BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians with appropriate training may prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone (bup/nx) to treat opioid dependence in US office-based settings, where many patients prefer to be treated. Bup/nx is off patent but not available as a generic. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of long-term office-based bup/nx treatment for clinically stable opioid-dependent patients compared to no treatment. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: A decision analytic model simulated a hypothetical cohort of clinically stable opioid-dependent individuals who have already completed 6 months of office-based bup/nx treatment. Data were from a published cohort study that collected treatment retention, opioid use, and costs for this population, and published quality-of-life weights. Uncertainties in estimated monthly costs and quality-of-life weights were evaluated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and the economic value of additional research to reduce these uncertainties was also evaluated. MAIN MEASURES: Bup/nx, provider, and patient costs in 2010 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios ($/QALY); costs and QALYs are discounted at 3% annually. KEY RESULTS: In the base case, office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients has a CE ratio of $35,100/QALY compared to no treatment after 24 months, with 64% probability of being < $100,000/QALY in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With a 50% bup/nx price reduction the CE ratio is $23,000/QALY with 69% probability of being < $100,000/QALY. Alternative quality-of-life weights result in CE ratios of $138,000/QALY and $90,600/QALY. The value of research to reduce quality-of-life uncertainties for 24-month results is $6,400 per person eligible for treatment at the current bup/nx price and $5,100 per person with a 50% bup/nx price reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients may be a cost-effective alternative to no treatment at a threshold of $100,000/QALY depending on assumptions about quality-of-life weights. Additional research about quality-of-life benefits and broader health system and societal cost savings of bup/nx therapy is needed.
BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians with appropriate training may prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone (bup/nx) to treat opioid dependence in US office-based settings, where many patients prefer to be treated. Bup/nx is off patent but not available as a generic. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of long-term office-based bup/nx treatment for clinically stable opioid-dependent patients compared to no treatment. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: A decision analytic model simulated a hypothetical cohort of clinically stable opioid-dependent individuals who have already completed 6 months of office-based bup/nx treatment. Data were from a published cohort study that collected treatment retention, opioid use, and costs for this population, and published quality-of-life weights. Uncertainties in estimated monthly costs and quality-of-life weights were evaluated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and the economic value of additional research to reduce these uncertainties was also evaluated. MAIN MEASURES: Bup/nx, provider, and patient costs in 2010 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios ($/QALY); costs and QALYs are discounted at 3% annually. KEY RESULTS: In the base case, office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients has a CE ratio of $35,100/QALY compared to no treatment after 24 months, with 64% probability of being < $100,000/QALY in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With a 50% bup/nx price reduction the CE ratio is $23,000/QALY with 69% probability of being < $100,000/QALY. Alternative quality-of-life weights result in CE ratios of $138,000/QALY and $90,600/QALY. The value of research to reduce quality-of-life uncertainties for 24-month results is $6,400 per person eligible for treatment at the current bup/nx price and $5,100 per person with a 50% bup/nx price reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients may be a cost-effective alternative to no treatment at a threshold of $100,000/QALY depending on assumptions about quality-of-life weights. Additional research about quality-of-life benefits and broader health system and societal cost savings of bup/nx therapy is needed.
Authors: Daniel Polsky; Henry A Glick; Jianing Yang; Geetha A Subramaniam; Sabrina A Poole; George E Woody Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Bohdan Nosyk; Huiyung Sun; Daphne P Guh; Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes; David C Marsh; Suzanne Brissette; Martin T Schechter; Aslam H Anis Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Connock; A Juarez-Garcia; S Jowett; E Frew; Z Liu; R J Taylor; A Fry-Smith; E Day; N Lintzeris; T Roberts; A Burls; R S Taylor Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Brent A Moore; David A Fiellin; Declan T Barry; Lynn E Sullivan; Marek C Chawarski; Patrick G O'Connor; Richard S Schottenfeld Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Zoe M Weinstein; Gabriela Gryczynski; Debbie M Cheng; Emily Quinn; David Hui; Hyunjoong W Kim; Colleen Labelle; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ryan Marino; Jeanmarie Perrone; Lewis S Nelson; Timothy J Wiegand; Evan S Schwarz; Paul M Wax; Andrew I Stolbach Journal: J Med Toxicol Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Sharon Reif; Mary F Brolin; Maureen T Stewart; Thomas J Fuchs; Elizabeth Speaker; Shayna B Mazel Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-07-19
Authors: B Nosyk; J W Bray; E Wittenberg; B Aden; A A Eggman; R D Weiss; J Potter; A Ang; Y-I Hser; W Ling; B R Schackman Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-10-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Katherine E Watkins; Allison J Ober; Karen Lamp; Mimi Lind; Claude Setodji; Karen Chan Osilla; Sarah B Hunter; Colleen M McCullough; Kirsten Becker; Praise O Iyiewuare; Allison Diamant; Keith Heinzerling; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Margrét V Bjarnadóttir; David R Anderson; Kislaya Prasad; Ritu Agarwal; D Alan Nelson Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.981