Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although diacetylmorphine has been proven to be more effective than methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence, its direct costs are higher. We compared the cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine and methadone maintenance treatment for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment. We constructed a semi-Markov cohort model using data from the North American Opiate Medication Initiative trial, supplemented with administrative data for the province of British Columbia and other published data, to capture the chronic, recurrent nature of opioid dependence. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to compare diacetylmorphine and methadone over 1-, 5-, 10-year and lifetime horizons. Diacetylmorphine was found to be a dominant strategy over methadone maintenance treatment in each of the time horizons. Over a lifetime horizon, our model showed that people receiving methadone gained 7.46 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) on average (95% credibility interval [CI] 6.91–8.01) and generated a societal cost of $1.14 million (95% CI $736 800–$1.78 million). Those who received diacetylmorphine gained 7.92 discounted QALYs on average (95% CI 7.32–8.53) and generated a societal cost of $1.10 million (95% CI $724 100–$1.71 million). Cost savings in the diacetylmorphine cohort were realized primarily because of reductions in the costs related to criminal activity. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of diacetylmorphine being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $0 per QALY gained was 76%; the probability was 95% at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Results were confirmed over a range of sensitivity analyses. Using mathematical modelling to extrapolate results from the North American Opiate Medication Initiative, we found that diacetylmorphine may be more effective and less costly than methadone among people with chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment.

IntroductionHepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects 0.7% of the general population, and up to 40% of people prescribed opioid substitution therapy (OST) in Scotland. In conventional care, less than 10% of OST users are tested for HCV and less than 25% of these initiate treatment. Community pharmacists see this group frequently to provide OST supervision. This study examines whether a pharmacist-led ‘test & treat’ pathway increases cure rates for HCV.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes a cluster-randomised trial where 60 community pharmacies provide either conventional or pharmacy-led care. All pharmacies offer dried blood spot testing (DBST) for HCV. Participants have attended the pharmacy for OST for 3 months; are positive for HCV genotype 1 or 3; are not co-infected with HIV and/or hepatitis B; have no decompensated liver disease; are not pregnant. For conventional care, pharmacists refer HCV-positive participants to a local centre for assessment. In the pharmacy-led arm, pharmacists assess participants themselves in the pharmacy. Drug prescribing is by nurse prescribers (conventional arm) or pharmacist prescribers (pharmacy-led arm). Treatment in both arms is delivered as daily modified directly observed therapy in a pharmacy. Primary trial outcome is number of sustained virological responses at 12 weeks after treatment completion. Secondary trial outcomes are number of tests taken; treatment uptake; completion; adherence; re-infection. An economic evaluation will assess potential cost-effectiveness. Qualitative research interviews with clients and health professionals assess acceptability of a pharmacist-led pathway.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been ethically approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 2 (15/ES/0086) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and principles of Good Clinical Practice. Caldicott guardian approval was given on 16 December 2016 to allow NHS Tayside to pass information to the cluster community pharmacies about the HCV test status of patients that they are seeing to provide OST supervision. NHS R&D approvals have been obtained from each health board taking part in the study. Informed consent is obtained before study enrolment and only anonymised data are stored in a secured database, enabling an audit trail. Results will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Trial registration number NCT02706223; Pre-results.

Background Persons with an opioid use disorder (OUD) who were incarcerated face many challenges to remaining abstinent; concomitantly, opioid-overdose is the leading cause of death among this population, with the initial weeks following release proving especially fatal. Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is the most widely-accepted, evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy in criminal justice settings, and ensures approximately 30 days of protection from opioid overdose. The high cost of XR-NTX serves as a barrier to uptake by many prison/jail systems; however, the cost of the medication should not be viewed in isolation. Prison/jail healthcare budgets are ultimately determined by policymakers, and the benefits/cost-offsets associated with effective OUD treatment will directly and indirectly affect their overall budgets, and society as a whole. Methods This protocol describes a study funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) to: evaluate changes in healthcare utilization, health-related quality-of-life, and other resources associated with different strategies of XR-NTX delivery to persons with OUD being released from incarceration; and estimate the relative “value” of each strategy. Data from two ongoing, publicly-funded, randomized-controlled trials will be used to evaluate these questions. In Study A, (XR-NTX Before vs. After Reentry), participants are randomized to receive their first XR-NTX dose before release, or at a nearby program post-release. In Study B, (enhanced XR-NTX vs. XR-NTX), both arms receive XR-NTX prior to release; the enhanced arm receives mobile medical (place of residence) XR-NTX treatment post-release, and the XR-NTX arm receives referral to a community treatment program post-release. The economic data collection instruments required to evaluate outcomes of interest were incorporated into both studies from baseline. Moreover, because the same instruments are being used in both trials on comparable populations, we have the opportunity to not only assess differences in outcomes between study arms within each trial, but also to merge the data sets and test for differences across trials. Discussion Initiating XR-NTX for OUD prior to release from incarceration may improve patient health and well-being, while also producing downstream cost-offsets. This study offers the unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple strategies, according to different stakeholder perspectives.

IMPORTANCE:It is important to understand the magnitude and distribution of the economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence to inform clinical practice, research, and other decision makers. Decision makers choosing approaches to address this epidemic need cost information to evaluate the cost effectiveness of their choices. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence from a societal perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Incidence of fatal prescription opioid overdose from the National Vital Statistics System, prevalence of abuse and dependence from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Fatal data are for the US population, nonfatal data are a nationally representative sample of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 12 and older. Cost data are from various sources including health care claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases, and cost of fatal cases from the WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) cost module. Criminal justice costs were derived from the Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts published by the Department of Justice. Estimates of lost productivity were based on a previously published study. EXPOSURE:Calendar year 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Monetized burden of fatal overdose and abuse and dependence of prescription opioids. RESULTS:The total economic burden is estimated to be $78.5 billion. Over one third of this amount is due to increased health care and substance abuse treatment costs ($28.9 billion). Approximately one quarter of the cost is borne by the public sector in health care, substance abuse treatment, and criminal justice costs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:These estimates can assist decision makers in understanding the magnitude of adverse health outcomes associated with prescription opioid use such as overdose, abuse, and dependence.

Nonmedical prescription opioid misuse remains a growing public problem in need of action and is concentrated in areas of US states with large rural populations such as Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska, and Oklahoma. We developed hypotheses regarding the influence of 4 factors: (1) greater opioid prescription in rural areas, creating availability from which illegal markets can arise; (2) an out-migration of young adults; (3) greater rural social and kinship network connections, which may facilitate drug diversion and distribution; and (4) economic stressors that may create vulnerability to drug use more generally. A systematic consideration of the contexts that create differences in availability, access, and preferences is critical to understanding how drug use context varies across geography.

Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a high prevalence of co-occurring mental health disorders; however, there exists little information on mental health service use for this population. We aimed to determine the prevalence of non-substance use-related mental health emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and outpatient physician visits for individuals receiving treatment for OUD over one year. We also explored individual-level characteristics associated with mental health care service use and estimated the costs of this care. We linked observational cohort data collected from 3,430 individuals receiving treatment for OUD in Ontario, Canada, with health administrative records available for all individuals enrolled in Ontario's public health insurance program. Eligible participants were receiving medication treatment for OUD and were recruited between 2011 and 2021 Starting on the day of cohort enrolment, we included health service data for up to 12 months. We identified ED visits and hospitalizations for non-substance use-related mental health disorders using ICD-10-CA diagnostic codes. Outpatient mental health visits to primary care providers and psychiatrists were ascertained by examining the diagnostic codes of physician billing claims. We used logistic regression to explore the association between demographic and clinical factors of interest and mental health-related ED visits or hospitalizations. Mean one-year mental healthcare costs, calculated in 2022 Canadian dollars, were estimated. We fit a two-part zero-inflated negative binomial model to explore the association between factors of interest and healthcare costs. Altogether, 14.9% of individuals had mental health-related acute care ED visits or hospitalizations and 37.3% had outpatient mental health visits during the follow up period. For participants with at least one visit, we determined the mean number of ED visits (1.93, standard deviation [SD] = 2.15), hospitalizations (1.46, SD = 1.05), primary care visits (3.51, SD = 4.31), and psychiatry visits (4.04, SD = 4.73). Lower odds of ED use and hospitalization were associated with older age (46+ compared to less than 25 years: odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.63) and being employed (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37, 0.61). Higher odds of ED use and hospitalization was associated with positive opioid urine drug screens (50% positive urine drug screens compared to 0%: OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05, 2.01), having more comorbid conditions (7+ health conditions compared to 0-2 health conditions: OR 3.76, 95% CI 2.60, 5.44), and receipt of outpatient mental healthcare (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.95, 2.92) were associated with higher odds of ED visits or hospitalizations. Mean one-year mental healthcare costs for individuals receiving ED visits or hospitalizations totaled $9,117.80 (95% CI 7,372.90, 10,862.70) per person. Mean one-year costs for individuals with outpatient mental healthcare alone totaled $382.30 (95% CI 343.20, 421.30) per person. Individuals receiving treatment for OUD receive care in EDs, inpatient units, and outpatient clinics for mental health conditions other than substance use-related diagnoses. Healthcare costs were considerably higher for those receiving acute care treatment for mental health conditions. Studying integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in the outpatient setting should be a priority to bolster care for this population.

Serious infection is a recognized complication of intravenous drug abuse and a major cause of morbidity and mortality among intravenous drug users. Trends in rates of serious infection and the associated costs related to opioid abuse/dependence have not been previously investigated in the context of the US opioid use epidemic. Our study, using a nationally representative sample of US inpatient hospitalizations, showed that hospitalizations related to opioid abuse/dependence both with and without associated serious infection significantly increased from 2002 to 2012, respectively, from 301,707 to 520,275 and from 3,421 to 6,535. Additionally, inpatient charges for both types of hospitalizations almost quadrupled over the same time period, reaching almost$15 billion for hospitalizations related to opioid abuse/dependence and more than $ 700 million for those related to associated infection in 2012. Medicaid was the most common primary payer for both types of hospitalizations. Our results characterize the financial burden on the health care system related to opioid abuse/dependence and one of the more serious downstream complications of this epidemic: serious infection. These findings have important implications for the hospitals and government agencies that disproportionately shoulder these costs and for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers interested in estimating the potential impact of targeted public health interventions on a national level.

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are hospitalized for serious infections requiring prolonged intravenous antibiotics may face barriers to discharge, which could prolong hospital length of stay (LOS) and increase financial burden. We investigated differences in LOS, discharge disposition, and charges between hospitalizations for serious infections in patients with and without OUD. We utilized the 2016 National Inpatient Sample-a nationally representative database of all discharges from US acute care hospitals. The population of interest was all hospitalizations for infective endocarditis, epidural abscess, septic arthritis, or osteomyelitis. The exposure was OUD, and the primary outcome was LOS until discharge, assessed by using a competing risks analysis to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of discharge disposition and adjusted differences in hospital charges were also reported. Of 95,470 estimated hospitalizations for serious infections (infective endocarditis, epidural abscess, septic arthritis, and osteomyelitis), the mean age was 49 years and 35% were female. 46% had Medicare (government-based insurance coverage for people age 65+ years), and 70% were non-Hispanic white. After adjustment for potential confounders, OUD was associated with a lower probability of discharge at any given LOS (aHR 0.61; 95% CI 0.59-0.63; p < 0.001). OUD was also associated with lower odds of discharge to home (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.33-0.43; p < 0.001) and higher odds of discharge to a post-acute care facility (aOR 1.85; 95% CI 1.57-2.17; p < 0.001) or patient-directed discharge (also referred to as \"discharge against medical advice\") (aOR 3.47; 95% CI 2.80-4.29; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in average total hospital charges, though daily hospital charges were significantly lower for patients with OUD. Limitations include the potential for unmeasured confounders and the use of billing codes to identify cohorts. Our findings suggest that among hospitalizations for some serious infections, those involving patients with OUD were associated with longer LOS, higher odds of discharge to post-acute care facilities or patient-directed discharge, and similar total hospital charges, despite lower daily charges. These findings highlight opportunities to improve care for patients with OUD hospitalized with serious infections, and to reduce the growing associated costs.

RationaleNon-medical prescription opioid use and opioid use disorder (OUD) present a significant public health concern. Identifying behavioral mechanisms underlying OUD will assist in developing improved prevention and intervention approaches. Behavioral economic demand has been extensively evaluated as a measure of reinforcer valuation for alcohol and cigarettes, whereas prescription opioids have received comparatively little attention.ObjectivesUtilize a purchase task procedure to measure the incremental validity and test-retest reliability of opioid demand.MethodsIndividuals reporting past year non-medical prescription opioid use were recruited using the crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Participants completed an opioid purchase task as well as measures of cannabis demand, delay discounting, and self-reported pain. A 1-month follow-up was used to evaluate test-retest reliability.ResultsMore intense and inelastic opioid demand was associated with OUD and more intense cannabis demand was associated with cannabis use disorder. Multivariable models indicated that higher opioid intensity and steeper opioid delay discounting rates each significantly and uniquely predicted OUD. Increased opioid demand intensity, but not elasticity, was associated with higher self-reported pain, and no relationship was observed with perceived pain relief from opioids. Opioid demand showed acceptable-to-good test-retest reliability (e.g., intensity rxx = .75; elasticity rxx = .63). Temporal reliability was lower for cannabis demand (e.g., intensity rxx = .53; elasticity rxx = .58) and discounting rates (rxx = .42–.61).ConclusionsOpioid demand was incrementally valid and test-retest reliable as measured by purchase tasks. These findings support behavioral economic demand as a clinically useful measure of drug valuation that is sensitive to individual difference variables.

Background More effective methods are needed to implement evidence-based findings into practice. The Advancing Recovery Framework offers a multi-level approach to evidence-based practice implementation by aligning purchasing and regulatory policies at the payer level with organizational change strategies at the organizational level. Methods The Advancing Recovery Buprenorphine Implementation Study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial designed to increase use of the evidence-based practice buprenorphine medication to treat opiate addiction. Ohio Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Boards (ADAMHS), who are payers, and their addiction treatment organizations were recruited for a trial to assess the effects of payer and treatment organization changes (using the Advancing Recovery Framework) versus treatment organization changes alone on the use of buprenorphine. A matched-pair randomization, based on county characteristics, was applied, resulting in seven county ADAMHS boards and twenty-five treatment organizations in each arm. Opioid dependent patients are nested within cluster (treatment organization), and treatment organization clusters are nested within ADAMHS county board. The primary outcome is the percentage of individuals with an opioid dependence diagnosis who use buprenorphine during the 24-month intervention period and the 12-month sustainability period. The trial is currently in the baseline data collection stage. Discussion Although addiction treatment providers are under increasing pressure to implement evidence-based practices that have been proven to improve patient outcomes, adoption of these practices lags, compared to other areas of healthcare. Reasons frequently cited for the slow adoption of EBPs in addiction treatment include, regulatory issues, staff, or client resistance and lack of resources. Yet the way addiction treatment is funded, the payer’s role—has not received a lot of attention in research on EBP adoption. This research is unique because it investigates the role of payers in evidence-based practice implementation using a randomized controlled design instead of case examples. The testing of the Advancing Recovery Framework is designed to broaden the understanding of the impact payers have on evidence-based practice (EBP) adoption. Trial registration http://NCT01702142 (ClinicalTrials.gov registry, USA)