Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The economic costs associated with opioid misuse are immense. Effective interventions for opioid use disorders are available; however, given the scarce resources faced by substance use treatment providers and payers of all kinds, evidence of effectiveness is not always sufficient to encourage adoption of a given therapy—nor should it be. Economic evaluations can provide evidence that will help stakeholders efficiently allocate their resources.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to review the literature on economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the major electronic databases from inception until August 2015. A sensitive approach was used to ensure a comprehensive list of relevant articles. Given the quality of the existing reviews, we narrowed our search to studies published since 2007. The Drummond checklist was used to evaluate and categorize economic evaluation studies according to their quality.

Results

A total of 98 articles were identified as potentially relevant to the current study. Of these 98 articles, half (n = 49) were included in this study. Six of the included articles were reviews. The remaining 43 articles reported economic evaluation studies of interventions for opioid use disorders. In general, the evidence on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) supports previous findings that MMT is an economically advantageous opioid use disorder therapy. The economic literature comparing MMT with other opioid use disorder pharmacotherapies is limited, as is the literature on other forms of therapy.

Conclusion

With the possible exception of MMT, additional high-quality economic evaluations are needed in order to assess the relative value of existing opioid use disorder interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World drug report 2014. New York: United Nations; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Information sheet on opioid overdose. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/information-sheet/en. Accessed 2 Jun 2015.

  3. Gruber SA, Silveri MM, Yurgelun-Todd DA. Neuropsychological consequences of opiate use. Neuropsychol Rev. 2007;17(3):299–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haydon E, Rehm J, Fischer B, Monga N, Adlaf E. Prescription drug abuse in Canada and the diversion of prescription drugs into the illicit drug market. Can J Public Health. 2005;96(6):459–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manchikanti L, Singh A. Therapeutic opioids: a ten-year perspective on the complexities and complications of the escalating use, abuse, and nonmedical use of opioids. Pain Phys. 2008;11(2):S63–88.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Birnbaum HG, White AG, Schiller M, Waldman T, Cleveland JM, Roland CL. Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):657–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mark TL, Woody GE, Juday T, Kleber HD. The economic costs of heroin addiction in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2001;61(2):195–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Catalano RF, White HR, Fleming CB, Haggerty KP. Is nonmedical prescription opiate use a unique form of illicit drug use? Addict Behav. 2011;36(1–2):79–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Murphy SM, McPherson S, Robinson K. Nonmedical prescription opioid use and violent behavior among adolescents. J Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2014;26(1):35–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization. Neuroscience of psychoactive substance use and dependence. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  11. National Quality Forum. National voluntary consensus standards for the treatment of substance use conditions: evidence-based treatment practices. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Amato L, Davoli M, Ferri M, Gowing L, Perucci CA. Effectiveness of interventions on opiate withdrawal treatment: an overview of systematic reviews. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2004;73(3):219–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marsch LA. The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIV risk behavior and criminality: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 1998;93(4):515–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD002209. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002209.pub2.

  15. Mattick RP, Kimber J, Breen C, Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD002207. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002207.pub3.

  16. Wesson DR, Smith DE. Buprenorphine in the treatment of opiate dependence. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2010;42(2):161–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alkermes, Inc. Vivitrol® (naltrexone for extended-release injectable suspension) intramuscular: US prescribing information. Waltham: Alkermes, Inc.; 2010.

  18. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Clinical guidelines for the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid addiction. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Adi Y, Juarez-Garcia A, Wang D, Jowett S, Frew E, Day E, et al. Oral naltrexone as a treatment for relapse prevention in formerly opioid-dependent drug users: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(6):iii–iv, 1–85.

  20. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Suboxone versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Jowett S, Frew E, Liu Z, Taylor R, et al. Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2007;11(9):1–171, iii–iv.

  22. Doran CM. Economic evaluation of interventions to treat opiate dependence: a review of the evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(5):371–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gastfriend DR. A pharmaceutical industry perspective on the economics of treatments for alcohol and opioid use disorders. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1327(1):112–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartung DM, McCarty D, Fu R, Wiest K, Chalk M, Gastfriend DR. Extended-release naltrexone for alcohol and opioid dependence: a meta-analysis of healthcare utilization studies. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;47(2):113–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayhurst KP, Leitner M, Davies L, Flentje R, Millar T, Jones A, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare programmes for offenders using class A drugs: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2015;19(6):1–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shearer J, Tie H, Byford S. Economic evaluations of contingency management in illicit drug misuse programmes: a systematic review. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015;34(3):289–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Baser O, Chalk M, Fiellin DA, Gastfriend DR. Cost and utilization outcomes of opioid-dependence treatments. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(Suppl 8):S235–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barnett PG. Comparison of costs and utilization among buprenorphine and methadone patients. Addiction. 2009;104(6):982–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Clark RE, Samnaliev M, Baxter JD, Leung GY. The evidence doesn’t justify steps by state Medicaid programs to restrict opioid addiction treatment with buprenorphine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(8):1425–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones ES, Moore BA, Sindelar JL, O’Connor PG, Schottenfeld RS, Fiellin DA. Cost analysis of clinic and office-based treatment of opioid dependence: results with methadone and buprenorphine in clinically stable patients. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2009;99(1):132–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Geitona M, Carayanni V, Petratos P. Economic evaluation of opioid substitution treatment in Greece. Heroin Addict Relat Clin Probl. 2012;14(3):77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Olmstead TA, Petry NM. The cost-effectiveness of prize-based and voucher-based contingency management in a population of cocaine-or opioid-dependent outpatients. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2009;102(1):108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sindelar JL, Olmstead TA, Peirce JM. Cost-effectiveness of prize-based contingency management in methadone maintenance treatment programmes. Addiction. 2007;102(9):1463–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Shanahan M, Mattick RP. Choosing treatments: the role of economics in informing future decisions. In: Mattick R, Ali R, Lintzeris N, editors. Pharmacotherapies for the treatment of opioid dependence: efficacy, cost-effectiveness and implementation guidelines: New York: Informa; 2009:475–88.

  36. Bell J, Shanahan M, Mutch C, Rea F, Ryan A, Batey R, et al. A randomized trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of observed versus unobserved administration of buprenorphine–naloxone for heroin dependence. Addiction. 2007;102(12):1899–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McCarty D, Perrin NA, Green CA, Polen MR, Leo MC, Lynch F. Methadone maintenance and the cost and utilization of health care among individuals dependent on opioids in a commercial health plan. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2010;111(3):235–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gourevitch MN, Chatterji P, Deb N, Schoenbaum EE, Turner BJ. On-site medical care in methadone maintenance: associations with health care use and expenditures. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(2):143–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Krebs E, Kerr T, Montaner J, Wood E, Nosyk B. Dynamics in the costs of criminality among opioid dependent individuals. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2014;144:193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lynch FL, McCarty D, Mertens J, Perrin NA, Green CA, Parthasarathy S, et al. Costs of care for persons with opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2014;9(1):16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Tkacz J, Volpicelli J, Un H, Ruetsch C. Relationship between buprenorphine adherence and health service utilization and costs among opioid dependent patients. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(4):456–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Martínez-Raga J, González-Saiz F, Pascual C, Casado MA, Sabater Torres FJ. Suboxone® (buprenorphine/naloxone) as an agonist opioid treatment in Spain: a budgetary impact analysis. Eur Addict Res. 2010;16(1):31–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martínez-Raga J, González-Saiz F, Oñate J, Oyagüez I, Sabater E, Casado MA. Budgetary impact analysis of buprenorphine–naloxone combination (Suboxone®) in Spain. Health Econ Rev. 2012;2(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Clay E, Khemiri A, Zah V, Aballéa S, Ruby J, Asche CV. Persistence and healthcare utilization associated with the use of buprenorphine/naloxone film and tablet formulation therapy in adults with opioid dependence. J Med Econ. 2014;17(9):626–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Asche CV, Clay E, Kharitonova E, Zah V, Ruby J, Aballéa S. Budgetary impact of the utilization of buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual film and tablet for Medicaid in the United States. J Med Econ. 2014;18(8):600-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Khemiri A, Kharitonova E, Zah V, Ruby J, Toumi M. Analysis of buprenorphine/naloxone dosing impact on treatment duration, resource use and costs in the treatment of opioid-dependent adults: a retrospective study of US public and private health care claims. Postgrad Med. 2014;126(5):113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kaur AD, McQueen A, Jan S. Opioid drug utilization and cost outcomes associated with the use of buprenorphine–naloxone in patients with a history of prescription opioid use. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(2):186–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Vanagas G, Padaiga Z, Bagdonas E. Cost-utility analysis of methadone maintenance treatment in Lithuania. Medicina (Kaunas). 2010;46(4):286–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Mak. 2000;20(3):332–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Schwartz RP, Alexandre PK, Kelly SM, O’Grady KE, Gryczynski J, Jaffe JH. Interim versus standard methadone treatment: a benefit-cost analysis. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(3):306–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Basu A, Paltiel AD, Pollack HA. Social costs of robbery and the cost-effectiveness of substance abuse treatment. Health Econ. 2008;17(8):927–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Xing Y, Sun J, Cao W, Lee L, Guo H, Li H, et al. Economic evaluation of methadone maintenance treatment in HIV/AIDS control among injecting drug users in Dehong, China. AIDS Care. 2012;24(6):756–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wammes JJ, Siregar AY, Hidayat T, Raya RP, van Crevel R, van der Ven AJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance therapy as HIV prevention in an Indonesian high-prevalence setting: a mathematical modeling study. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(5):358–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Alistar SS, Owens DK, Brandeau ML. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of expanding harm reduction and antiretroviral therapy in a mixed HIV epidemic: a modeling analysis for Ukraine. PLoS Med. 2011;8(3):e1000423.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Tran BX, Nguyen LT. Impact of methadone maintenance on health utility, health care utilization and expenditure in drug users with HIV/AIDS. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24(6):e105–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Duong AT, Do NT, Nguyen LT, Mills S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment for HIV-positive drug users in Vietnam. AIDS Care. 2012;24(3):283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. World Health Organization. Cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE): threshold values for intervention cost-effectiveness by region. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_levels/en/. Accessed 14 Mar 2016

  58. Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Duong AT, Nguyen LT, Vu PX, Mills S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of integrating methadone maintenance and antiretroviral treatment for HIV-positive drug users in Vietnam’s injection-driven HIV epidemics. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2012;125(3):260–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Duong AT, Nguyen LT, Vu PX, Mills S, et al. The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of Vietnam’s methadone maintenance treatment programme in HIV prevention and treatment among injection drug users. Glob Public Health. 2012;7(10):1080–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stephen JH, Halpern CH, Barrios CJ, Balmuri U, Pisapia JM, Wolf JA, et al. Deep brain stimulation compared with methadone maintenance for the treatment of heroin dependence: a threshold and cost-effectiveness analysis. Addiction. 2012;107(3):624–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT Jr, Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care. 2008;46(4):349–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Moore TJ, Ritter A, Caulkins JP. The costs and consequences of three policy options for reducing heroin dependency. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007;26(4):369–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Clark RE, Baxter JD, Aweh G, O’Connell E, Fisher WH, Barton BA. Risk factors for relapse and higher costs among Medicaid members with opioid dependence or abuse: opioid agonists, comorbidities, and treatment history. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;57:75–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nosyk B, Guh DP, Bansback NJ, Oviedo-Joekes E, Brissette S, Marsh DC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment. Can Med Assoc J. 2012;184(6):E317–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Byford S, Barrett B, Metrebian N, Groshkova T, Cary M, Charles V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(5):341–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Maas J, Barton G, Maskrey V, Pinto H, Holland R. Economic evaluation: a comparison of methadone versus buprenorphine for opiate substitution treatment. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2013;133(2):494–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Jackson H, Mandell K, Johnson K, Chatterjee D, Vanness DJ. Cost-effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone compared with methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. Subst Abus. 2015;36(2):226–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Schackman BR, Leff JA, Polsky D, Moore BA, Fiellin DA. Cost-effectiveness of long-term outpatient buprenorphine–naloxone treatment for opioid dependence in primary care. J General Internal Med. 2012;27(6):669–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Polsky D, Glick HA, Yang J, Subramaniam GA, Poole SA, Woody GE. Cost-effectiveness of extended buprenorphine–naloxone treatment for opioid-dependent youth: data from a randomized trial. Addiction. 2010;105(9):1616–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Ruger JP, Chawarski M, Mazlan M, Ng N, Schottenfeld R. Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine and naltrexone treatments for heroin dependence in Malaysia. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50673.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Barnett PG, Trafton JA, Humphreys K. The cost of concordance with opiate substitution treatment guidelines. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;39(2):141–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. White H, Sabarwal S. Quasi-experimental design and methods: methodological briefs—impact evaluation No. 8. Unicef Office of Research—Innocenti; 2014. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/753/.

  74. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

Sean Murphy and Daniel Polsky were responsible for defining the scope of the study, generating the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the articles, and finalizing the list of articles to be included in the review. Sean Murphy wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Both authors approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy and Administration, Washington State University, P.O. Box 1495, Spokane, WA, 99210-1495, USA

    Sean M. Murphy

  2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Daniel Polsky

Authors
  1. Sean M. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Polsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean M. Murphy.

Ethics declarations

Sources of Financial Support

No funding was received to support this review.

Conflicts of interest

Daniel Polsky has served as a consultant for Accenture. Sean Murphy has no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murphy, S.M., Polsky, D. Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions. PharmacoEconomics 34, 863–887 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0400-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0400-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation