A cost-effectiveness analysis of buprenorphine-assisted heroin withdrawal

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost - effectiveness analysis of detoxification from heroin using buprenorphine in a specialist clinic versus a shared care setting. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with a total of 115 heroin-dependent patients receiving a 5-day treatment regime of buprenorphine. The specialist clinic was a community-based treatment agency in inner-city Sydney. Shared care involved treatment by a general practitioner supplemented by weekend dispensing and some concurrent counselling at the specialist clinic. Quanti. cation of resource use was limited to inputs for treatment provision. The primary outcome measure used in the economic analysis was the proportion of each group that completed detoxification and achieved an initial 7-day period of abstinence. Buprenorphine detoxification in the shared care setting was estimated to be $24 more expensive per patient than treatment at the clinic, which had an average treatment cost of $332 per patient. Twenty-three per cent of the shared care patients and 22% of the clinic patients reported no opiate use during the withdrawal period. These results suggest that the provision of buprenorphine treatment for heroin dependence in shared care and clinic appear to be equally cost - effective.

Role of maintenance treatment in opioid dependence

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) involves the daily administration of the oral opioid agonist methadone as a treatment for opioid dependence-a persistent disorder with a substantial risk of premature death. MMT improves health and reduces illicit heroin use, infectious-disease transmission, and overdose death. However, its effectiveness is compromised if low maintenance doses of methadone (

Is ultra-rapid opioid detoxification a viable option in the treatment of opioid dependence?

Ultra-rapid opioid detoxification (UROD) involves the acceleration of opioid withdrawal hv administering thp opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone under general anaesthesia. There is evidence from uncontrolled and a few controlled studies that UROD accelerates opioid withdrawal and that it achieves high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. However, there is clear evidence that the use of a general anaesthetic is not required to accelerate withdrawal or to achieve high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. These goals can be achieved by using naltrexone or naloxone to accelerate withdrawal under light sedation, a procedure known as rapid opioid detoxification under sedation (ROD). There is also evidence that use of an opioid antagonist is not required to achieve a high rate of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. The mixed agonist-antagonist buprenorphine has achieved comparable rates of completion in similarly selected patients with fewer withdrawal symptoms. There is no evidence from controlled trials that either UROD or ROD increases the rate of abstinence from opioids 6 or 12 months after withdrawal. UROD and ROD may increase the number of patients who are inducted onto naltrexone maintenance (NM) therapy but extensive experience with NM therapy suggests that it only has a limited role in selected patients. Given the lack of evidence of substantially increased rates of abstinence, and the need for anaesthetists and high dependency beds, UROD has at best a very minor role in the treatment of a handful of opioid dependent patients who are unable to complete withdraw in any other way. ROD may have more of a role as one option for opioid withdrawal in well motivated patients who want to be rapidly inducted onto NM therapy or who want to enter other types of abstinence-oriented treatment.

Illicit Opiate Abuse

Illicit opiate use, especially injected drugs, contributes to premature mortality and morbidity in many developed and developing societies. The economic costs of illicit drug use are substantial. Fatal overdoses and HIV/AIDS resulting from sharing dirty needles and injecting equipment are major contributors to mortality and morbidity. Illicit opioid use accounted for 0.7 percent of global disability–adjusted life years in 2000. An estimated 15.3 million people, or 0.4 percent of the world population ages 15 to 64, used illicit opioids in 2002, with more than half using heroin and the rest using opium or diverted pharmaceuticals such as buprenorphine, methadone, or morphine. The most popular interventions for illicit opioid dependence in many developed societies have been law enforcement efforts to interdict the drug supply and enforce legal sanctions against drug use. One consequence has been that illicit opioid users have been exposed to the least effective intervention: imprisonment for drug or property offenses. The most effective intervention to reduce blood–borne virus infection resulting from illicit drug injections is provision of clean injecting equipment to users. This intervention has been widely supported in developed countries, but less so in developing countries. In addition, vaccinations are effective against hepatitis B. In treatment settings, the most popular interventions have been detoxification and drug–free treatment, which has proven the least productive in retaining opioid–dependent people in treatment. Opioid agonists have a niche role in treatment of opioid dependence, especially if their efficacy improves with development of long–acting injectable forms of the drug.

Serious adverse events in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

Aims The study estimated serious adverse event (SAE) rates among entrants to pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence, during treatment and after leaving treatment. Design A longitudinal study based on data from 12 trials included in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). Participants and settings A total of 1.244 heroin users and methadone patients treated in hospital, community and GP settings. Intervention Six trials included detoxification; all included treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM) or naltrexone. Findings During 394 person-years of observation, 79 SAEs of 28 types were recorded. Naltrexone participants experienced 39 overdoses per 100 person-years after leaving treatment (44% occurred within 2 weeks after stopping naltrexone). This was eight times the rate recorded among participants who left agonist treatment. Rates of all other SAEs were similar during treatment versus out of treatment, for both naltrexone-treated and agonist-treated participants. Five deaths occurred, all among participants who had left treatment, at a rate of six per 100 person-years. Total SAE rates during naltrexone and agonist treatments were similar (20, 14 per 100 person-years, respectively). Total SAE and death rates observed among participants who had left treatment were three and 19 times the corresponding rates during treatment. Conclusions Individuals who leave pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence experience higher overdose and death rates compared with those in treatment. This may be due partly to a participant self-selection effect rather than entirely to pharmacotherapy being protective. Clinicians should alert naltrexone treatment patients in particular about heroin overdose risks. Duty of care may extend beyond cessation of dosing.

Trends in morphine prescriptions, illicit morphine use and associated harms among regular injecting drug users in Australia

This paper examines population trends in morphine prescriptions in Australia, and contrasts them with findings from annual surveys with regular injecting drug users (IDU). Data on morphine prescriptions from 1995 to 2003 were obtained from the Drug Monitoring System (DRUMS) run by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Data collected from regular IDU as part of the Australian Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) were analysed (2001-2004). The rate of morphine prescription per person aged 15-54 years increased by 89% across Australia between 1995 and 2003 (from 46.3 to 85.9 mg per person). Almost half (46%) of IDU surveyed in 2004 reported illicit morphine use, with the highest rates in jurisdictions where heroin was less available. Recent morphine injectors were significantly more likely to be male, unemployed, out of treatment and homeless in comparison to IDU who had not injected morphine. They were also more likely to have injected other pharmaceutical drugs and to report injection related problems. Among those who had injected morphine recently, the most commonly reported injecting harms were morphine dependence (38%), difficulty finding veins into which to inject (36%) and scarring or bruising (27%). Morphine use and injection is a common practice among regular IDU in Australia. In some cases, morphine may be a substitute for illicit heroin; in others, it may be being used to treat heroin dependence where other pharmacotherapies, such as methadone and buprenorphine, are perceived as being unavailable or undesirable by IDU. Morphine injection appears to be associated with polydrug use, and with it, a range of problems related to drug injection. Further research is required to monitor and reduce morphine diversion and related harms by such polydrug injectors.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD $491 (buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD $605 for conventional outpatient; AUD $1404 for conventional inpatient; AUD $1990 for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD $2689 for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most costeffective inpatient method.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive ( reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.