Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction

  • Sarah Byford (a1), Barbara Barrett (a1), Nicola Metrebian (a2), Teodora Groshkova (a3), Maria Cary (a1), Vikki Charles (a2), Nicholas Lintzeris (a4) and John Strang (a2)...

Abstract

Background

Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain.

Aims

To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction.

Method

Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources.

Results

Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15805 v. £13410 injectable heroin and £10945 injectable methadone; P =n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin.

Conclusions

Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Sarah Byford, Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Box P024, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. Email: s.byford@kcl.ac.uk

Footnotes

Hide All

See editorial, pp. 325–326, this issue.

Declaration of interest

J.S. and N.L. have contributed to UK National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and Department of Health guidelines on the role of injectable prescribing in the management of opiate addiction (2003; chaired by J.S.). J.S. has chaired the broader-scope pan-UK working group preparing the 2007 Orange Guidelines for the UK Departments of Health, providing guidance on management and treatment of drug dependence and misuse. J.S. has provided consultancy advice on possible novel opiate addiction treatments, products and formulations to Britannia/Genus, Auralis/Viropharma, and Martindale Pharmaceuticals, and other pharmaceutical companies. J.S. and his institution have received support and funding from the Department of Health (England) and National Treatment Agency (England); and J.S. has close associations with the charity Action on Addiction. N.L. has received honoraria, travel and conference support, and consultancy fees from Reckitt Benckiser and Schering-Plough. N.L. has an untied educational grant for research related to buprenorphine in the management of opioid dependence. J.S., N.L. and N.M. have previously undertaken a research study of British heroin policy and have given varied commentaries and contributed to professional and public debate.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 Gossop, M., Marsden, J., Stewart, D., Kidd, T. The National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS): 4–5 year follow-up results. Addiction 2003; 98: 291303.
2 Lintzeris, N. Prescription of heroin for the managment of heroin dependence. CNS Drugs 2009; 23: 463–76.
3 Strang, J., Groshkova, T., Metrebian, N. New Heroin-Assisted Treatment: Recent Evidence and Current Practices of Supervised Injectable Heroin Treatment in Europe and Beyond. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2011.
4 Perneger, TV, Giner, F., del Rio, M., Mino, A. Randomised trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatments. BMJ 1998; 317: 13–8.
5 Haasen, C., Verthein, U., Degkwitz, P., Berger, J., Krausz, M., Naber, D. Heroin- assisted treatment for opioid dependence: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 5562.
6 Oviedo-Joekes, E., Brissette, S., Marsh, DC, Lauzon, P., Guh, D., Anis, A., et al Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 777–86.
7 Strang, J., Metrebian, N., Lintzeris, N., Potts, L., Carnwath, T., Mayet, S., et al Supervised injectable heroin or injectable methadone versus optimised oral methadone as treatment for chronic heroin addicts in England after persistent failure in orthodox treatment (RIOTT): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 1885–95.
8 Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary 55 (March). BMJ Group and RPS Publishing, 2008.
9 Lintzeris, M., Strang, J., Metrebian, N., Byford, S., Hallam, C., Lee, S., et al Methodology for the Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT): evaluating injectable methadone and injectable heroin treatment versus optimised oral methadone treatment in the UK. Harm Reduct J 2006; 3: 28.
10 Strang, J., Marsden, J., Cummins, M., Byford, S., Hallam, C., Lee, S., et al Randomized trial of supervised injectable versus oral methadone maintenance: report of feasibility and 6-month outcome. Addiction 2000; 95: 1631–45.
11 Gordon, L., Tinsley, L., Godfrey, C., Parrott, S. The economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2003/04. In Measuring Different Aspects of Problem Drug Use: Methodological Developments (2nd edn) (eds Singleton, N., Murray, R., Tinsley, L.): 41–5. Home Office, 2006.
12 Brooks, R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 5372.
13 Richardson, G., Manca, A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004; 13: 1203–10.
14 van der Zanden, BP, Dijkgraaf, MGW, Blanken, P., de Borgie, CAJM, van Ree, JM, Van den Brink, W. Validity of the EQ-5D as a generic health outcome instrument in a heroin-dependent population. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 82: 111–8.
15 Barrett, B., Byford, S., Crawford, MJ, Patton, R., Drummond, C., Henry, JA, et al Cost-effectiveness of screening and referral to an alcohol health worker in alcohol misusing patients in an accident and emergency department: a decision-making approach. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 81: 4754.
16 Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, GW, O'Brien, B., Stoddart, GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, 2005.
17 Paterson, S., Lintzeris, N., Mitchell, TB, Cordero, R., Nestor, L., Strang, J. Validation of techniques to detect illicit heroin use in patients prescribed pharmaceutical heroin for the management of opioid dependence. Addiction 2005; 100: 1832–9.
18 Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2008. Department of Health, 2008.
19 Curtis, L. The Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2008. University of Kent at Canterbury, Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2008.
20 Dubourg, R., Hamed, J. The Economic and Social Costs of Crime against Individuals and Households 2003/04. Home Office, 2005.
21 Metropolitan Police. MPS Ready Reckoner. Metropolitan Police Authority, 2000.
22 HM Prison Service. Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 2008. TSO (The Stationery Office), 2009.
23 Barber, JA, Thompson, SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3219–36.
24 Johannesson, M., Weinstein, MC. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 459–67.
25 Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341–64.
26 Fenwick, E., Byford, S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry 2005; 187: 106–8.
27 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, 2008.
28 Hjelmgren, J., Berggren, F., Andersson, F. Health economic guidelines- similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225–50.
29 Appleby, J., Devlin, N., Parkin, D. NICE's cost effectiveness threshold: how high should it be? BMJ 2007; 335: 359.
30 Cartwright, WS. Cost-benefit analysis of drug treatment services: review of the literature. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2000; 3: 1126.
31 Dijkgraaf, MGW, van der Zanden, BP, de Borgie, CAJM, Blanken, P., van Ree, JM, Van den Brink, W. Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two randomised trials. BMJ 2005; 330: 1297–302.
32 Home Office. A New Approach to Fighting Crime. Home Office, 2011.
33 Johannesson, M. A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care. Health Policy 1995; 33: 5966.
34 Chambers, J., Yiend, J., Barrett, B., Burns, T., Doll, H., Fazel, S., et al Outcome measures used in forensic mental health research: a structured review. Crim Behav Ment Health 2009; 19: 927.
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Byford et al. supplementary material
Supplementary Table S1

 PDF (35 KB)
35 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction

  • Sarah Byford (a1), Barbara Barrett (a1), Nicola Metrebian (a2), Teodora Groshkova (a3), Maria Cary (a1), Vikki Charles (a2), Nicholas Lintzeris (a4) and John Strang (a2)...
Submit a response

eLetters

Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction

Robert Newman, President Emeritus
04 November 2013

Re: "Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction"1: the authors present an analysisof the results of the "Randomized Injectable Opiate Treatment Trial (RIOTT)2. Subjects of RIOTT were very few in number - less than 45 individuals in each of the three arms of the study (injectable heroin, injectable methadone and "optimized" oral methadone). It required 3 full years in 3 sites to screen 301 volunteers, of whom 127 (40%) began the trial and only 89 completed the 26-week treatment protocol.

All of the participants had been receiving "conventional" methadone treatment for more than 6 months and continued "to inject 'street' heroin regularly." On average, they had had over 4 prior treatment episodes. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the overriding motivation of those who volunteered was the hope of receiving injectable opiates, and itis likely that participant bias may have had a substantial impact on outcomes. Indeed, it is revealing that among those assigned to receive "optimized" oral methadone 7 (17%) never began the trial and of the remaining 35 only 24 were still enrolled 26 weeks later.

Some of the reported findings seem to underscore the severe limitations that must be kept in mind in drawing even the most tentative conclusions. For example, while oral methadone subjects claimed to have committed roughly three times as many crimes as the intravenous methadone group (mean 21 v. 7 crimes), the latter subjects spent 15 times (!) more nights in prison (mean 6.1 v. 0.4 nights). Surely provision of oral methadone did not somehow make patients more successful in their criminal pursuits.

Perhaps inevitably, the limited ability to extrapolate has been ignored in wider distribution of the findings. Thus, one report (which refers readers seeking more information to the Press Officer of Kings College London, with which the principal author and 5 of the 7 co-authors are affiliated) had the unqualified headline: "Injectable opioid treatmentfor chronic heroin addiction more cost-effective than oral methadone," andclaimed that "... total cost savings of providing injectable opiate treatment for this chronic group in England could be between ?29 and ?59 million per year".3

The criticisms noted above must not detract from the bottom-line, common sense, conclusion with regard to injectable opioid treatment: in the interests of addicts as well as the general community it is essential that those who respond poorly to treatment (anytreatment) be provided information on and referral to the broadest possible array of alternative services.

WORD COUNT: 413

REFERENCES:

1. Byford S, Barrett B, Metrebian N, Groshkova T, Cary M, Charles V,Lintzeris N, Strang J. Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction. B J Psychiatry. 2013 Sep 12. [Epub ahead of print].

2. Strang J, Metrebian N, Lintzeris N, Potts L, Carnwath T, Mayet S,Williams S, Zador D, Evers R, Groshkova T, Charles V, Martin A, Forzisi L.Supervised injectable heroin or injectable methadone versus optimized oralmethadone as treatment for chronic heroin addicts in England after persistent failure in orthodox treatment (RIOTT): a randomized trial. Lancet. 2010. 375: 1885-1895.

3. No author. Injectable opioid treatment for chronic heroin addiction more cost-effective than oral methadone. HealthCanal. 2013. Accessed Oct. 11, 2013, at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-opioid-treatment-chronic-heroin-addiction.html.

... More

Conflict of interest: None declared

Write a reply

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *