Elizabeth Beaulieu1, Catherine DiGennaro1, Erin Stringfellow1, Ava Connolly1, Ava Hamilton2, Ayaz Hyder3, Magdalena Cerdá4, Katherine M Keyes2, Mohammad S Jalali5. 1. MGH Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Division of Environmental Health Sciences, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 4. Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 5. MGH Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. Electronic address: msjalali@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature. METHODS: A systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study. RESULTS: The screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies' accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs. CONCLUSION: The review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.
OBJECTIVES: The rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature. METHODS: A systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study. RESULTS: The screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies' accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs. CONCLUSION: The review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.
Authors: Emanuel Krebs; Jeong E Min; Elizabeth Evans; Libo Li; Lei Liu; David Huang; Darren Urada; Thomas Kerr; Yih-Ing Hser; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Carmen L Masson; Paul G Barnett; Karen L Sees; Kevin L Delucchi; Amy Rosen; Wynnie Wong; Sharon M Hall Journal: Addiction Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Gian-Gabriel P Garcia; Ramin Dehghanpoor; Erin J Stringfellow; Marichi Gupta; Jillian Rochelle; Elizabeth Mason; Toyya A Pujol; Mohammad S Jalali Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-22 Impact factor: 4.614