» Articles » PMID: 33506729

Cost-effectiveness of Syringe Service Programs, Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, and Combination Programs in Hepatitis C Harm Reduction Among Opioid Injection Drug Users: a Public Payer Perspective Using a Decision Tree

Overview
Specialties Pharmacology
Pharmacy
Date 2021 Jan 28
PMID 33506729
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence rate among injection drug users (IDUs) in North America is 55.2%, with 1.41 million individuals estimated to be HCV-antibody positive. Studies have shown the effectiveness of syringe service programs (SSPs) alone, medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) alone, or SSP+MOUD combination in reducing HCV transmission among opioid IDUs. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SSP alone, MOUD alone, and SSP + MOUD combination in preventing HCV cases among opioid IDUs in the United States. We used a decision tree analysis model based on published literature and publicly available data. Effectiveness was presented as the number of HCV cases avoided per 100 opioid IDUs. A micro-costing approach was undertaken and included both direct medical and nonmedical costs. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a public payer perspective over a 1-year time horizon. It was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and an incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with cost savings with "no intervention." Costs were standardized to 2019 U.S. dollars. The incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with no intervention were as follows: SSP + MOUD combination = $347,573; SSP alone = $363,821; MOUD alone = $317,428. The ICER for the combined strategy was $4,699 compared with the ICER for the SSP group. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis were sensitive to variations in the probabilities of injection-risk behavior for the SSP and SSP + MOUD combination groups, probability of no HCV with no intervention, and costs of MOUD and HCV antiviral medications. The SSP + MOUD combination and SSP alone strategies dominate MOUD alone and no intervention strategies. SSP had the largest incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with the no intervention strategy. Public payers adopting the SSP + MOUD combination harm-reduction strategy instead of SSP alone would have to pay an additional $4,699 to avoid an additional HCV case among opioid IDUs. Although these harm-reduction programs will provide benefits in a 1-year time frame, the largest benefit may become evident in the years ahead. This research had no external funding. The authors declare no financial interests in this article. Ijioma is a Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) postdoctoral Fellow with Virginia Commonwealth University and Indivior. Indivior is a pharmaceutical manufacturer of opioid addiction treatment drugs but was not involved in the design, analysis, or write-up of the manuscript.

Citing Articles

Estimating the Cost-Saving Threshold of a Rural Syringe Services Program Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Allen S, Weir B, Reid M, Schneider K, ORourke A, Hazelett T AIDS Behav. 2025; .

PMID: 39832079 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-025-04615-z.


Knowledge, practice and attitudes regarding substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction strategies among pharmacists: a scoping review protocol.

Pope E, McCullough M, Smith J, Kim B BMJ Open. 2024; 14(2):e080338.

PMID: 38418243 PMC: 10910657. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080338.


Implementing harm reduction kits in an office-based addiction treatment program.

Shang M, Thiel B, Liebschutz J, Kraemer K, Freund A, Jawa R Harm Reduct J. 2023; 20(1):163.

PMID: 37919741 PMC: 10621216. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-023-00897-5.


Identifying barriers and facilitators for implementing harm reduction strategies for methamphetamine use into hospital settings.

Forchuk C, Serrato J, Scott L Front Health Serv. 2023; 3:1113891.

PMID: 36926504 PMC: 10012827. DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1113891.


Opioid use disorder: a neglected human immunodeficiency virus risk in American adolescents.

Lloyd A, Savage R, Eaton E AIDS. 2021; 35(14):2237-2247.

PMID: 34387219 PMC: 8563394. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003051.


References
1.
Briggs A, Weinstein M, Fenwick E, Karnon J, Sculpher M, Paltiel A . Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--6. Value Health. 2012; 15(6):835-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014. View

2.
Barocas J, Morgan J, Fiellin D, Schackman B, Yazdi G, Stein M . Cost-effectiveness of integrating buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for opioid use disorder into clinical care for persons with HIV/hepatitis C co-infection who inject opioids. Int J Drug Policy. 2019; 72:160-168. PMC: 6717527. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.05.010. View

3.
Aspinall E, Nambiar D, Goldberg D, Hickman M, Weir A, Van Velzen E . Are needle and syringe programmes associated with a reduction in HIV transmission among people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 43(1):235-48. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt243. View

4.
Barbosa C, Fraser H, Hoerger T, Leib A, Havens J, Young A . Cost-effectiveness of scaling-up HCV prevention and treatment in the United States for people who inject drugs. Addiction. 2019; 114(12):2267-2278. PMC: 7751348. DOI: 10.1111/add.14731. View

5.
Sawangjit R, Khan T, Chaiyakunapruk N . Effectiveness of pharmacy-based needle/syringe exchange programme for people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2016; 112(2):236-247. DOI: 10.1111/add.13593. View