Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review

ObjectivesThe rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature.MethodsA systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study.ResultsThe screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies’ accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs.ConclusionThe review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.     

Association of Opioid Use Disorder With 2016 Presidential Voting Patterns: Cross-sectional Study in New York State at Census Tract Level

BackgroundOpioid overdose-related deaths have increased dramatically in recent years. Combating the opioid epidemic requires better understanding of the epidemiology of opioid poisoning (OP) and opioid use disorder (OUD).ObjectiveWe aimed to discover geospatial patterns in nonmedical opioid use and its correlations with demographic features related to despair and economic hardship, most notably the US presidential voting patterns in 2016 at census tract level in New York State.MethodsThis cross-sectional analysis used data from New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System claims data and the presidential voting results of 2016 in New York State from the Harvard Election Data Archive. We included 63,958 patients who had at least one OUD diagnosis between 2010 and 2016 and 36,004 patients with at least one OP diagnosis between 2012 and 2016. Geospatial mappings were created to compare areas of New York in OUD rates and presidential voting patterns. A multiple regression model examines the extent that certain factors explain OUD rate variation.ResultsSeveral areas shared similar patterns of OUD rates and Republican vote: census tracts in western New York, central New York, and Suffolk County. The correlation between OUD rates and the Republican vote was .38 (P<.001). The regression model with census tract level of demographic and socioeconomic factors explains 30% of the variance in OUD rates, with disability and Republican vote as the most significant predictors.ConclusionsAt the census tract level, OUD rates were positively correlated with Republican support in the 2016 presidential election, disability, unemployment, and unmarried status. Socioeconomic and demographic despair-related features explain a large portion of the association between the Republican vote and OUD. Together, these findings underscore the importance of socioeconomic interventions in combating the opioid epidemic.     

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacologic Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review

ObjectiveThe crisis of opioid use puts a strain on resources in the United States and worldwide. There are 3 US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for treatment of opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine, and injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX). The comparative effectiveness and cost vary considerably among these 3 medications. Economic evaluations provide evidence that help stakeholders efficiently allocate scarce resources. Our objective was to summarize recent health economic evidence of pharmacologic treatment of opioid use disorder interventions.MethodsWe searched PubMed for peer-reviewed studies in English from August 2015 through December 2019 as an update to a 2015 review. We used the Drummond checklist to evaluate and categorize economic evaluation study quality. We summarized results by economic evaluation methodology and pharmacologic treatment modality.ResultsWe identified 105 articles as potentially relevant and included 21 (4 cost-offset studies and 17 cost-effectiveness/cost-benefit studies). We found strengthened evidence on buprenorphine and methadone, indicating that these treatments are economically advantageous compared with no pharmacotherapy, but found limited evidence on XR-NTX. Only half of the cost-effectiveness studies used a generic preference-based measure of effectiveness, limiting broad comparison across diseases/disorders. The disease/disorder-specific cost-effectiveness measures vary widely, suggesting a lack of consensus on the value of substance use disorder treatment.ConclusionWe found studies that provide new evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine compared with no pharmacotherapy. We found a lack of evidence supporting superior economic value for buprenorphine versus methadone, suggesting that both are attractive alternatives. Further economic research is needed on XR-NTX, as well as other emerging pharmacotherapies, treatment modalities, and dosage forms.     

Greater Opioid Use Among Nursing Home Residents in Ontario,Canada During the First 2 Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectivesTo examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and opioid use among nursing home residents followed up to March 2021, and possible variation by dementia and frailty status.DesignPopulation-based cohort study with an interrupted time series analysis.Setting and ParticipantsLinked health administrative databases for residents of all nursing homes (n = 630) in Ontario, Canada were examined. Residents were divided into consecutive weekly cohorts (first observation week was March 5 to 11, 2017 and last was March 21 to March 27, 2021).MethodsThe weekly proportion of residents dispensed an opioid was examined overall and by strata defined by the presence of dementia and frailty. Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average models with step and ramp intervention functions tested for immediate level and slope changes in weekly opioid use after the onset of the pandemic (March 1, 2020) and were fit on prepandemic data for projected trends.ResultsThe average weekly cohort ranged from 76,834 residents (prepandemic) to 69,359 (pandemic period), with a consistent distribution by sex (69% female) and age (54% age 85 + years). There was a statistically significant increased slope change in the weekly proportion of residents dispensed opioids (parameter estimate (β) = 0.035; standard error (SE) = 0.005, P < .001). Although significant for all 4 strata, the increased slope change was more pronounced among nonfrail residents (β = 0.038; SE = 0.008, P < .001) and those without dementia (β = 0.044; SE = 0.008, P < .001). The absolute difference in observed vs predicted opioid use in the last week of the pandemic period ranged from 1.25% (frail residents) to 2.28% (residents without dementia).Conclusions and ImplicationsAmong Ontario nursing home residents, there was a statistically significant increase in opioid dispensations following the onset of the pandemic that persisted up to 1 year later. Investigations of the reasons for increased use, potential for long-term use and associated health consequences for residents are warranted.     

Anticholinergic Drug Burden and Delirium: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesTo investigate the association between anticholinergic drug burden (ADB), measured with anticholinergic drug scales, and delirium and delirium severity.DesignSystematic review.Setting and ParticipantsAll available studies.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating the association between ADB (measured as a total score) and delirium or delirium severity, published in English, were eligible for inclusion.ResultsSixteen studies, including 148,756 persons, were included. Fifteen studies investigated delirium. ADB was measured with the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS, n = 5), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB, n = 6), the list of Chew (n = 1), the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS, n = 5), a modified version of the ARS (n = 1), and a modified version of the ACB (n = 1). A high ADB, measured with the ARS, was associated with delirium (5/5). Also with the modified version of the ARS and ACB, an association was found between a high ADB and delirium during 3-month (1/1) and 1-year follow-up (1/1), respectively. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the results were inconclusive, with only 1 positive association for the ACB (1/6) and ADS (1/5) each. The possible association between ADB and delirium severity has also been investigated (ADS n = 2, Summers Drug Risk Number n = 1). One study found an association between a high ADB, measured with the ADS, and an increase in severity of delirium.Conclusions and ImplicationsADB assessed with the ARS is consistently associated with delirium. The association found between the modified versions of the ARS and ACB and delirium needs confirmation. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the findings were inconclusive. The current findings suggest that the ARS might be a useful tool to identify patients at increased risk for delirium.     

Post-Acute Care Setting After Hip Fracture Hospitalization and Subsequent Opioid Use in Older Adults

ObjectivePain management in post-acute care (PAC) requires careful balance, with both opioid use and inadequate pain treatment linked to poor outcomes. We describe opioid use among older adults following discharge from PAC for hip fracture in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs).DesignRetrospective cohort.Setting and ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries with Medicare Provider Analysis (MedPAR) claims, aged 66 years and older with a hip fracture hospitalization between 2012 and 2018 followed by PAC in SNFs or IRFs and then discharge to the community.MethodsIndividuals were followed from PAC discharge for up to 1 year to assess opioid use. Covariate-standardized risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for opioid use within 7 days of PAC discharge were estimated via parametric g-formula with modified Poisson regression, and hazard ratios (HRs) for any post-PAC opioid use and long-term opioid use via Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazards regression.ResultsOf 101,021 individuals, 80% (n = 80,495) were discharged from SNFs and 20% (n = 20,526) from IRFs. Opioids were dispensed to 50,433 patients (50%) overall and the 1-year cumulative incidence was notably higher in IRF (68%) than SNF (46%) patients. The adjusted risk of discharge from PAC with an opioid was 41% lower after SNFs versus IRFs [RR: 0.59; 95% confidence limits (CLs): 0.57–0.61; and RD: −0.16; 95% CLs: −0.17 to −0.15]. The adjusted rate of any opioid use in the year after PAC discharge was 44% lower (HR: 0.56; 95% CLs: 0.54–0.57) and of long-term opioid use was 17% lower (HR: 0.83; 95% CLs: 0.80–0.87) after SNFs versus IRFs.Conclusions and ImplicationsOpioid use is highly prevalent upon discharge from PAC after hip fracture, with lower use after SNF versus IRF care. Future research should assess the benefits and harms of post-PAC opioid prescribing and whether care practices during PAC can be improved to optimize long-term opioid use.     

Trends in Risk-Adjusted Initiation and Reduction of Opioid Use among Veterans With Dementia in US Department of Veterans Affairs Community Living Centers

ObjectiveProper initiation and reduction of opioids is important in providing effective and safe pain relief to Veterans with dementia, including in Community Living Centers (CLCs). We examined the trends in aggregated monthly risk-adjusted opioid administration days and dosage over 3 opioid safety regulatory periods: pre–Opioid Safety Initiative period (October 1, 2012–June 30, 2013; period 1), pre–CDC Clinical Practice Guideline period (January 1, 2014–November 30, 2015, period 2) and post–Veterans Affairs Clinical Practice Guideline period (March 1, 2017–September 30, 2018; period 3).DesignA retrospective study between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2018.Settings and participants4995 long-stay CLC residents with dementia who had incident (incident cohort, n = 2609) or continued (continued opioid cohort, n = 2386) opioid administration in CLCs.MethodsCLC Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments data and bar-code medication administration data were used. Opioid initiation was examined for incident opioid cohort and reduction was examined using continued opioid cohort. We first computed aggregated monthly risk-adjusted opioid administration days, opioid with benzodiazepine administration days and opioid dosage, and then examined risk-adjusted incident and continued opioid administration trends over the regulatory periods controlling for facility-level characteristics.ResultsAmong the incident opioid cohort, compared to period 1, there were 1.9 and 2.1 fewer risk-adjusted opioid administration days per month in periods 2 and 3, respectively; 1.5 fewer risk-adjusted days per month with opioid and benzodiazepine administration in both periods 2 and 3; and 2.2 and 3.7 morphine milligrams equivalent per day (MMED) lower risk-adjusted dosage in periods 2 and 3, respectively. Among the continued opioid cohort, compared to period 1, there were 1.6 and 2.9 fewer risk-adjusted days with opioid and benzodiazepine administration days per month in periods 2 and 3, respectively, and 5.3 MMED lower risk-adjusted dosage per month in period 3.Conclusions and implicationsCLC providers initiated and reduced opioid administration in fewer days and at lower dosage among Veterans with dementia across the regulatory periods. The result was likely due to systemic efforts from health care professionals, CLC administrators, and policy makers or VA central office, aiming to reduce opioid misuse and improve quality of care in nursing home residents with dementia. What is still unknown is whether pain was well controlled or nonpharmacologic treatments were utilized.     

Where Is Buprenorphine Dispensed to Treat Opioid Use Disorders? The Role of Private Offices,Opioid Treatment Programs,and Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in Urban and Rural Counties

Context

Opioid use disorders are a significant public health problem. In 2002, the FDA approved buprenorphine as an opioid use disorder treatment when prescribed by waivered physicians who were limited to treating 30 patients at a time. In 2006, federal legislation raised this number to 100 patients. Although federal legislators are considering increasing these limits further and expanding prescribing privileges to nonphysicians, little information is available regarding the impact of such changes on buprenorphine use. We therefore examined the impact of the 2006 legislation—as well as the association between urban and rural waivered physicians, opioid treatment programs, and substance abuse treatment facilities—on buprenorphine distributed per capita over the past decade.

Methods

Using 2004-2011 state-level data on buprenorphine dispensed and county-level data on the number of buprenorphine-waivered physicians and substance abuse treatment facilities using buprenorphine, we estimated a multivariate ordinary least squares regression model with state fixed effects of a state’s annual total buprenorphine dispensed per capita as a function of the state’s number of buprenorphine providers.

Findings

The amount of buprenorphine dispensed has been increasing at a greater rate than the number of buprenorphine providers. The number of physicians waivered to treat 100 patients with buprenorphine in both rural and urban settings was significantly associated with increased amounts of buprenorphine dispensed per capita. There was no significant association in the growth of buprenorphine distributed and the number of physicians with 30-patient waivers.

Conclusions

The greater amounts of buprenorphine dispensed are consistent with the potentially greater use of opioid agonists for opioid use disorder treatment, though they also make their misuse more likely. The changes after the 2006 legislation suggest that policies focused on increasing the number of patients that a single waivered physician could safely and effectively treat could be more effective in increasing buprenorphine use than would alternatives such as opening new substance abuse treatment facilities or raising the overall number of waivered physicians.     

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Address Opioid Misuse: A Systematic Review of Methods Used in Simulation Modeling Studies

ObjectivesSeveral evidence-based interventions exist for people who misuse opioids, but there is limited guidance on optimal intervention selection. Economic evaluations using simulation modeling can guide the allocation of resources and help tackle the opioid crisis. This study reviews methods employed by economic evaluations using computer simulations to investigate the health and economic effects of interventions meant to address opioid misuse.MethodsWe conducted a systematic mapping review of studies that used simulation modeling to support the economic evaluation of interventions targeting prevention, treatment, or management of opioid misuse or its direct consequences (ie, overdose). We searched 6 databases and extracted information on study population, interventions, costs, outcomes, and economic analysis and modeling approaches.ResultsEighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All of the studies considered only one segment of the continuum of care. Of the studies, 13 evaluated medications for opioid use disorder, and 5 evaluated naloxone distribution programs to reduce overdose deaths. Most studies estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years and used health system and/or societal perspectives. Models were decision trees (n = 4), Markov (n = 10) or semi-Markov models (n = 3), and microsimulations (n = 1). All of the studies assessed parameter uncertainty though deterministic and/or probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 4 conducted formal calibration, only 2 assessed structural uncertainty, and only 1 conducted expected value of information analyses. Only 10 studies conducted validation.ConclusionsFuture economic evaluations should consider synergies between interventions and examine combinations of interventions to inform optimal policy response. They should also more consistently conduct model validation and assess the value of further research.     

Neighborhood characteristics and opioid use disorder among older Medicare beneficiaries: An examination of the role of the COVID-19 pandemic

This study investigates how the associations between residential characteristics and the risk of opioid user disorder (OUD) among older Medicare beneficiaries (age≥65) are altered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying matching techniques and multilevel modeling to the Medicare fee-for-service claims data, this study finds that county-level social isolation, concentrated disadvantage, and residential stability are significantly associated with OUD among older adults (N = 1,080,350) and that those living in counties with low levels of social isolation and residential stability experienced a heightened risk of OUD during the pandemic. The results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated the impacts of residential features on OUD.     

The Impact of Prior Authorization on Buprenorphine Dose,Relapse Rates,and Cost for Massachusetts Medicaid Beneficiaries with Opioid Dependence

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a 2008 dose-based prior authorization policy for Massachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries using buprenorphine + naloxone for opioid addiction treatment. Doses higher than 16 mg required progressively more frequent authorizations.ConclusionPrior authorization policies strategically targeted by dose level appear to successfully reduce use of higher than recommended buprenorphine doses. Savings from these policies are modest and may be accompanied by brief increases in relapse rates. Lower doses may decrease diversion of buprenorphine.