Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions.

Sean M Murphy, Daniel Polsky
{"title":"Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions.","authors":"Sean M Murphy, Daniel Polsky","doi":"10.1007/s40273-016-0400-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The economic costs associated with opioid misuse are immense. Effective interventions for opioid use disorders are available; however, given the scarce resources faced by substance use treatment providers and payers of all kinds, evidence of effectiveness is not always sufficient to encourage adoption of a given therapy-nor should it be. Economic evaluations can provide evidence that will help stakeholders efficiently allocate their resources.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to review the literature on economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review of the major electronic databases from inception until August 2015. A sensitive approach was used to ensure a comprehensive list of relevant articles. Given the quality of the existing reviews, we narrowed our search to studies published since 2007. The Drummond checklist was used to evaluate and categorize economic evaluation studies according to their quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 98 articles were identified as potentially relevant to the current study. Of these 98 articles, half (n = 49) were included in this study. Six of the included articles were reviews. The remaining 43 articles reported economic evaluation studies of interventions for opioid use disorders. In general, the evidence on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) supports previous findings that MMT is an economically advantageous opioid use disorder therapy. The economic literature comparing MMT with other opioid use disorder pharmacotherapies is limited, as is the literature on other forms of therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the possible exception of MMT, additional high-quality economic evaluations are needed in order to assess the relative value of existing opioid use disorder interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":92896,"journal":{"name":"Forestry studies in China","volume":"7 1","pages":"863-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0400-5","citationCount":"78","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forestry studies in China","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0400-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 78

Abstract

Background: The economic costs associated with opioid misuse are immense. Effective interventions for opioid use disorders are available; however, given the scarce resources faced by substance use treatment providers and payers of all kinds, evidence of effectiveness is not always sufficient to encourage adoption of a given therapy-nor should it be. Economic evaluations can provide evidence that will help stakeholders efficiently allocate their resources.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literature on economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of the major electronic databases from inception until August 2015. A sensitive approach was used to ensure a comprehensive list of relevant articles. Given the quality of the existing reviews, we narrowed our search to studies published since 2007. The Drummond checklist was used to evaluate and categorize economic evaluation studies according to their quality.

Results: A total of 98 articles were identified as potentially relevant to the current study. Of these 98 articles, half (n = 49) were included in this study. Six of the included articles were reviews. The remaining 43 articles reported economic evaluation studies of interventions for opioid use disorders. In general, the evidence on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) supports previous findings that MMT is an economically advantageous opioid use disorder therapy. The economic literature comparing MMT with other opioid use disorder pharmacotherapies is limited, as is the literature on other forms of therapy.

Conclusion: With the possible exception of MMT, additional high-quality economic evaluations are needed in order to assess the relative value of existing opioid use disorder interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿片类药物使用障碍干预的经济评估。
背景:与阿片类药物滥用相关的经济成本是巨大的。有针对阿片类药物使用障碍的有效干预措施;然而,鉴于药物使用治疗提供者和所有类型的付款人所面临的资源稀缺,有效性的证据并不总是足以鼓励采用某种治疗方法——也不应该如此。经济评价可以提供证据,帮助利益相关者有效地分配资源。目的:本研究的目的是回顾阿片类药物使用障碍干预的经济评估文献。方法:我们对主要电子数据库从建立到2015年8月进行了系统回顾。采用了一种敏感的办法,以确保有一份有关条款的全面清单。考虑到现有综述的质量,我们将搜索范围缩小到2007年以来发表的研究。采用Drummond检查表对经济评价研究的质量进行评价和分类。结果:共有98篇文章被确定可能与本研究相关。在这98篇文章中,有一半(n = 49)被纳入本研究。纳入的文章中有6篇是综述。其余43篇文章报道了阿片类药物使用障碍干预措施的经济评估研究。总的来说,美沙酮维持治疗(MMT)的证据支持先前的发现,即MMT是一种经济上有利的阿片类药物使用障碍治疗。比较MMT与其他阿片类药物使用障碍药物治疗的经济文献是有限的,其他形式的治疗文献也是如此。结论:为了评估现有阿片类药物使用障碍干预措施的相对价值,除了MMT之外,还需要额外的高质量经济评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions. Long-term effect of fire on herbaceous species diversity in oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forests in northern Iran Observations on bud burst phenology in a field trial established with Poplar (Populus spp.) Cloning and analysis of cross-intron genomic gene encoding ACO in Paeonia suffruticosa Andr. Productivity and energy balance of forest plantation harvesting in Uganda
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1