Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design

BACKGROUND

The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown.

METHODS

We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD.

RESULTS

Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone.

CONCLUSIONS

Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018

OBJECTIVE

Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions.

METHODS

We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News.

RESULTS

Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.

Responses among substance abuse treatment providers to the opioid epidemic in the USA: Variations in buprenorphine and methadone treatment by geography, operational, and payment characteristics, 2007-16

Objective

To identify the geographic, organisational, and payment correlates of buprenorphine and methadone treatment among substance abuse treatment (SAT) providers.

Methods

Secondary analyses of the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) from 2007–16 were conducted. We provide bivariate descriptive statistics regarding substance abuse treatment services which offered buprenorphine and methadone treatment from 2007–16. Using multiple logistic regression, we regressed geographic, organisational, and payment correlates on buprenorphine and methadone treatment.

Results

Buprenorphine is increasingly offered at SAT facilities though uptake remains comparatively low outside of the northeast. SAT facilities run by tribal governments or Indian Health Service which offer buprenorphine remain low compared to privately operated SAT facilities (AOR = 0.528). The odds of offering buprenorphine among facilities offering free or no charge treatment (AOR = 0.838) or a sliding fee scale (AOR = 0.464) was lower. SAT facilities accepting Medicaid payments showed higher odds of offering methadone treatment (AOR = 2.035).

Conclusions

Greater attention towards the disparities in provision of opioid agonist therapies is warranted, especially towards the reasons why uptake has been moderate among civilian providers. Additionally, the care needs of Native Americans facing opioid-related use disorders bears further scrutiny.

Lost cost savings to the NHS in England due to the delayed entry of multiple generic low-dose transdermal buprenorphine: a case scenario analysis

OBJECTIVE

Originator pharmaceutical companies prolonging the patent of a medicine prevents rivals' entry to the market and competition. As the entry of generic alternatives usually results in price reduction, any delay in their entry potentially deprives the National Health Service (NHS) of much-needed savings. This study estimates the potential cost savings lost to the NHS as a result of delayed entry of generic low-dose buprenorphine (LDTB) patches in England.

DESIGN

Two case scenarios were modelled to determine the savings from the entry of generic LDTB Butec only between February and August 2016 and the potential savings which could have been achieved if all generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time.

SETTING

The volume of utilisation of branded and generic LDTB in UK primary care was derived from the NHS business services authority website for prescriptions dispensed between February 2015 and January 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost savings associated with the entry of generic LDTB.

RESULTS

The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of Butec alone was £0.7 ($0.92) million. The model predicted that if all generic buprenorphine entered the market at the same time with Butec, they could have been achieved a £1.2 ($1.57) million saving. This means that approximately £0.5 ($0.65) million savings was lost to the NHS over the 6-month time period.

CONCLUSIONS

The entry of Butec was associated with cost savings. We estimated that more cost savings could have been achieved if other generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time to drive competition between rivals. Patent protection strategies which delayed the entry of multiple generics were responsible for the reduced cost savings to the NHS in England.

Physicians as Mediators of Health Policy: Acceptance of Medicaid in the Context of Buprenorphine Treatment

Increasing numbers of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are insured by Medicaid. Little is known about whether providers of buprenorphine, an evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy, accept this type of payment. Data are scant regarding whether Medicaid acceptance varies by physician and state-level characteristics. To address these gaps, national survey data from 1174 buprenorphine-prescribing physicians (BPPs) and state characteristics were examined in a multi-level model of Medicaid acceptance. Only 52.0% of BPPs accepted Medicaid for buprenorphine-related office visits. Specialists in addiction and psychiatry were significantly less likely to accept Medicaid than other specialties, as were BPPs delivering buprenorphine in individual medical practice. Perceived adequacy of Medicaid reimbursement was positively associated with accepting Medicaid. Medicaid acceptance was not associated with states' implementation of the Medicaid expansion. Individuals who are covered by Medicaid may face barriers to accessing buprenorphine treatment, which has high public health significance given the ongoing opioid epidemic.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with treatment for opioid dependence

OBJECTIVE

Opioid use disorder (OUD) can be managed with medication assisted therapy (MAT) (methadone [MET], buprenorphine [BUP], or extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX]) or counseling alone (non-pharmacological therapy [NPT]). The objective of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with XR-NTX compared with alternative treatments for opioid dependence.

METHODS

Adults with a diagnosis of opioid dependence who initiated treatment with XR-NTX, BUP, MET, or NPT between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial administrative claims database. Healthcare resource utilization, costs (inpatient [IP], emergency department [ED], outpatient [OP], and pharmacy) and adherence were evaluated for each cohort during 12-month baseline and follow-up periods.

RESULTS

A total of 29,235 patients were included in the analysis; 1,041, 20,566, 745, and 6,883 received XR-NTX, BUP, MET, and NPT, respectively. Patients in the XR-NTX cohort were significantly younger and had more comorbidities compared with the other cohorts. Patients in the XR-NTX group had the largest percentage decrease in IP and ED utilization and costs from baseline to follow-up. OP and pharmacy costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for all cohorts. Overall, there was no significant change in total healthcare costs for the XR-NTX group, whereas the costs increased significantly for other groups (BUP = +43%, MET = +47.7%, NPT = +38.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare resource utilization and costs increased from baseline to follow-up in BUP, MET, and NPT patients, whereas patients receiving XR-NTX experienced no such increase. This analysis suggests there may be economic value in the use of XR-NTX for OUD.

State-Targeted Funding and Technical Assistance to Increase Access to Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

As the United States grapples with an opioid epidemic, expanding access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder is a major public health priority. Identifying effective policy tools that can be used to expand access to care is critically important. This article examines the relationship between state-targeted funding and technical assistance and adoption of three medications for treating opioid use disorder: oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine.

METHODS

This study draws from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment programs. The sample includes data from 695 treatment programs (85.5% response rate) and representatives from single-state agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C. (98% response rate). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships of single-state agency targeted funding and technical assistance to availability of opioid use disorder medications among treatment programs.

RESULTS

State-targeted funding was associated with increased program-level adoption of oral naltrexone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.49-6.60, p=.004) and buprenorphine (AOR=2.47, 95% CI=1.31-4.67, p=.006). Buprenorphine adoption was also correlated with state technical assistance to support medication provision (AOR=1.18, 95% CI=1.00-1.39, p=.049).

CONCLUSIONS

State-targeted funding for medications may be a viable policy lever for increasing access to opioid use disorder medications. Given the historically low rates of opioid use disorder medication adoption in treatment programs, single-state agency targeted funding is a potentially important tool to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with opioid disorders and misuse.

Underused Weapon In the War on Addiction

Buprenorphine could save thousands more lives than it does-if it weren't for legal barriers, a fear of disruptive patients, and insurance red tape. And it can be prescribed in the primary care physician's office.

Cost-effectiveness of subdermal implantable buprenorphine versus sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder

AIMS

Subdermal implantable buprenorphine (BSI) was recently approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) in clinically-stable adults. In the pivotal clinical trial, BSI was associated with a higher proportion of completely-abstinent patients (85.7% vs 71.9%; p = .03) vs sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BPN). Elsewhere, relapse to illicit drug use is associated with diminished treatment outcomes and increased costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSI vs SL-BPN from a US societal perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated BSI and SL-BPN cohorts (clinically-stable adults) transiting through four mutually-exclusive health states for 12 months. Cohorts accumulated direct medical costs from drug acquisition/administration; treatment-diversion/abuse; newly-acquired hepatitis-C; emergency room, hospital, and rehabilitation services; and pediatric poisonings. Non-medical costs of criminality, lost wages/work-productivity, and out-of-pocket expenses were also included. Transition probabilities to a relapsed state were derived from the aforementioned trial. Other transition probabilities, costs, and health-state utilities were derived from observational studies and adjusted for trial characteristics. Outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and incremental net-monetary-benefit (INMB). Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

BSI was associated with lower total costs (-$4,386), more QALYs (+0.031), and favorable INMB at all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds considered. Higher drug acquisition costs for BSI (+$6,492) were outpaced, primarily by reductions in emergency room/hospital utilization (-$8,040) and criminality (-$1,212). BSI was cost-effective in 89% of PSA model replicates, and had a significantly higher NMB at $50,000/QALY ($20,783 vs $15,007; p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

BSI was preferred over SL-BPN from a health-economic perspective for treatment of OUD in clinically-stable adults. These findings should be interpreted carefully, due to some relationships having been modeled from inputs derived from multiple sources, and would benefit from comparison with outcomes from studies that employ administrative claims data or a naturalistic comparative design.

Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

AIMS

This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

RESULTS

Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use.

LIMITATIONS

The model's 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured.

CONCLUSIONS

OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK's willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.

Office-Based Buprenorphine Versus Clinic-Based Methadone: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of clinic-based methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and office-based buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. The authors used a Markov cost-effectiveness model. A hypothetical cohort of 1000 adult, opioid-dependent patients was modeled over a 1-year time horizon. Patients were allowed to transition between the health states of in opioid dependence treatment and either abusing or not abusing opioids, or to have dropped out of treatment. Probabilities were derived from randomized clinical trials comparing methadone and buprenorphine. Costs included drug and administration, clinic visits, and therapy sessions. Effectiveness outcomes examined were (1) retention in the treatment program and (2) opioid abuse-free weeks. For retention in treatment at 1 year, MMT was more costly ($4,613 vs. $4,155) and more effective (20.3% vs. 15.9%) than BMT, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,437 per additional patient retained in treatment. MMT was also more effective than BMT in terms of opioid abuse-free weeks (9.2 vs. 9.1 weeks), resulting in an ICER of $8,515 per opioid abuse-free week gained. One-way sensitivity analyses found costs per week of MMT to have the largest impact on the retention-in-treatment outcome, whereas the probability of dropping out with MMT had the greatest impact on opioid abuse-free weeks. The authors conclude that MMT is cost-effective compared with BMT for the treatment of patients with opioid dependence. However, the treatment of substance abuse is complex, and decision makers should also consider individual patient characteristics when making coverage decisions.

Access to Addiction Pharmacotherapy in Private Health Plans

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of medications are available to treat addictions. To understand access to addiction medications, it is essential to consider the role of private health plans. To contain medication expenditures, most U.S. health plans use cost-sharing and administrative controls, which may impact physicians' prescribing and patients' use of addiction medications. This study identified health plan approaches to manage access to and utilization of addiction medications (oral and injectable naltrexone, acamprosate, and buprenorphine).

METHODS

Data are from a nationally representative survey of private health plans in 2010 (n=385 plans, 935 products; response rate 89%), compared to the same survey in 2003. The study assessed formulary inclusion, prior authorization, step therapy, overall restrictiveness, and if and how health plans encourage pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

Formulary exclusions were rare in 2010, with acamprosate excluded most often, by only 9% of products. Injectable naltrexone was covered by 96% of products. Prior authorization was common for injectable naltrexone (85%) and rare for acamprosate (3%). Step therapy policies were used only for injectable naltrexone (41%) and acamprosate (20%). Several medications were often on the most expensive tier. Changes since 2003 include fewer exclusions, yet increased use of other management approaches. Most health plans encourage use of addiction pharmacotherapy, and use a variety of methods to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of addiction medications has increased over time but it is not ubiquitous. However, health plans now also include all medications on formularies and encourage providers to use them, indicating that they value addiction pharmacotherapy as an evidence-based practice.

Tramadol and the risk of fracture in an elderly female population: a cost utility assessment with comparison to transdermal buprenorphine

INTRODUCTION

Opioid treatment for chronic pain is a known risk factor for falls and/or fractures in elderly patients. The latter cause a significant cost to the National Health Service and the Personal Social Services in the UK. Tramadol has a higher risk of fractures than some other opioid analgesics used to treat moderate-to-severe pain and, in the model described here, we investigate the cost effectiveness of transdermal buprenorphine treatment compared with tramadol in a high-risk population.

METHODS

A model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of tramadol compared with transdermal buprenorphine over a 1-year time horizon and a patient population of high-risk patients (female patients age 75 or older). To estimate the total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of treatment, published odds ratios are used in combination with the published incidence rates of four types of fracture: hip, wrist, humerus and other.

RESULTS

The model shows tramadol to be associated with 1,058 more fractures per 100,000 patients per year compared with transdermal buprenorphine, resulting in transdermal buprenorphine being cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £7,000 compared with tramadol. Sensitivity analysis found this result to be robust.

LIMITATIONS

In the UK data, there is uncertainty regarding the transdermal buprenorphine odds ratios for fractures. Odds ratios published in Danish and Swedish studies show similar point estimates but are associated with less uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Transdermal buprenorphine is cost-effective compared to tramadol at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

Risk Factors for Relapse and Higher Costs Among Medicaid Members with Opioid Dependence or Abuse: Opioid Agonists, Comorbidities, and Treatment History

Clinical trials show that opioid agonist therapy (OAT) with methadone or buprenorphine is more effective than behavioral treatments, but state policymakers remain ambivalent about covering OAT for long periods. We used Medicaid claims for 52,278 Massachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries with a diagnosis of opioid abuse or dependence between 2004 and 2010 to study associations between use of methadone, buprenorphine or other behavioral health treatment without OAT, and time to relapse and total healthcare expenditures. Cox Proportional Hazards ratios for patients treated with either methadone or buprenorphine showed approximately 50% lower risk of relapse than behavioral treatment without OAT. Expenditures per month were from $153 to $233 lower for OAT episodes compared to other behavioral treatment. Co-occurring alcohol abuse/dependence quadrupled the risk of relapse, other non-opioid abuse/dependence doubled the relapse risk and severe mental illness added 80% greater risk compared to those without each of those disorders. Longer current treatment episodes were associated with lower risk of relapse. Relapse risk increased as prior treatment exposure increased but prior treatment was associated with slightly lower total healthcare expenditures. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of OAT that has been demonstrated in clinical trials persists at the population level in a less controlled setting and that OAT is associated with lower total healthcare expenditures compared to other forms of behavioral treatment for patients with opioid addiction. Co-occurring other substance use and mental illness exert strong influences on cost and risk of relapse, suggesting that individuals with these conditions need more comprehensive treatment.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Injectable Extended-Release Naltrexone Compared With Methadone Maintenance and Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment for Opioid Dependence

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) compared with methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance treatment (MMT and BMT, respectively) for adult males enrolled in treatment for opioid dependence in the United States from the perspective of state-level addiction treatment payers.

METHODS

A Markov model with daily time cycles was used to estimate the incremental cost per opioid-free day in a simulated cohort of adult males aged 18-65 over a 6-month period from the state health program perspective.

RESULTS

XR-NTX is predicted to be more effective and more costly than methadone or buprenorphine in our target population, with an incremental cost per opioid-free day gained relative to the next-most effective treatment (MMT) of $72. The cost-effectiveness of XR-NTX relative to MMT was driven by its effectiveness in deterring opioid use while receiving treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

XR-NTX is a cost-effective medication for treating opioid dependence if state addiction treatment payers are willing to pay at least $72 per opioid-free day.

Costs of care for persons with opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems

BACKGROUND

When used in general medical practices, buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid dependence, yet little is known about how use of buprenorphine affects the utilization and cost of health care in commercial health systems.

METHODS

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine how buprenorphine affects patterns of medical care, addiction medicine services, and costs from the health system perspective. Individuals with two or more opioid-dependence diagnoses per year, in two large health systems (System A: n = 1836; System B: n = 4204) over the time span 2007-2008 were included. Propensity scores were used to help adjust for group differences.

RESULTS

Patients receiving buprenorphine plus addiction counseling had significantly lower total health care costs than patients with little or no addiction treatment (mean health care costs with buprenorphine treatment = $13,578; vs. mean health care costs with no addiction treatment = $31,055; p < .0001), while those receiving buprenorphine plus addiction counseling and those with addiction counseling only did not differ significantly in total health care costs (mean costs with counseling only: $17,017; p = .5897). In comparison to patients receiving buprenorphine plus counseling, those with little or no addiction treatment had significantly greater use of primary care (p < .001), other medical visits (p = .001), and emergency services (p = .020). Patients with counseling only (compared to patients with buprenorphine plus counseling) used less inpatient detoxification (p < .001), and had significantly more PC visits (p = .001), other medical visits (p = .005), and mental health visits (p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is a viable alternative to other treatment approaches for opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems, with total costs of health care similar to abstinence-based counseling. Patients with buprenorphine plus counseling had reduced use of general medical services compared to the alternatives.

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 buprenorphine and naltrexone treatments for heroin dependence in Malaysia

Aims

To aid public health policymaking, we studied the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine, naltrexone, and placebo interventions for heroin dependence in Malaysia.

Design

We estimated the cost-effectiveness ratios of three treatments for heroin dependence. We used a microcosting methodology to determine fixed, variable, and societal costs of each intervention. Cost data were collected from investigators, staff, and project records on the number and type of resources used and unit costs; societal costs for participants’ time were estimated using Malaysia’s minimum wage. Costs were estimated from a provider and societal perspective and reported in 2004 US dollars.

Setting

Muar, Malaysia.

Participants

126 patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Malaysia (2003–2005) receiving counseling and buprenorphine, naltrexone, or placebo for treatment of heroin dependence.

Measurements

Primary outcome measures included days in treatment, maximum consecutive days of heroin abstinence, days to first heroin use, and days to heroin relapse. Secondary outcome measures included treatment retention, injection drug use, illicit opiate use, AIDS Risk Inventory total score, and drug risk and sex risk subscores.

Findings

Buprenorphine was more effective and more costly than naltrexone for all primary and most secondary outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below $50 for primary outcomes, mostly below $350 for secondary outcomes. Naltrexone was dominated by placebo for all secondary outcomes at almost all endpoints. Incremental treatment costs were driven mainly by medication costs, especially the price of buprenorphine.

Conclusions

Buprenorphine appears to be a cost-effective alternative to naltrexone that might enhance economic productivity and reduce drug use over a longer term.

[Reimbursement of opiate substitution drugs to militaries in 2007]

INTRODUCTION

The use of psychoactive drugs by militaries is not compatible with the analytical skills and self-control required by their jobs. Military physicians take this problem into consideration by organising systematic drugs screening in the French forces. However, for technical reasons, opiates are not concerned by this screening with the agreement of the people concerned. The estimated number of militaries who use an opiate substitute may be an approach of heroin consumption in the French forces. This study describes buprenorphine and methadone reimbursements made during 2007 by the national military healthcare centre to French militaries.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Each French soldier is affiliated to a special health insurance. The national military healthcare centre has in its information system, all the data concerning drug reimbursement made to French military personnel. This is a retrospective study of buprenorphine and methadone reimbursements made during 2007 by the military healthcare centre, to militaries from the three sectors of the French forces, and from the gendarmerie and joint forces. Only one reimbursement of one of these two drugs during this period allowed the patient to be included in our study. Daily drug dose and treatment steadiness profile have been calculated according to the criteria of the French monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction. The criteria of the National guidelines against frauds have been used to identify misuse of these drugs. Doctors' shopping behaviour has also been studied. Finally, the nature of the prescriber and the consumption of other drugs in combination with opiate substitute have been analysed.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one military consumers of opiate substitute drugs (167 men and 14 women) participated. This sample included people from the three sectors of the French forces as well as from the gendarmerie and from the joint forces. The average age of the consumers was 26.6 years (20-42 years). The average length of service was 6.1 years (maximum 22 years service). One hundred and fifty-nine militaries had been delivered buprenorphine, 15 had been delivered methadone and seven had been delivered both. The prevalence of opiate substitute drug consumption by the militaries (52 per 100,000) is lower than in general population. According to the criteria of the National Healthcare Insurance, this population is not affected by abuse or fraud behaviour. Doctors' shopping behaviour is unusual. Opiate substitutes are prescribed by general physicians in 88% of issues. Only one prescriber was a military physician. An analysis of reimbursement of some drugs associated with opiate substitute has been made. The sampled military consume more psychoactive drugs (anxiolytics, antidepressants, hypnotics) than the French population under opiate substitution.

CONCLUSION

In our observation, the military physician is almost always excluded the process of substitution. His/her different responsibilities of care, but also in determining the working aptitude, lead to dissimulation behaviour by the militaries. The difficulty for military physicians is to identify such consumption. They have to evaluate the capacity to work through a physical and psychological examination.

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

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

DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Availability of addiction medications in private health plans

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinic-based treatment for opioid dependence: a qualitative inquiry

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A cost-effectiveness analysis of buprenorphine-assisted heroin withdrawal

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

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

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

Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a cost-effectiveness analysis

This article presents the cost-effectiveness results of a randomised controlled trial conducted in two Australian cities. The trial was designed to assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine versus methadone in the management of opioid dependence. The trial utilised a flexible dosing regime that was tailored to the clinical need of the patients, with high maximum doses, using the marketed formulation, under double-blind conditions. A total of 405 subjects were randomised to a treatment at one of three specialist outpatient drug treatment centres in Adelaide and Sydney, Australia. The perspective of the cost-effectiveness analysis was that of the service provider and included costs relevant to the provision of treatment. The primary outcome measure used in the economic analysis was change in heroin-free days from baseline to the sixth month of treatment. Treatment with methadone was found to be both less expensive and more effective than treatment with buprenorphine, which suggests methadone dominates buprenorphine. However, statistical testing found that the observed difference between the cost-effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine treatments was not statistically significant. The results of this study provide useful policy information on the costs and outcomes associated with the use of methadone and buprenorphine and indicate that buprenorphine provides a viable alternative to methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence.

A comparison of buprenorphine treatment in clinic and primary care settings: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness of heroin detoxification performed in a specialist clinic and in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomised controlled trial set in a specialist outpatient drug treatment centre and six office-based general practices in inner city Sydney, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

115 people seeking treatment for heroin dependence, of whom 97 (84%) were reinterviewed at Day 8, and 78 (68%) at Day 91.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly allocated to primary care or a specialist clinic, and received buprenorphine for 5 days for detoxification, then were offered either maintenance therapy with methadone or buprenorphine, relapse prevention with naltrexone, or counselling alone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Completion of detoxification, engagement in post-detoxification treatment, and heroin use assessed at Days 8 and 91. Costs relevant to providing treatment, including staff time, medication use and diagnostic procedures, with abstinence from heroin use on Day 8 as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the proportions completing detoxification (40/56 [71%] primary care v 46/59 [78%] clinic), participating in postwithdrawal treatment (28/56 [50%] primary care v 36/59 [61%] clinic), reporting no opiate use during the withdrawal period (13/56 [23%] primary care v 13/59 [22%] clinic), and in duration of postwithdrawal treatment by survival analysis. Most participants in both groups entered postwithdrawal buprenorphine maintenance. On an intention-to-treat basis, self-reported heroin use in the month before the Day 91 interview was significantly lower than at baseline (27 days/month at baseline, 14 days/month at Day 91; P < 0.001) and did not differ between groups. Buprenorphine detoxification in primary care was estimated to be $24 more expensive per patient than treatment at the clinic. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reveals that, in this context, it costs $20 to achieve a 1% improvement in outcome in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine-assisted detoxification from heroin in specialist clinic and primary care settings had similar efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Buprenorphine treatment can be initiated safely in primary care settings by trained GPs.