Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Buprenorphine is an effective and cost-effective medication to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), but is not readily available to many people with OUD in the US. The current cost-effectiveness literature does not consider interventions that concurrently increase buprenorphine initiation, duration, and capacity. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and compare interventions associated with increased buprenorphine treatment initiation, duration, and capacity. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study modeled the effects of 5 interventions individually and in combination using SOURCE, a recent system dynamics model of prescription opioid and illicit opioid use, treatment, and remission, calibrated to US data from 1999 to 2020. The analysis was run during a 12-year time horizon from 2021 to 2032, with lifetime follow-up. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis on intervention effectiveness and costs was conducted. Analyses were performed from April 2021 through March 2023. Modeled participants included people with opioid misuse and OUD in the US. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included emergency department buprenorphine initiation, contingency management, psychotherapy, telehealth, and expansion of hub-and-spoke narcotic treatment programs, individually and in combination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total national opioid overdose deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and costs from the societal and health care perspective. RESULTS: Projections showed that contingency management expansion would avert 3530 opioid overdose deaths over 12 years, more than any other single-intervention strategy. Interventions that increased buprenorphine treatment duration initially were associated with an increased number of opioid overdose deaths in the absence of expanded treatment capacity. With an incremental cost- effectiveness ratio of $19 381 per QALY gained (2021 USD), the strategy that expanded contingency management, hub-and-spoke training, emergency department initiation, and telehealth was the preferred strategy for any willingness-to-pay threshold from $20 000 to $200 000/QALY gained, as it was associated with increased treatment duration and capacity simultaneously. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This modeling analysis simulated the effects of implementing several intervention strategies across the buprenorphine cascade of care and found that strategies that were concurrently associated with increased buprenorphine treatment initiation, duration, and capacity were cost-effective.

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.

IMPORTANCE: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. DESIGN AND SETTING: This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. INTERVENTIONS: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. RESULTS: In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.

BACKGROUND: With the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, many federal agencies relaxed policies regulating opioid use disorder treatment. The impact of these changes has been minimally documented. The abrupt nature of these shifts provides a naturalistic opportunity to examine adaptations for opioid use disorder treatment in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To examine change in medical and behavioral health appointment frequency, visit type, and management of patients with opioid use disorder in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: A 14-item survey queried primary care practices that were enrolled in a medications for opioid use disorder statewide expansion project. Survey content focused on changes in service delivery because of COVID-19. The survey was open for 18 days. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 338 clinicians from 57 primary care clinics located in California, including federally qualified health centers and look-alikes. A representative from all 57 clinics (100%) and 118 staff (34.8% of all staff clinicians) participated in the survey. MAIN MEASURES: The survey consisted of seven dimensions of practice: medical visits, behavioral health visits, medication management, urine drug screenings, workflow, perceived patient demand, and staff experience. KEY RESULTS: A total of 52 of 57 (91.2%) primary care clinics reported practice adaptations in response to COVID-19 regulatory changes. Many clinics indicated that both medical (40.4%) and behavioral health visits (53.8%) were now exclusively virtual. Two-thirds (65.4%) of clinics reported increased duration of buprenorphine prescriptions and reduced urine drug screenings (67.3%). The majority (56.1%) of clinics experienced an increase in patient demand for behavioral health services. Over half (56.2%) of clinics described having an easier or unchanged experience retaining patients in care. CONCLUSIONS: Many adaptations in the primary care approach to patients with opioid use disorder may be temporary reactions to COVID-19. Further evaluation of the impact of these adaptations on patient outcomes is needed to determine whether changes should be maintained post-COVID-19.

Objective: Depression is the most common psychiatric comorbidity among people with opioid use disorders (OUDs). However, whether and how comorbid depression is associated with the outcomes of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) remains poorly understood. The objective of this review was to identify and describe the association between depression and main outcomes (opioid use and treatment retention) of methadone and buprenorphine treatment among people with OUDs. Methods: A literature review was conducted by searching five electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews [EBMR], and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL] Complete) from January 1970 to April 2019. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts of the identified records by using pre-established eligibility criteria. Next, full texts were reviewed and studies that met inclusion criteria were selected. Finally, a descriptive synthesis of extracted data was performed. Results: In total, 12,296 records were identified and 18 studies that met inclusion criteria were retained. Of these, six studies reported reduced opioid use and seven reported increased opioid use during methadone or buprenorphine treatment. In addition, three studies reported an increased retention rate and four documented a decreased retention rate during methadone or buprenorphine treatment. The remaining studies did not find any significant association between depression and opioid use or treatment retention. Overall, the evidence did not demonstrate a consistent association between depression and outcomes of methadone or buprenorphine treatment. Conclusions: Although the inconsistent nature of the current evidence prohibited us from drawing definitive conclusions, we posit that the presence of depression among OUDs patients may not always predict negative outcomes related to retention and drug use during the course of OAT. Particularly, the hypothesis that adequate treatment of depression can improve treatment retention is promising and is in line with the call for increased efforts to provide integrated care for comorbid mental health disorders and addiction. Future studies with rigorous methodology are essential to better characterize the complex interplay between depression, OAT, and OUDs.

BACKGROUND: Syringe exchange programs are uniquely positioned to offer treatment services to interested clients. Prevention Point Philadelphia recently expanded to offer buprenorphine maintenance treatment through its Stabilization, Treatment, and Engagement Program (STEP). OBJECTIVE: To describe the STEP model of care and report treatment outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients enrolled in STEP (October 2011 to August 2014). The main outcome measure was time retained in treatment, defined as time from treatment initiation to treatment failure. Secondary outcome measures were buprenorphine and opiate use, from urine toxicology screens. Retention in treatment was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates; patients who remained in treatment at the end of the study period were censored on that day. The percentage of patients who were positive for buprenorphine and opiates in each month of treatment was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 124 patients enrolled in STEP, the median age was 41 (range: 21-63) and 80% reported injection heroin use. Comorbidities were common: 33% had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, most reported anxiety (78%) or depression (71%), and 20% were homeless. The most common program outcomes were unplanned self-discharge (n = 29; 23%), incarceration (n = 20; 16%), and administrative discharge (n = 19; 15%). The percentages of patients retained in treatment at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 77%, 65%, 59%, and 56%, respectively. Among those retained, the percentages with a positive buprenorphine screen at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 88%, 100%, 96%, and 95%, respectively. The percentages with a positive opiates screen were 19%, 13%, 17%, and 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With a program that blended organizational and community resources, retention in buprenorphine maintenance treatment was comparable to retention rates reported from other settings. Further research should directly compare treatment outcomes in syringe exchange program-based settings versus primary care and specialty settings.