Elsevier

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volume 71, Issue 3, 10 September 2003, Pages 295-302
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a cost-effectiveness analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(03)00169-8Get rights and content

Abstract

This article presents the cost-effectiveness results of a randomised controlled trial conducted in two Australian cities. The trial was designed to assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine versus methadone in the management of opioid dependence. The trial utilised a flexible dosing regime that was tailored to the clinical need of the patients, with high maximum doses, using the marketed formulation, under double-blind conditions. A total of 405 subjects were randomised to a treatment at one of three specialist outpatient drug treatment centres in Adelaide and Sydney, Australia. The perspective of the cost-effectiveness analysis was that of the service provider and included costs relevant to the provision of treatment. The primary outcome measure used in the economic analysis was change in heroin-free days from baseline to the sixth month of treatment. Treatment with methadone was found to be both less expensive and more effective than treatment with buprenorphine, which suggests methadone dominates buprenorphine. However, statistical testing found that the observed difference between the cost-effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine treatments was not statistically significant. The results of this study provide useful policy information on the costs and outcomes associated with the use of methadone and buprenorphine and indicate that buprenorphine provides a viable alternative to methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence.

Introduction

Methadone maintenance treatment is the best-researched treatment for opioid dependence (Cooper et al., 1983, Gerstein and Harwood, 1990, Hargreaves, 1983, Mattick and Hall, 1993, Ward et al., 1998). Goldschmidt conducted the first economic evaluation of methadone treatment in the early 1970s. Methadone maintenance was as effective as a therapeutic community intervention, but with cost of providing methadone one-quarter the cost of therapeutic communities, methadone treatment was found to be twice as cost-effective (Goldschmidt, 1976). In a recent review of the literature on cost–benefit analysis of drug treatment, Cartwright (2000) identified a number of studies that calculated benefit cost ratios of methadone treatment and concluded that drug abuse treatment services, in general, provide positive economic returns to society. For example, Leslie (1971) calculated a benefit cost ratio of methadone treatment of 7.9, while Maidlow and Berman (1972) calculated a benefit cost ratio of methadone maintenance of 18.7. The most comprehensive cost–benefit analysis to date is that conducted by Gerstein and colleagues in 1994 in the Californian Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) study. Gerstein et al. (1994) examined the effects of treatment—residential programs, residential “social model” programs, outpatient programs, and methadone programs—on alcohol and drug use, criminal activity, health and health care utilisation, and source of income. Cost of treatment and the economic value of treatment were also examined. Gerstein et al. (1994) found that for each modality of treatment the summed benefits from, during and after the first year of treatment significantly exceeded the cost of delivering the episode of care. For residential treatment the ratio of benefits to costs was 4.8. Comparable ratios were obtained for social model treatment and for continuing methadone. Much higher ratios of 11 to 1 and 12.6 to 1 were estimated for outpatient and discharged methadone participants.

Buprenorphine is a relatively new drug. It is a partial opioid agonist that, compared with methadone, appears to be safer in overdose, may have an easier withdrawal phase, and can be used as an alternate day dosing schedule in most patients (Mattick et al., 2002). A number of randomised clinical trials have reported that buprenorphine is as effective as methadone for use in maintenance therapy of opioid dependent patients (Johnson et al., 1992, Strain et al., 1994a, Strain et al., 1994b, Johnson et al., 2000, Pani et al., 2000). However, a similar number of studies have reported inferior results for buprenorphine (Kosten et al., 1993, Ling et al., 1996, Schottenfeld et al., 1997, Fischer et al., 1999, Petitjean et al., 2001). Usually, these latter authors attribute the inferiority of buprenorphine to doses of buprenorphine that are to low (Kosten et al., 1993, Ling et al., 1996, Schottenfeld et al., 1997, Fischer et al., 1999, Petitjean et al., 2001), or to slow induction onto low doses of buprenorphine (Uehlinger et al., 1998, Fischer et al., 1999).

While there is large number of studies on the relative effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine as agents in the management of opioid dependence, there is little information on the relative economic impacts of these pharmacotherapies. This article presents the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine versus methadone in the management of opioid dependence. The trial utilised a flexible dosing regime that was tailored to the clinical need of the patients, with high maximum doses, using the marketed tablet formulation, under double-blind conditions (Mattick et al., 2003).

Section snippets

Method

Between July 1996 and April 1998, a total of 405 heroin patients were randomised to receive either buprenorphine or methadone at one of three government funded public clinics specialising in the treatment of opioid dependence (site 1: N=101; site 2: N=105; site 3: N=199). Patients were eligible for the study if they: had a current diagnosis of opioid dependence using the criteria in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric

Patient characteristics

A total of 405 patients were randomised, 205 to the methadone group and 200 to the buprenorphine group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic characteristics. Sixty-nine percent were male, and the average age was 30 years. There were no between-group differences in severity of dependence, age of first use, duration of use, craving, or the global severity of “drug problem” as rated by research staff and patient (Mattick et al., 2003).

Costs

Discussion

Given the limited information available on the costs and effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine for the treatment of illicit drug use, the data generated by this study and the clinical paper (Mattick et al., 2003) provide a significant increase in available information to assist policy makers.

It is important to note, however, that in compiling these data, a number of methodological challenges needed to be overcome. One potential limitation of the study is the use of retrospective data

Acknowledgements

The Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, New South Wales Department of Health, the South Australian Department of Health and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, provided funding for the economic evaluation. Reckitt & Colman Pty Ltd provided financial support for the clinical study. Madeleine King, Jane Hall and Rosalie Viney of CHERE also provided advice on the methodology and statistical techniques. Stuart Gilmour from NDARC provided valuable advice on the bootstrapping

References (37)

  • Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Approved Pharmacists and Medical Practitioners

    (1999)
  • J. Cooper et al.

    Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art

    (1983)
  • G. Fischer et al.

    Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for the treatment of opioid dependence

    Addiction

    (1999)
  • D. Gerstein et al.

    Treating Drug Problems. A Study of Effectiveness and Financing of Public and Private Drug Treatment Systems

    (1990)
  • D.R. Gerstein et al.

    Evaluating Recovery Services: The Californian Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA)

    (1994)
  • P.G. Goldschmidt

    A cost-effectiveness model for evaluating health care programs: application to drug abuse treatment

    Inquiry

    (1976)
  • W. Hargreaves

    Methadone dosage and duration for maintenance treatment

  • R. Johnson et al.

    A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (1992)
  • Cited by (96)

    • Modeling the cost and impact of injectable opioid agonist therapy on overdose and overdose deaths

      2022, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Given the limited evidence in estimating the cost of iOAT in the Australian context and in UK clinic models and operating costs along with the likely model of care in Australia, we drew our iOAT cost estimates from Byford et al. (2013). The study estimated the cost of OAT treatment through Australian data from Doran et al.'s (2003) study, given differences exist in OAT delivery between the UK and Australia (Supplementary Table 1) (Byford et al., 2013; Doran et al., 2003). Given the limited evidence in parametrizing supervised iOAT outcomes, the study made several assumptions:

    • Methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone are effective in reducing illicit buprenorphine and other opioid use, and reducing HIV risk behavior-Outcomes of a randomized trial

      2013, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this regard, using higher buprenorphine-naloxone doses with alternate day dosing may reduce the cost of buprenorphine maintenance treatment while also controlling diversion (Johnson et al., 2003). In a number of studies flexible-dosing methadone treatment was found to be somehow less expensive than buprenorphine treatment (Connock et al., 2007; Doran et al., 2003). This difference in the cost of treatment was largely attributed to a significant difference in the cost of medications.

    • Impact of methadone maintenance on health utility, health care utilization and expenditure in drug users with HIV/AIDS

      2013, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Meanwhile, evidence on the impact of MMT on health utility (preference-based HRQOL), an integral part of the quality-adjusted life years, is still very limited (Feeny, 2000). Moreover, in a systematic review of 22 economic evaluations of MMT, the author found no studies investigating the changes in healthcare service utilization and out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure in the presence of MMT (Alistar, Owens, & Brandeau, 2011; Barnett, 1999a, 1999b; Barnett & Hui, 2000; Barnett, Zaric, & Brandeau, 2001; Dijkgraaf et al., 2005; Doran, 2005; Doran et al., 2003; French, 2001; Hartz et al., 1999; Masson et al., 2004; Mojtabai & Zivin, 2003; Negrin & Vazquez-Polo, 2006; Shanahan et al., 2006; Sindelar, Olmstead, & Peirce, 2007; Tran et al., 2012b, 2012f; Vanagas, Padaiga, & Bagdonas, 2010; Wammes et al., 2012; Warren et al., 2006; Xing et al., 2012; Zaric, Barnett, & Brandeau, 2000). The HIV epidemic in Vietnam is still in a concentrated stage; however, a very high prevalence was seen in high-risk populations, and drug injection remains a major force driving the epidemic (Tran et al., 2012g).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text