Cost-effectiveness of Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder.

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.

Addressing opioid overdose deaths: The vision for the HEALing communities study.

The United States is facing two devastating public health crises- the opioid epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this context, one of the most ambitious implementation studies in addiction research is moving forward. Launched in May 2019, the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) was developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as part of the Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative (National Institutes of Health, 2020). The goal for this research was to reduce opioid overdose deaths by 40 % in three years by enhancing and integrating the delivery of multiple evidence-based practices (EBPs) with proven effectiveness in reducing opioid overdose deaths across health care, justice, and community settings. This paper describes the initial vision, goals, and objectives of this initiative; the impact of COVID-19; and the potential for knowledge to be generated from HCS at the intersection of an unrelenting epidemic of opioid misuse and overdoses and the ravishing COVID-19 pandemic.

Countermeasures for Preventing and Treating Opioid Overdose.

The only medication available currently to prevent and treat opioid overdose (naloxone) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nearly 50 years ago. Because of its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, naloxone has limited utility under some conditions and would not be effective to counteract mass casualties involving large-scale deployment of weaponized synthetic opioids. To address shortcomings of current medical countermeasures for opioid toxicity, a trans-agency scientific meeting was convened by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health (NIAID/NIH) on August 6 and 7, 2019, to explore emerging alternative approaches for treating opioid overdose in the event of weaponization of synthetic opioids. The meeting was initiated by the Chemical Countermeasures Research Program (CCRP), was organized by NIAID, and was a collaboration with the National Institute on Drug Abuse/NIH (NIDA/NIH), the FDA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). This paper provides an overview of several presentations at that meeting that discussed emerging new approaches for treating opioid overdose, including the following: (1) intranasal nalmefene, a competitive, reversible opioid receptor antagonist with a longer duration of action than naloxone; (2) methocinnamox, a novel opioid receptor antagonist; (3) covalent naloxone nanoparticles; (4) serotonin (5-HT)1A receptor agonists; (5) fentanyl-binding cyclodextrin scaffolds; (6) detoxifying biomimetic "nanosponge" decoy receptors; and (7) antibody-based strategies. These approaches could also be applied to treat opioid use disorder.

Update: COVID-19 Upends Progress on Opioid Crisis.

The pandemic has stretched resources and complicated the delivery of care.