Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse

Sean M. Murphy, Kathryn McCollister, Jared A. Leff, Xuan Yang, Philip J. Jeng, Joshua D. Lee, Edward V. Nunes, Patricia Novo, John Rotrosen, Bruce R. Schackman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine–naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine–naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine–naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine–naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)90-98
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume170
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 15 2019

Fingerprint

Naltrexone
Opioid Analgesics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Recurrence
Health Care Sector
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Residential Treatment
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Services Needs and Demand
Information Storage and Retrieval
Social Work
Health Care Costs
Inpatients
Randomized Controlled Trials
Observation
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse. / Murphy, Sean M.; McCollister, Kathryn; Leff, Jared A.; Yang, Xuan; Jeng, Philip J.; Lee, Joshua D.; Nunes, Edward V.; Novo, Patricia; Rotrosen, John; Schackman, Bruce R.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 170, No. 2, 15.01.2019, p. 90-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murphy, SM, McCollister, K, Leff, JA, Yang, X, Jeng, PJ, Lee, JD, Nunes, EV, Novo, P, Rotrosen, J & Schackman, BR 2019, 'Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 170, no. 2, pp. 90-98. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0227
Murphy, Sean M. ; McCollister, Kathryn ; Leff, Jared A. ; Yang, Xuan ; Jeng, Philip J. ; Lee, Joshua D. ; Nunes, Edward V. ; Novo, Patricia ; Rotrosen, John ; Schackman, Bruce R. / Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2019 ; Vol. 170, No. 2. pp. 90-98.
@article{529c2cf6752741de87b9d7a9270a3cad,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse",
abstract = "Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine–naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine–naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine–naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97{\%} of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85{\%} at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine–naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone.",
author = "Murphy, {Sean M.} and Kathryn McCollister and Leff, {Jared A.} and Xuan Yang and Jeng, {Philip J.} and Lee, {Joshua D.} and Nunes, {Edward V.} and Patricia Novo and John Rotrosen and Schackman, {Bruce R.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.7326/M18-0227",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "170",
pages = "90--98",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse

AU - Murphy, Sean M.

AU - McCollister, Kathryn

AU - Leff, Jared A.

AU - Yang, Xuan

AU - Jeng, Philip J.

AU - Lee, Joshua D.

AU - Nunes, Edward V.

AU - Novo, Patricia

AU - Rotrosen, John

AU - Schackman, Bruce R.

PY - 2019/1/15

Y1 - 2019/1/15

N2 - Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine–naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine–naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine–naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine–naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone.

AB - Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine–naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine–naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine–naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine–naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059989183&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059989183&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/M18-0227

DO - 10.7326/M18-0227

M3 - Article

C2 - 30557443

AN - SCOPUS:85059989183

VL - 170

SP - 90

EP - 98

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 2

ER -