Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aim: Buprenorphine offers an alternative to methadone in the treatment of heroin dependence, and has the advantage of allowing alternate-day dosing. This study is the first to examine the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting using economic and clinical data collected within a randomised trial.

Study design and methods: The study was a randomised, open-label, 12-month trial of 139 heroin-dependent patients in a community setting receiving individualised treatment regimens of buprenorphine or methadone. Those who were currently on a methadone program (n = 57; continuing therapy subgroup) were analysed separately from new treatment recipients (n = 82; initial therapy subgroup). The study took a broad societal perspective and included health, crime and personal costs. Data on resource use and outcomes were a combination of clinical records and self report at interview. The main outcomes were incremental cost per additional day free of heroin use and per QALY. An analysis of uncertainty calculated the likelihood of net benefits for a range of acceptable money values of outcomes. All costs were in 1999 Australian dollars ($A).

Results: The estimated mean number of heroin-free days did not differ significantly between those randomised to methadone (225 [95% CI 91, 266]), or buprenorphine (222 [95% CI 194, 250]) over the year of the trial. Buprenorphine was associated with an average 0.03 greater QALYs over 52 weeks (not significant). The total cost was $A17 736 (95% CI −$A2981, $A38 364) with methadone and $A11 916 (95% CI $A7697, $A16 135) with buprenorphine; costs excluding crime were $A4513 (95% CI $A3495, $A5531) and $A5651 (95% CI $A4202, $A7100). With additional heroin-free days as the outcome, and crime costs included buprenorphine has a lower cost but less heroin-free days. If crime costs are excluded buprenorphine has a higher cost and worse outcome than methadone. With additional QALYs as the outcome, the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine is $A39 404 if crime is excluded, but buprenorphine is dominant if crime is included.

Conclusions: The trial found no significant differences in costs or outcomes between methadone and buprenorphine maintenance in this particular setting. Although some of the results suggest that methadone may have a cost advantage, it is difficult to infer from the trial data that offering buprenorphine as an alternative would have a significant effect on total costs or outcomes. The point estimates of costs and outcomes suggest that buprenorphine may have an advantage in those initiating therapy. The confidence intervals were wide, however, and the likelihood of net benefits from substituting one treatment for another was close to 50%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ward DC, Mattick RP, Hall W. Key issues in methadone maintenance treatment. Sydney: New South Wales University Press, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson RE, Chutuape MA, Strain EC, et al. A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. N Engl J Med 2000; 343 (18): 1290–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson RE, Eissenberg T, Stitzer ML, et al. A placebo controlled clinical trial of buprenorphine as a treatment for opioid dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend 1995; 40 (1): 17–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson RE, Fudala PJ. Development of buprenorphine for treatment of opioid dependence. NIDA Res Monogr 1992; 121: 120–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Strain EC, Stitzer ML, Liebson IA, et al. Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151 (7): 1025–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Strain EC, Stitzer ML, Liebson IA, et al. Buprenorphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid-dependent cocaine users. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1994; 116 (4): 401–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ling W, Charuvastra C, Collins JF, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Addiction 1998; 93 (4): 475–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schottenfeld RS, Pakes JR, Kosten TR. Prognostic factors in Buprenorphine- versus methadone-maintained patients. J Nerv Ment Dis 1998; 186 (1): 35–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ling W, Wesson DR, Charuvastra C, et al. A controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in opioid dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53 (5): 401–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer G, Gombas W, Eder H, et al. Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for the treatment of opioid dependence. Addiction 1999; 94 (9): 1337–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mattick RP, Kimber J, Breen C, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database SystRev 2004; (3) article no.: CD002207.pub2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD002207.pub2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. O’Connor PG, Carroll KM, Shi JM, et al. Three methods of opioid detoxification in a primary care setting: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127 (7): 526–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenheck R, Kosten T. Buprenorphine for opiate addiction: potential economic impact. Drug Alcohol Depend 2001; 63 (3): 253–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Barnett PG, Zaric GS, Brandeau ML. The cost effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy for opiate addiction in the United States. Addiction 2001; 96 (7): 1267–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lintzeris N, Ritter A, Panjari M, et al. Implementing buprenorphine treatment in community settings in Australia: experiences from the buprenorphine implementation trial. Am J Addictions 2004; 13 Suppl. 1: S29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Department of Health and Community Services. Victorian methadone program. Guidelines for providers. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Health and Community Services, 1995

  17. Digiusto E, Seres V, Bibb, et al. Concordance between urinalysis results and self-reported drug use by applicants for methadone maintenance in Australia. Addict Behav 1996; 21 (3): 319–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osbome R. The Australian Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits for approved pharmacists and medical practitioners, Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1999 Aug

  20. Caswell A, editor. MIMS Australia. Sydney (NSW): MediMedia Australia Pty Ltd, A Vivendi Universal Publishing Company, 1999 Jun

    Google Scholar 

  21. Medicare Benefits Schedule, Australian government, Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, ACT. 1999 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www7.health.gov.au/pubs/mbs/nov99s.htm [Accessed 2004 Dec 6]

  22. Victorian Acute Health Cost Weights Study 1998–1999. Published by Acute Health Division, Victorian government Department of Human Services, 1999 Melbourne, Victoria, Aus tralia [online]. Previously available from URL: http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/pub.htm [Accessed 2000 Feb 15]

  23. Australian Psychological Society’s recommended fee schedule [online]. Available from URL: http://www.psychsociety.com.au/member/fr_member.htm [Accessed 1999 Jun 71

  24. Royal Auto, RACV members magazine. Victoria: Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, 2000 Jun

  25. VicTrip Information Centre [online]. Previously available from URL: http://www.victrip.com.au/fares zones [Accessed 1999 Jul 15]. Now available from URL: http://www.metlinkmelboume.com.au [Accessed 1999 Jul 15]

  26. Allen Consulting Group Pty Ltd and Cox JB. Centre of Policy Studies Economic impact of city link: transurban project. Consultancy report to the Melbourne City Link Authority, 1996 Apr

    Google Scholar 

  27. John Walker. Estimates of the costs of crime in Australia: trends and issues [paper no. 39]. Canberra (ACT): Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992 Aug

    Google Scholar 

  28. John Walker. Estimates of the costs of crime in Australia in 1996: trends and issues [paper no. 72]. Canberra (ACT): Australian Institute of Criminology, 1997 Aug

    Google Scholar 

  29. Potas I, Vining A, Wilson P. Young people and crime: costs and prevention. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, ACT, Australia; 1990 ISBN 0 642 15538 0 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/young-people [Accessed 2004 Dec 13]

    Google Scholar 

  30. Victorian Police Service Annual Crime Statistics Report, 1996/97. Melbourne (VIC): Victorian Police Service, 1997

  31. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness up by bootstraps: a non parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Briggs AIL Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces: uncertainty on the cost effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7 (8): 723–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Stinnet AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18 (2 Suppl.): S68–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Brien BJ, Gertsen K, Willan AR, et al. Is there a kink in consumers’ threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Econ 2002; 11 (2): 175–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and CIE ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Briggs AIL A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 257–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolsenholme J, et al. Missing … presumed at random: cost analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003; 12 (5): 377–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhou XH, Gao S. Confidence intervals for the log-normal mean. Stat Med 1997; 16: 783–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Doran CM, Shanahan M, Mattick RP, et al. Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003; 71 (3): 295–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Victorian Government, Community Support Fund. Buprenorphine was supplied free of charge to the study by Reckitt Benckiser. The third author has received an educational grant from Reckitt Benckiser.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Anthony H. Harris & Elena Gospodarevskaya

  2. Turning Point Alcohol & Drug Centre, Melbourne, Australia

    Alison J. Ritter

Authors
  1. Anthony H. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Gospodarevskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alison J. Ritter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony H. Harris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harris, A.H., Gospodarevskaya, E. & Ritter, A.J. A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 77–91 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523010-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523010-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation