, for every dollar spent on the program, there was $2742 of benefit due to OODs avoided (95% CI: $1,237, $4882).

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates suggest that community-based naloxone distribution is associated with lower OOD rates. The program generated substantial societal benefits due to averted OODs. States and communities should continue to support efforts to increase naloxone access, which may include reducing legal, financial, and normative barriers.

The impact of expanded Medicaid eligibility on access to naloxone

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Federal, state and local US governments have sought interventions to reduce deaths due to opioid overdoses by increasing the availability of naloxone. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income, childless adults, potentially giving this group financial access to naloxone. The aims of this paper are: (1) to describe the changes in the amount of Medicaid-covered naloxone used between 2009 and 2016 and (2) to quantify the differential change in the amount of dispensed naloxone between states that expanded their Medicaid programs and states that did not.

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental approach based on states' ongoing choice to expand their Medicaid program to all adults with incomes between 100 and 138% of the federal poverty line (FPL), starting in 2014. As of 2018, 37 states had expanded and 14 states had not. Estimation of the policy impact relies on a difference-in-difference method.

SETTING

US state Medicaid programs.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Data are from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and include all dispensed prescriptions of naloxone through the Medicaid program. State/quarters with fewer than 10 prescriptions are suppressed; n = 1632.

FINDINGS

Prior to Medicaid expansion, the number of Medicaid-covered naloxone prescriptions was very similar in expansion and non-expansion states. On average, states that expanded Medicaid had 78.2 (95% confidence interval = 16.0-140.3, P = 0.02) more prescriptions per year for naloxone compared with states that did not expand Medicaid coverage, a nearly 10 increase over the pre-expansion years. Medicaid expansion contributed to this growth in Medicaid-covered naloxone more than other state-level naloxone policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid accounts for approximately a quarter of naloxone sales. Medicaid expansion generated 8.3% of the growth in naloxone units from 2009 to 2016, holding other factors constant.

Availability and Cost of Naloxone Nasal Spray at Pharmacies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2017

IMPORTANCE

Despite the increasingly important role of pharmacies in the implementation of naloxone access laws, there is limited information on the impact of such laws at the local level.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the availability (with or without a prescription) and cost of naloxone nasal spray at pharmacies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, following a statewide standing order enacted in Pennsylvania in August 2015 to allow pharmacies to dispense naloxone without a prescription.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A survey study was conducted by telephone of all pharmacies in Philadelphia between February and August 2017. Pharmacies were geocoded and linked with the American Community Survey (2011-2015) to obtain information on the demographic characteristics of census tracts and the Medical Examiner's Office of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to derive information on the number of opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 people for each planning district. Data were analyzed from March 2018 to February 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Availability and out-of-pocket cost of naloxone nasal spray (with or without a prescription) at Philadelphia pharmacies overall and by pharmacy and neighborhood characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 454 eligible pharmacies, 418 were surveyed (92.1% response rate). One in 3 pharmacies (34.2%) had naloxone nasal spray in stock; of these, 61.5% indicated it was available without a prescription. There were significant differences in the availability of naloxone by pharmacy type and neighborhood characteristics. Naloxone was both more likely to be in stock (45.9% vs 27.8%; difference, 18.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-27.8%; P < .001) and available without a prescription (80.6% vs 42.2%; difference, 38.4%; 95% CI, 23.0%-53.8%; P < .001) in chain stores than in independent stores. Naloxone was also less likely to be available in planning districts with very elevated rates of opioid overdose death (≥50 per 100 000 people) compared with those with lower rates (31.1% vs 38.5%). The median (interquartile range) out-of-pocket cost among pharmacies offering naloxone without a prescription was $145 ($119-$150); costs were greatest in independent pharmacies and planning districts with elevated rates of opioid overdose death.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite the implementation of a statewide standing order in Pennsylvania more than 3 years prior to this study, only one-third of Philadelphia pharmacies carried naloxone nasal spray and many also required a physician's prescription. Efforts to strengthen the implementation of naloxone access laws and better ensure naloxone supply at local pharmacies are warranted, especially in localities with the highest rates of overdose death.

Trends and economic drivers for United States naloxone pricing, January 2006 to February 2017

Anecdotal evidence indicates that naloxone prices have risen in recent years, but limited research has examined the magnitude of these increases and potential causes. We contribute nationally representative evidence to help answer each of these questions, including wholesale pricing data from a proprietary drug sales database spanning January 2006 to February 2017. We find that all formulations of naloxone increased in price since 2006 except for Narcan Nasal Spray. These cumulative increases totaled 2281% for the 0.4 MG single-dose products, 244% for the 2 MG single-dose products, 3797% for the 4 MG multi-dose products, and 469% for the 0.4 MG Evzio auto-injector. We believe that increased demand for naloxone from the opioid epidemic may explain the more gradual price increases for the 0.4 MG single-dose and 4 MG multi-dose products prior to 2012. On the other hand, we believe that the sudden, sustained prices increases occurring for all of the products since 2012 may be the result of a drug shortage for the 0.4 MG single-dose products and the fact that each naloxone product has historically been sold by only a single competitor.

Government Patent Use to Address the Rising Cost of Naloxone: 28 U.S.C. § 1498 and Evzio

The rising cost of the opioid antagonist and overdose reversal agent naloxone is an urgent public health problem. The recent and dramatic price increase of Evzio, a naloxone auto-injector produced by Kaléo, shows how pharmaceutical manufacturers entering the naloxone marketplace rely on market exclusivity guaranteed by the patent system to charge prices at what the market can bear, which can restrict access to life-saving medication. We argue that 28 U.S.C. § 1498, a section of the federal code that allows the government to use patent-protected products for its own purposes in exchange for reasonable compensation, could be used to procure generic naloxone auto-injectors, or at least bring Kaléo to the negotiating table. Precedent exists for the use of § 1498 to procure pharmaceuticals, and it could give meaning to the federal government's recent declaration of a public health emergency around the opioid epidemic, discourage new market entrants from charging exorbitant prices, and yield important public health benefits.

Cost-Effectiveness of Take-Home Naloxone for the Prevention of Overdose Fatalities among Heroin Users in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Heroin overdose is a major cause of premature death. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that is effective for the reversal of heroin overdose in emergency situations and can be used by nonmedical responders.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to adults at risk of heroin overdose for use by nonmedical responders compared with no naloxone distribution in a European healthcare setting (United Kingdom).

METHODS

A Markov model with an integrated decision tree was developed based on an existing model, using UK data where available. We evaluated an intramuscular naloxone distribution reaching 30% of heroin users. Costs and effects were evaluated over a lifetime and discounted at 3.5%. The results were assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The model estimated that distribution of intramuscular naloxone, would decrease overdose deaths by around 6.6%. In a population of 200,000 heroin users this equates to the prevention of 2,500 premature deaths at an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of £899. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation suggests that the distribution of take-home naloxone decreased overdose deaths by around 6.6% and was cost-effective with an incremental cost per QALY gained well below a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold set by UK decision-makers. The model code has been made available to aid future research. Further study is warranted on the impact of different formulations of naloxone on cost-effectiveness and the impact take-home naloxone has on the wider society.

Standing Against Addiction

Several standing pharmaceutical orders for naloxone, used to rescue those who overdose from opioids, have helped expand access to the lifesaving drug in Texas.

Effectiveness of Scotland's National Naloxone Programme for reducing opioid-related deaths: a before (2006-10) versus after (2011-13) comparison

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness for Scotland's National Naloxone Programme (NNP) by comparison between 2006-10 (before) and 2011-13 (after NNP started in January 2011) and to assess cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

This was a pre-post evaluation of a national policy. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by prescription costs against life-years gained per opioid-related death (ORD) averted.

SETTING

Scotland, in community settings and all prisons.

INTERVENTION

Brief training and standardized naloxone supply became available to individuals at risk of opioid overdose.

MEASUREMENTS

ORDs as identified by National Records of Scotland. Look-back determined the proportion of ORDs who, in the 4 weeks before ORD, had been (i) released from prison (primary outcome) and (ii) released from prison or discharged from hospital (secondary). We report 95% confidence intervals for effectiveness in reducing the primary (and secondary) outcome in 2011-13 versus 2006-10. Prescription costs were assessed against 1 or 10 life-years gained per averted ORD.

FINDINGS

In 2006-10, 9.8% of ORDs (193 of 1970) were in people released from prison within 4 weeks of death, whereas only 6.3% of ORDs in 2011-13 followed prison release (76 of 1212, P < 0.001; this represented a difference of 3.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-5.4%)]. This reduction in the proportion of prison release ORDs translates into 42 fewer prison release ORDs (95% CI = 19-65) during 2011-13, when 12,000 naloxone kits were issued at current prescription cost of £225,000. Scotland's secondary outcome reduced from 19.0 to 14.9%, a difference of 4.1% (95% CI = 1.4-6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Scotland's National Naloxone Programme, which started in 2011, was associated with a 36% reduction in the proportion of opioid-related deaths that occurred in the 4 weeks following release from prison.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oxycodone with naloxone versus oxycodone alone for the management of moderate-to-severe pain in patients with opioid-induced constipation in Canada

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20-30% of Canadians suffer from chronic pain. Guidelines for the management of chronic pain support the use of controlled-release (CR) opioids to treat chronic pain. Although effective in managing chronic pain, oxycodone is associated with high rates of opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The cost-effectiveness of a combination of oxycodone for the management of pain and naloxone for the relief of OIC has not previously been evaluated for Canada.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-utility of combination oxycodone/naloxone compared to oxycodone alone in four populations. Drug costs for managing pain and healthcare costs related to managing OIC were included in the analysis and the primary measure of effectiveness was quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from OIC rates observed in clinical trials. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective, used a 1-year time horizon, and results were expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

In all four patient populations, there was a trade-off between slightly higher total expected costs for Targin treated patients compared to oxycodone treated patients, but also improved clinical benefits in terms of reduced OIC, which resulted in higher QALYs for patients. Although analgesic costs were found to be slightly higher for Targin treated patients, Targin also resulted in cost offsets to the healthcare system in terms of less rescue laxative drug use and other resources required for the management of OIC. The resulting 1-year cost-utility of Targin compared to oxycodone ranged from $2178-$7732 per QALY gained in the base case analysis, and it was found that these cost-utility results remained robust and at low values throughout a series of one-way deterministic analyses of uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

The clinical effectiveness of oxycodone/naloxone in managing pain and OIC compared to CR oxycodone alone resulted in low cost-utility estimates.

Management of opioid-dependent patients: comparison of the cost associated with use of buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone, and their interactions with concomitant treatments for infectious or psychiatric comorbidities

The objective was to estimate the annual interaction management cost of agonist opioid treatment (AOT) for opioid-dependent (OD) patients with buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) (B/N) or methadone associated with concomitant treatments for infectious (HIV) or psychiatric comorbidities. A costs analysis model was developed to calculate the associated cost of AOT and interaction management. The AOT cost included pharmaceutical costs, drug preparation, distribution and dispensing, based on intake regimen (healthcare center or take-home) and type and frequency of dispensing (healthcare center or pharmacy), and medical visits. The cost of methadone also included single-dose bottles, monthly costs of custody at pharmacy, urine toxicology drug screenings and nursing visits. Potential interactions between AOT and concomitant treatments (antivirals, antibacterials/antifungals, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, antidepressant and anticonvulsants), were identified to determine the additional use of healthcare resources for each interaction management. The annual cost per patient of AOT was €1,525.97 for B/N and €1,467.29 for methadone. The average annual cost per patient of interaction management was €257.07 (infectious comorbidities), €114.03 (psychiatric comorbidities) and €185.55 (double comorbidity) with methadone and €7.90 with B/N in psychiatric comorbidities. Total annual costs of B/N were €1,525.97, €1,533.87 and €1,533.87 compared to €1,724.35, €1,581.32 and €1,652.84 for methadone per patient with infectious, psychiatric or double comorbidity respectively.Compared to methadone, the total cost per patient with OD was lower with B/N (€47.45-€198.38 per year). This is due to the differences in interaction management costs associated with the concomitant treatment of infectious and/or psychiatric comorbidities.

Clinical and economic evaluation of tapentadol extended release and oxycodone/naloxone extended release in comparison with controlled release oxycodone in musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability and represents a relevant societal burden. Opioids are widely used for managing chronic non-cancer pain; however, the high incidence of side effects is often the main reason for discontinuation. Two formulations have recently been studied to improve the tolerability of opioids (tapentadol extended release [ER] and oxycodone/naloxone ER), but a direct comparison between these drugs is not available in the literature. The comparative cost effectiveness of these two drugs has not previously been assessed. The objective of this meta-analysis is a clinical and economic evaluation of tapentadol ER and oxycodone/naloxone ER for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain, by indirect comparison with controlled release (CR) oxycodone.

METHODS

A structured literature review was conducted to identify published data for the health-economic model. The authors performed a meta-analysis on three selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for each treatment (tapentadol ER and oxycodone/naloxone ER). As measure of treatment effect, risk ratio was calculated, compared to the control active treatment (CR oxycodone), for the following outcomes: discontinuation rate due to adverse events, due to gastrointestinal (GE) side effects and central nervous system (CNS) side effects. A Markov model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of tapentadol ER and oxycodone/naloxone ER. Four health states were defined: (1) patients still on treatment; (2) occurrence of adverse events (gastroenterology, central nervous system); (3) treatment discontinuation as consequence of ineffectiveness of treatment; and (4) treatment discontinuation as consequence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Both drugs showed a significant clinical advantage over the active control, CR oxycodone; however, tapentadol ER resulted in a better risk ratio reduction for the primary outcome of discontinuation rate due to adverse events and for the secondary outcome nausea and vomiting. The two drugs gave equivalent results in the capacity of reduction of constipation risk. In the economic evaluation both interventions were cost effective compared with CR oxycodone. However, tapentadol ER showed the most favorable results as in 65% of cases it was less costly and produced a considerable quality adjusted life years (QALY) gain. The higher impact of tapentadol ER on the cost effectiveness results was probably due to the price and the lower incidence of adverse events and related discontinuation rate, resulting in a further economic advantage.

CONCLUSION

Both tapentadol ER and oxycodone/naloxone ER are cost effective interventions compared with CR oxycodone; however, tapentadol ER was shown to provide better clinical outcomes at lower costs.

The diversion and injection of a buprenorphine-naloxone soluble film formulation

BACKGROUND

We compared the diversion and injection of a new formulation of buprenorphine, a buprenorphine-naloxone film product (BNX film), with buprenorphine-naloxone tablets (BNX tablets), mono-buprenorphine (BPN) and methadone (MET) in Australia.

METHODS

Surveys were conducted with people who inject drugs regularly (PWID) (2004-2012) and opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients (2012, N=543). Key outcome measures: the unsanctioned removal of supervised doses, diversion, injection, motivations, drug liking and street price. Levels of injection among PWID were adjusted for background availability of medication using sales data. Doses not taken as directed by OST clients were adjusted by total number of daily doses dispensed.

RESULTS

Among out-of-treatment PWID, levels of injection for BNX film were comparable to those for MET and BNX tablet formulations, adjusting for background availability; BPN injecting levels were higher. Among OST clients, recent injecting of one's medication was similar among clients in all OST types; weekly or more frequent injection of prescribed doses was reported by fewer BNX film clients (3%; 95% CI: 1-6) than BPN clients (11%; 95% CI: 3-17), but at levels similar to those observed among MET and BNX tablet clients. The proportion of BNX film doses injected was lower than that for BPN and BNX tablets, and equivalent to that for MET. The majority of BNX film doses injected by OST clients were unsupervised doses, although some injection of supervised doses of BNX film did occur. The median price of all buprenorphine forms on the illicit market was the same.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-adherence and diversion of the BNX film formulation was similar to MET and BNX tablet formulations; BPN had higher levels of all indicators of non-adherence and diversion.

Cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to heroin users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to illicit opioid users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities.

METHOD

This study adapted an integrated Markov and decision analytic model to Russian cities. The model took a lifetime, societal perspective, relied on published literature, and was calibrated to epidemiologic findings.

RESULTS

For each 20% of heroin users reached with naloxone distribution, the model predicted a 13.4% reduction in overdose deaths in the first 5 years and 7.6% over a lifetime; on probabilistic analysis, one death would be prevented for every 89 naloxone kits distributed (95% CI = 32-260). Naloxone distribution was cost-effective in all deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and cost-saving if resulting in a reduction in overdose events. Naloxone distribution increased costs by US$13 (95% CI = US$3-US$32) and QALYs by 0.137 (95% CI = 0.022-0.389) for an incremental cost of US$94 per QALY gained (95% CI = US$40-US$325). In a worst-case scenario where overdose was rarely witnessed and naloxone was rarely used, minimally effective, and expensive, the incremental cost was US$1987 per QALY gained. If national expenditures on drug-related HIV, tuberculosis, and criminal justice were applied to heroin users, the incremental cost was US$928 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Naloxone distribution to heroin users for lay overdose reversal is highly likely to reduce overdose deaths in target communities and is robustly cost-effective, even within the constraints of this conservative model.

Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost effectiveness of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets (Targinact) and prolonged release oxycodone (OXY) tablets (OxyContin) in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

METHODS

A cohort model used data from a phase III randomised, controlled trial (RCT). It calculated the cost difference between treatments by combining the cost of pain therapy with costs of laxatives and other resources used to manage constipated patients. SF-36 scores were converted into EQ-5D utility values to calculate the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost of OXN versus OXY was £159.68 for the average treatment duration of 301 days. OXN gave an incremental QALY gain of 0.0273. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5841.56 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses gave a maximum ICER of £10,347.03. In some scenarios, OXN dominated with a cost saving of up to £4254.70. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that OXN had approximately 96.6% probability of cost effectiveness at the £20,000 threshold.

LIMITATIONS

The model was conservative in predicting the probability of constipation beyond the 12-week RCT period. UK cost of constipation data were limited and based on primary care physician opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.

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.

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.

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.

Zunehmende Bedeutung der Opioide in der Geriatrie

BACKGROUND

During the previous 20 years the prescription of opioids for medical use has increased steadily. Patients and professionals have great reservations about the use of opioids in the elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in analgesic therapy in a geriatric clinic during the previous 10 years.

METHOD

The quality and quantity of prescriptions for opioids as well as the costs of the analgesic therapy in a large geriatric clinic between 1994 and 2003 were analyzed.

RESULTS

The use of opioids increased steadily from 0.72 mg per day and patient in 1994 to 9.50 mg in 2003 (1320%). The introduction of sustained release tilidine/naloxone and tramadol led to a change of the prescribed forms but only to a slight increase in the total consumption of these drugs. In 1994 the average daily cost of analgesic therapy was 15 cents per patient compared with 46 cents in 2003. The percentage of analgesics in the pharmacological budget increased from 5.6 to 10.8%.

CONCLUSION

Dealing with opioids should be a part of the training program for all members of the geriatric team. Analgesics have come to play an important role in the pharmacological budget at least in this geriatric clinic.

Buprenorphine and naloxone combinations: the effects of three dose ratios in morphine-stabilized, opiate-dependent volunteers

Sublingual buprenorphine is a promising new treatment for opiate dependence, but its opioid agonist effects pose a risk for parenteral abuse. A formulation combining buprenorphine with the opiate antagonist naloxone could discourage such abuse. The effects of three intravenous (IV) buprenorphine and naloxone combinations on agonist effects and withdrawal signs and symptoms were examined in 12 opiate-dependent subjects. Following stabilization on a daily dose of 60 mg morphine intramuscularly, subjects were challenged with IV doses of buprenorphine alone (2 mg) or in combination with naloxone in ratios of 2:1, 4:1, and 8:1 (1, 0.5, or 0.25 mg naloxone), morphine alone (15 mg) or placebo. Buprenorphine alone did not precipitate withdrawal and had agonist effects similar to morphine. A naloxone dose-dependent increase in opiate withdrawal signs and symptoms and a decrease in opioid agonist effects occurred after all drug combinations. Buprenorphine with naloxone in ratios of 2:1 and 4:1 produced moderate to high increases in global opiate withdrawal, bad drug effect, and sickness. These dose ratios also decreased the pleasurable effects and estimated street value of buprenorphine, thereby suggesting a low abuse liability. The dose ratio of 8:1 produced only mild withdrawal symptoms. Dose combinations at 2:1 and 4:1 ratios may be useful in treating opiate dependence.