Eva A Enns1, Gregory S Zaric2, Carol J Strike3,4, Jennifer A Jairam3, Gillian Kolla3, Ahmed M Bayoumi5,6,7,8. 1. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. Ivey Business School, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Center for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li KaShing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Division of General Internal Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Supervised injection facilities (legally sanctioned spaces for supervised consumption of illicitly obtained drugs) are controversial public health interventions. We determined the optimal number of facilities in two Canadian cities using health economic methods. DESIGN: Dynamic compartmental model of HIV and hepatitis C transmission through sexual contact and sharing of drug use equipment. SETTING: Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Simulated population of each city. INTERVENTIONS: Zero to five supervised injection facilities. MEASUREMENTS: Direct health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 20 years, discounted at 5% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: In Toronto, one facility cost $4.1 million and resulted in a gain of 385 QALYs over 20 years, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,763 per QALY [95% credible interval (95CrI): cost-saving to $278,311]. Establishing one facility in Ottawa had an ICER of $6127 per QALY (95CrI: cost-saving to $179,272). At a $50,000 per QALY threshold, three facilities would be cost-effective in Toronto and two in Ottawa. The probability that establishing three, four, or five facilities in Toronto was cost-effective was 17, 21, and 41%, respectively. Establishing one, two, or three facilities in Ottawa was cost-effective with 13, 35, and 41% probability, respectively. Establishing no facility was unlikely to be the most cost-effective option (14% in Toronto and 10% in Ottawa). In both cities, results were robust if the reduction in needle-sharing among clients of the facilities was at least 50% and fixed operating costs were less than $2.0 million. CONCLUSIONS: Using a $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years threshold for cost-effectiveness, it is likely to be cost-effective to establish at least three legally sanctioned spaces for supervised injection of illicitly obtained drugs in Toronto, Canada and two in Ottawa, Canada.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Supervised injection facilities (legally sanctioned spaces for supervised consumption of illicitly obtained drugs) are controversial public health interventions. We determined the optimal number of facilities in two Canadian cities using health economic methods. DESIGN: Dynamic compartmental model of HIV and hepatitis C transmission through sexual contact and sharing of drug use equipment. SETTING: Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Simulated population of each city. INTERVENTIONS: Zero to five supervised injection facilities. MEASUREMENTS: Direct health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 20 years, discounted at 5% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: In Toronto, one facility cost $4.1 million and resulted in a gain of 385 QALYs over 20 years, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,763 per QALY [95% credible interval (95CrI): cost-saving to $278,311]. Establishing one facility in Ottawa had an ICER of $6127 per QALY (95CrI: cost-saving to $179,272). At a $50,000 per QALY threshold, three facilities would be cost-effective in Toronto and two in Ottawa. The probability that establishing three, four, or five facilities in Toronto was cost-effective was 17, 21, and 41%, respectively. Establishing one, two, or three facilities in Ottawa was cost-effective with 13, 35, and 41% probability, respectively. Establishing no facility was unlikely to be the most cost-effective option (14% in Toronto and 10% in Ottawa). In both cities, results were robust if the reduction in needle-sharing among clients of the facilities was at least 50% and fixed operating costs were less than $2.0 million. CONCLUSIONS: Using a $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years threshold for cost-effectiveness, it is likely to be cost-effective to establish at least three legally sanctioned spaces for supervised injection of illicitly obtained drugs in Toronto, Canada and two in Ottawa, Canada.
Authors: Magdalena Cerdá; Mohammad S Jalali; Ava D Hamilton; Catherine DiGennaro; Ayaz Hyder; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; Navdep Kaur; Christina Wang; Katherine M Keyes Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Grace H Yoon; Timothy W Levengood; Melissa J Davoust; Shannon N Ogden; Alex H Kral; Sean R Cahill; Angela R Bazzi Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Ju Nyeong Park; Saba Rouhani; Leo Beletsky; Louise Vincent; Brendan Saloner; Susan G Sherman Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Lauren E Cipriano; Shan Liu; Kaspar S Shahzada; Mark Holodniy; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 2.583