Cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder.

Qian G, Rao I, Humphreys K, Owens DK, Brandeau ML. Cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2023 Feb 1; 243:109762.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• RCS 04-141 – Evaluating Treatment & Self-help Methods of Improving Functioning & Quality of Life Outcomes of Patients with Substance Abuse Disorders

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

AIM: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) in the U.S. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a model-based analysis of buprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting for the U.S. population with OUD. INTERVENTION: Buprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting. MEASUREMENTS: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs. FINDINGS: For a cohort of 100,000 untreated individuals who enter OBBT, approximately 9350 overdoses would be averted over five years; of these, approximately 900 would have been fatal. OBBT compared to no treatment would yield 1.07 incremental lifetime QALYs per person at an incremental cost of $17,000 per QALY gained when using a healthcare perspective. If OBBT is half as effective and twice as expensive as assumed in the base case, the incremental cost when using a healthcare perspective is $25,500 per QALY gained. Using a limited societal perspective that additionally includes patient costs and criminal justice costs, OBBT is cost-saving compared to no treatment even under pessimistic assumptions about efficacy and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of OBBT would be highly cost-effective compared to no treatment when considered from a healthcare perspective, and cost-saving when reduced criminal justice costs are included. Given the continuing opioid crisis in the U.S., expansion of this care option should be a high priority.