Plain Language Summary

What is it about? The study examines the economic evaluations of treatments for opioid use disorder, focusing on time free from opioid use as a measure of effectiveness. This topic is crucial because opioid use remains a leading cause of death in the United States, with significant economic impacts. The researchers aimed to address the lack of a standardized measure for comparing the cost-effectiveness of opioid use disorder interventions. By reviewing existing literature, this study takes an initial step toward defining cost per opioid-free year thresholds specific to opioid use disorder interventions.

How was the research conducted? The study is based on a systematic review of existing economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions. Researchers collected data from 14 studies published up to September 2024, focusing on those calculating the cost per opioid-free time. They converted monetary values to 2024 US dollars and standardized the cost per opioid-free year. The researchers categorized articles by location, stakeholder perspective (healthcare, state policy makers, and societal), and time period covered (intervention, intervention + follow-up). This method was chosen to provide a comprehensive view of the economic evaluations and identify trends across different regions and perspectives.

What were the results? The main finding is the significant variation in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios across studies. The average cost per opioid-free year was higher in US-based studies compared to international ones, reflecting differences in healthcare costs. US studies showed costs ranging from $17,674 to $243,053 per opioid-free year, while international studies ranged from $79,765 to $195,980. An interesting finding was that interventions in criminal-legal settings had lower costs compared to outpatient settings.

Why are the results important? These results are significant because they provide a foundation for setting cost-effectiveness benchmarks, which can guide real-life decision making. In practice, these findings can help policy makers allocate resources more effectively among opioid use disorder treatments. Patients and healthcare providers can benefit from interventions that are both economically viable and clinically effective. In the long-term, establishing benchmarks for cost per opioid-free year could enhance the evaluation of treatment options and improve public health outcomes.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study? A key strength of this study is its comprehensive analysis of economic evaluations from a wide range of sources. However, the main limitation is the small number of studies included, which limits the ability to draw broad conclusions. Future research could expand this work by incorporating more studies and exploring the cost-effectiveness of various treatment settings and perspectives. This would provide a more detailed understanding and help establish more precise benchmarks for opioid-free year measurements.

In summary, this study highlights the importance of using the cost per opioid-free year as a metric for evaluating opioid use disorder interventions. By providing a range of cost-effectiveness ratios, it offers a starting point for establishing benchmarks and guiding decision making in healthcare policy and practice.

^{Note: This content was created with assistance from artificial intelligence (AI) and has been reviewed and edited by ISPOR staff. For more information or for inquiries on ISPOR’s AI policy, click here or contact us at info@ispor.org.}