Cost-effectiveness of hydromorphone for severe opioid use disorder: findings from the SALOME randomized clinical trial

Original research
par
Bansback, Nick et al

Date de publication

2018

Géographie

Canada

Langue de la ressource

English

Texte disponible en version intégrale

Non

Open Access / OK to Reproduce

Non

Évalué par des pairs

Yes

L’objectif

The current study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydromorphone directly with diacetylmorphine and indirectly with methadone maintenance treatment.

Constatations/points à retenir

The within-trial analysis found hydromorphone provided similar QALYs to diacetylmorphine [0.377, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.361–0.393 versus 0.375, 95% CI = 0.357–0.391], but accumulated marginally greater costs [$49 830 ($28 401–73 637) versus $34 320 ($21 780–55 998)]. The life-time analysis suggested that both diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone provide more benefits than methadone [8.4 (7.4–9.5) and 8.3 (7.2–9.5) versus 7.4 (6.5–8.3) QALYs] at lower cost [$1.01 million ($0.6–1.59 million) and $1.02 million ($0.72–1.51 million) versus $1.15 million ($0.71–1.84 million)]. In patients with severe opioid use disorder enrolled into the SALOME trial, injectable hydromorphone provided similar outcomes to injectable diacetylmorphine. Modelling outcomes during a patient's life-time suggested that injectable hydromorphone might provide greater benefit than methadone alone and may be cost-saving, with drug costs being offset by costs saved from reduced involvement in criminal activity.

La conception ou méthodologie de recherche

n=202 A life-time analysis extrapolated costs and outcomes using a decision analytical cohort model. The model incorporated data from a previous trial to include an indirect comparison to methadone maintenance.

Mots clés

Evidence base
Safer supply
Crime
Substitution/OAT