Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: US primary care practitioners (PCPs) are the largest clinical workforce, but few provide addiction care. Primary care is a practical place to expand addiction services, including buprenorphine and harm reduction kits, yet the clinical outcomes and health care sector costs are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrated buprenorphine and harm reduction kits in primary care for people who inject opioids. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this modeling study, the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death, was used to examine the following treatment strategies: (1) PCP services with external referral to addiction care (status quo), (2) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to offsite harm reduction kits (BUP), and (3) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits (BUP plus HR). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts, and costs were discounted annually at 3%. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a lifetime from the modified health care sector perspective, and sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Model simulation began January 1, 2021, and ran for the entire lifetime of the cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years (LYs), hospitalizations, mortality from sequelae (overdose, severe skin and soft tissue infections, and endocarditis), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The simulated cohort included 2.25 million people and reflected the age and gender of US persons who inject opioids. Status quo resulted in 6.56 discounted LYs at a discounted cost of $203 500 per person (95% credible interval, $203 000-$222 000). Each strategy extended discounted life expectancy: BUP by 0.16 years and BUP plus HR by 0.17 years. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR reduced sequelae-related mortality by 33%. The mean discounted lifetime cost per person of BUP and BUP plus HR were more than that of the status quo strategy. The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost-effective (ICER, $34 400 per LY). During a 5-year time horizon, BUP plus HR cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13 000. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This modeling study of integrated addiction service in primary care found improved clinical outcomes and modestly increased costs. The integration of addiction service into primary care practices should be a health care system priority.

BACKGROUND: Equitable access to mental healthcare is a priority for many countries. The National Health Service in England uses a weighted capitation formula to ensure that the geographical distribution of resources reflects need. AIMS: To produce a revised formula for estimating local need for secondary mental health, learning disability (intellectual disability) and psychological therapies services for adults in England. METHOD: We used demographic records for 43 751 535 adults registered with a primary care practitioner in England linked with service use, ethnicity, physical health diagnoses and type of household, from multiple data-sets. Using linear regression, we estimated the individual cost of care in 2015 as a function of individual- and area-level need and supply variables in 2013 and 2014. We sterilised the effects of the supply variables to obtain individual-need estimates. We aggregated these by general practitioner practice, age and gender to derive weights for the national capitation formula. RESULTS: Higher costs were associated with: being 30-50 years old, compared with 20-24; being Irish, Black African, Black Caribbean or of mixed ethnicity, compared with White British; having been admitted for specific physical health conditions, including drug poisoning; living alone, in a care home or in a communal environment; and living in areas with a higher percentage of out-of-work benefit recipients and higher prevalence of severe mental illness. Longer distance from a provider was associated with lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting needs weights were higher in more deprived areas and informed the distribution of some 12% (£9 bn in 2019/20) of the health budget allocated to local organisations for 2019/20 to 2023/24.

BACKGROUND: The risks of HIV transmission associated with the opioid epidemic make cost-effective programs for people who inject drugs (PWID) a public health priority. Some of these programs have benefits beyond prevention of HIV-a critical consideration given that injection drug use is increasing across most United States demographic groups. To identify high-value HIV prevention program portfolios for US PWID, we consider combinations of four interventions with demonstrated efficacy: opioid agonist therapy (OAT), needle and syringe programs (NSPs), HIV testing and treatment (Test & Treat), and oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We adapted an empirically calibrated dynamic compartmental model and used it to assess the discounted costs (in 2015 US dollars), health outcomes (HIV infections averted, change in HIV prevalence, and discounted quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the four prevention programs, considered singly and in combination over a 20-y time horizon. We obtained epidemiologic, economic, and health utility parameter estimates from the literature, previously published models, and expert opinion. We estimate that expansions of OAT, NSPs, and Test & Treat implemented singly up to 50% coverage levels can be cost-effective relative to the next highest coverage level (low, medium, and high at 40%, 45%, and 50%, respectively) and that OAT, which we assume to have immediate and direct health benefits for the individual, has the potential to be the highest value investment, even under scenarios where it prevents fewer infections than other programs. Although a model-based analysis can provide only estimates of health outcomes, we project that, over 20 y, 50% coverage with OAT could avert up to 22,000 (95% CI: 5,200, 46,000) infections and cost US$18,000 (95% CI: US$14,000, US$24,000) per QALY gained, 50% NSP coverage could avert up to 35,000 (95% CI: 8,900, 43,000) infections and cost US$25,000 (95% CI: US$7,000, US$76,000) per QALY gained, 50% Test & Treat coverage could avert up to 6,700 (95% CI: 1,200, 16,000) infections and cost US$27,000 (95% CI: US$15,000, US$48,000) per QALY gained, and 50% PrEP coverage could avert up to 37,000 (22,000, 58,000) infections and cost US$300,000 (95% CI: US$162,000, US$667,000) per QALY gained. When coverage expansions are allowed to include combined investment with other programs and are compared to the next best intervention, the model projects that scaling OAT coverage up to 50%, then scaling NSP coverage to 50%, then scaling Test & Treat coverage to 50% can be cost-effective, with each coverage expansion having the potential to cost less than US$50,000 per QALY gained relative to the next best portfolio. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, 59% of portfolios prioritized the addition of OAT and 41% prioritized the addition of NSPs, while PrEP was not likely to be a priority nor a cost-effective addition. Our findings are intended to be illustrative, as data on achievable coverage are limited and, in practice, the expansion scenarios considered may exceed feasible levels. We assumed independence of interventions and constant returns to scale. Extensive sensitivity analyses allowed us to assess parameter sensitivity, but the use of a dynamic compartmental model limited the exploration of structural sensitivities. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that OAT, NSPs, and Test & Treat, implemented singly or in combination, have the potential to effectively and cost-effectively prevent HIV in US PWID. PrEP is not likely to be cost-effective in this population, based on the scenarios we evaluated. While local budgets or policy may constrain feasible coverage levels for the various interventions, our findings suggest that investments in combined prevention programs can substantially reduce HIV transmission and improve health outcomes among PWID.