Buprenorphine Use and Spending for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: Trends From 2003 to 2015.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Roberts AW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6028283 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Buprenorphine Use and Spending for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: Trends From 2003 to 2015.
Roberts Andrew W AW Saloner Brendan B Dusetzina Stacie B SB
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20180508 7
<h4>Objective</h4>This study examined buprenorphine prescription uptake and expenditure trends among privately insured adults from 2003 to 2015 to inform efforts to expand opioid use disorder treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>A study with a repeated cross-sectional design using MarketScan prescription claims data was conducted to describe trends in total and new buprenorphine use and median total, plan, and out-of-pocket expenditures for a 30-day buprenorphine prescription among privately insured adults ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10082400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceNonadherence to buprenorphine may increase patient risk of opioid overdose and increase health care spending. Quantifying the impacts of nonadherence can help inform clinician practice and policy.ObjectiveTo estimate the association between buprenorphine treatment gaps, opioid overdose, and health care spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis longitudinal case-control study compared patient opioid overdose and health care spending in buprenorphine-treated months with treatment gap months. Individuals who were US Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries diagnosed with opioid use disorder who received at least 1 two-week period of continuous buprenorphine treatment between 2010 and 2017 were included. Analysis took place between January 2010 and December 2017.InterventionsA gap in buprenorphine treatment in a month lasting more than 15 consecutive days.Main outcomes and measuresOpioid overdose and total, medical, and drug spending (combined patient out-of-pocket and Medicare spending).ResultsOf 34 505 Medicare beneficiaries (17 927 [520%] male; 16 578 [48.1%] female; mean [SD] age, 49.5 [12.7] years; 168 [0.5%] Asian; 2949 [8.5%] Black; 2089 [6.0%] Hispanic; 266 [0.8%] Native American; 28 525 [82.7%] White; 508 [1.5%] other race), 11 524 beneficiaries (33.4%) experienced 1 or more buprenorphine treatment gaps. Treatment gap beneficiaries, compared with nontreatment gap beneficiaries, were more likely to be younger, be male, have a disability, and be Medicaid dual-eligible while less likely to be White, close to a buprenorphine prescriber, and treated with buprenorphine monotherapy (ie, buprenorphine hydrochloride). Beneficiaries were 2.89 (95% CI, 2.20-3.79) times more likely to experience an opioid overdose during buprenorphine treatment gap months compared with treated months. During treatment gap months, spending was $196.41 (95% CI, $110.53-$282.30) more than in treated months. Patients who continued to take buprenorphine dosages of greater than 8 mg/d and 16 mg/d were 2.61 and 2.84 times more likely to overdose in a treatment gap month, respectively, while patients taking buprenorphine dosages of 8 mg/d or less were 3.62 times more likely to overdose in a treatment gap month (maintenance of >16 mg/d: hazard ratio (HR), 2.64 [95% CI, 1.80-3.87]; maintenance of >8 mg/d: HR, 2.84 [95% CI, 2.13-3.78]; maintenance of ≤8 mg/d: HR, 3.62 [95% CI, 1.54-8.50]). Buprenorphine monotherapy was associated with greater risk of overdose and higher spending during treatment gaps months than buprenorphine/naloxone.Conclusions and relevanceMedicare patients treated with buprenorphine between 2010 and 2017 had a lower associated opioid overdose risk and spending during treatment months than treatment gap months.
| S-EPMC9535497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGabapentin prescriptions have drastically increased in the US due to off-label prescribing in settings such as opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment to manage a range of comorbid conditions and withdrawal symptoms, despite a lack of evidence.ObjectiveTo assess the purpose and associated risks of off-label gabapentin use in OUD treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective recurrent-event case-control study with a crossover design used administrative claims data from MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Individuals aged 12 to 64 years with an OUD diagnosis and filling buprenorphine prescriptions were included in the primary analysis conducted from July 1, 2022, through June 1, 2023. Unit of observation was the person-day.ExposuresDays covered by filled gabapentin prescriptions.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were receipt of gabapentin in the 90 days after initiation of buprenorphine treatment and drug-related poisoning. Drug-related poisonings were defined using codes from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision.ResultsA total of 109 407 patients were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 34.0 [11.2] years; 60 112 [54.9%] male). Among the 29 967 patients with Medicaid coverage, 299 (1.0%) were Hispanic, 1330 (4.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 23 112 (77.1%) were non-Hispanic White, and 3399 (11.3%) were other. Gabapentin was significantly less likely to be prescribed to Black or Hispanic patients, and more likely to be prescribed to female patients, those with co-occurring substance use or mood disorders, and those with comorbid physical conditions such as neuropathic pain. Nearly one-third of persons who received gabapentin (4336 [31.1%]) had at least 1 drug-related poisoning after initiating buprenorphine treatment, compared with 13 856 (14.5%) among persons who did not receive gabapentin. Adjusted analyses showed that days of gabapentin use were not associated with hospitalization for drug-related poisoning (odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.85-1.13]). Drug-related poisoning risks did not vary based on dosage.Conclusions and relevanceGabapentin is prescribed in the context of a myriad of comorbid conditions. Even though persons receiving gabapentin are more likely to have admissions for drug-related poisoning, these data suggest that gabapentin is not associated with an increased risk of drug-related poisoning alongside buprenorphine in adjusted analyses. More data on the safety profile of gabapentin in OUD settings are needed.
| S-EPMC10483381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesExpanded access to buprenorphine induction, including via emergency departments, increases the likelihood of treatment engagement for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, longer-term retention among these patients remains a challenge. In this study, we aimed to identify barriers to engaging and retaining patients with OUD in care and additional services that might improve retention.MethodsWe surveyed counselors at an urban safety net addictions treatment clinic.ResultsTwenty-five of 27 (93%) eligible counselors responded. Counselors described patients who were homeless, had no prior treatment history, or lacked health insurance as hardest to retain in treatment. Housing assistance, residential treatment placement, regular access to a phone, and mental health services were thought to be most beneficial for improving retention. Respondents most often reported that screening for services should happen at intake, and almost all respondents agreed that "retention of patients receiving treatment for OUD would improve with a dedicated case manager and/or more coordinated case management services."ConclusionsEngagement in OUD treatment would be improved with interventions to mitigate the significant social and psychiatric comorbidities of addiction. Community- and emergency department-initiated buprenorphine is a promising intervention whose full promise cannot be realized without interventions to improve treatment retention.
| S-EPMC9549700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD) are disproportionally high in subjects with opioid use disorder (OUD) relative to the general population. MDD is often more severe in OUD patients, leading to compliance issues with maintenance therapies and poor outcomes. A growing body of literature suggests that endogenous opioid system dysregulation may play a role in the emergence of MDD. Buprenorphine, a mixed opioid receptor agonist/antagonist approved for the treatment of OUD and chronic pain, may have potential as a novel therapeutic for MDD, especially for patients with a dual diagnosis of MDD and OUD. This paper presents a comprehensive review of papers relevant to the assessment of buprenorphine as a treatment for MDD, OUD, and/or suicide compiled using electronic databases per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The principal goal of this literature review was to compile the clinical studies that have interrogated the antidepressant activity of buprenorphine in opioid naïve MDD patients and OUD patients with comorbid MDD. Evidence supporting buprenorphine's superiority over methadone for treating comorbid OUD and MDD was also considered. Finally, recent evidence for the ability of buprenorphine to alleviate suicidal ideation in both opioid-naïve patients and opioid-experienced patients was evaluated. Synthesizing all of this information, buprenorphine emerges as a potentially effective therapeutic for the dual purposes of treating MDD and OUD.
| S-EPMC9518754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) in the U.S.Design setting and participantsWe performed a model-based analysis of buprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting for the U.S. population with OUD.InterventionBuprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting.MeasurementsFatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs.FindingsFor a cohort of 100,000 untreated individuals who enter OBBT, approximately 9350 overdoses would be averted over five years; of these, approximately 900 would have been fatal. OBBT compared to no treatment would yield 1.07 incremental lifetime QALYs per person at an incremental cost of $17,000 per QALY gained when using a healthcare perspective. If OBBT is half as effective and twice as expensive as assumed in the base case, the incremental cost when using a healthcare perspective is $25,500 per QALY gained. Using a limited societal perspective that additionally includes patient costs and criminal justice costs, OBBT is cost-saving compared to no treatment even under pessimistic assumptions about efficacy and cost.ConclusionsExpansion of OBBT would be highly cost-effective compared to no treatment when considered from a healthcare perspective, and cost-saving when reduced criminal justice costs are included. Given the continuing opioid crisis in the U.S., expansion of this care option should be a high priority.
| S-EPMC9852082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The severity of the ongoing opioid crisis, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizes the importance for individuals suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) to have access to and receive efficacious, evidence-based treatments. Optimal treatment of OUD should aim at blocking the effects of illicit opioids while controlling opioid craving and withdrawal to facilitate abstinence from opioid use and promote recovery. The present work analyses the relationship between buprenorphine plasma exposure and clinical efficacy in participants with moderate to severe OUD using data from two clinical studies (39 and 504 participants). Leveraging data from placebo-controlled measures assessing opioid blockade, craving, withdrawal and abstinence, we found that buprenorphine plasma concentrations sustained at 2–3 ng/ml (corresponding to ≥70% brain mu-opioid receptor occupancy) optimized treatment outcomes in the majority of participants, while some individuals (e.g., injecting opioid users) needed higher concentrations. Our work also included non-linear mixed effects modeling and survival analysis, which identified a number of demographic, genetic and social factors modulating treatment response and retention. Altogether, these findings provide key information on buprenorphine plasma levels that optimize clinical outcomes and increase the likelihood of individual treatment success. NLM identifiers: NCT02044094, NCT02357901.
| S-EPMC9715596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBuprenorphine has been approved for opioid use disorder treatment, yet remains underutilized. Cost may present a barrier; little is known about how out-of-pocket costs vary.ObjectiveTo determine if out-of-pocket costs and prescription characteristics for buprenorphine varied by type of payer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used all-payer data on retail pharmacy-dispensed buprenorphine prescriptions from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2020, for adults (aged ≥18 years) in the US, excluding formulations primarily used to treat pain. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to June 2022.ExposuresType of payer (private and commercial, self-pay, Medicaid, Medicare, assistance, and unknown) for dispensed prescription.Main outcomes and measuresAll outcomes are prescription-level. Mean and median daily out-of-pocket costs were calculated overall and by payer type. Prescription characteristics (days supplied, patient age and sex, generic vs name brand formulations, and prescriber's location) were examined by payer type.ResultsAlthough mean daily out-of-pocket costs decreased overall from $4.79 (95% CI, $4.79-$4.80) in 2015 (7 375 508 prescriptions) to $1.91 (95% CI, $1.90-$1.91) in 2020 (13 486 822 prescriptions), out-of-pocket costs continued to vary by payer in 2020. Medicaid had the lowest mean daily out-of-pocket cost across all years-$0.18 (95% CI, $0.18-$0.18) in 2015, and $0.10 (95% CI, $0.10-$0.10) in 2020. Private and commercial paid prescriptions fell from $4.80 (95% CI, $4.79-$4.81) per day in 2015 to $1.82 (95% CI, $1.82-$1.83) in 2020. Self-pay and assistance categories had the highest mean daily out-of-pocket costs across study years ($9.76 [95% CI, $9.74-$9.78] and $8.72 [95% CI, $8.71-$8.73], respectively, in 2015; $8.44 [95% CI, $8.43-$8.46] and $6.31 [95% CI, $6.30-$6.31], respectively, in 2020). Medicaid paid prescriptions had a mean supply of 15.59 days (95% CI, 15.58-15.59 days) and the lowest percentage of generic prescriptions (57.88%; 95% CI, 57.84%-57.92%). Out-of-pocket cost varied by prescriber location and patient characteristics; mean costs were highest for prescriptions written in the South ($2.91; 95% CI, $2.90-$2.91), metropolitan counties ($1.93; 95% CI, $1.93-$1.93), and for individuals aged 35 to 44 years ($2.10; 95% CI, $2.09-$2.10).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that mean daily out-of-pocket costs for buprenorphine were lower in 2020 than in 2015, but variation by payer existed in all study years. Financial barriers to accessing and maintaining buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment may exist and differ by type of prescription coverage. Future research could monitor costs and identify potential barriers that may impact access and retention in care.
| S-EPMC9918874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceState Medicaid programs have implemented initiatives to expand treatment coverage for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, some Medicaid programs still require prior authorizations (PAs) for filling buprenorphine prescriptions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the changes in buprenorphine use for OUD among Medicaid enrollees in states that completely removed buprenorphine PA requirements.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the immediate and trend changes on buprenorphine use during 2013 to 2020 associated with removal of PA requirements using a controlled interrupted time series analysis to account for autocorrelation. Data were collected from Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data for 2 states (California and Illinois) that completely removed a buprenorphine PA during the study period, and buprenorphine prescriptions for OUD treatment were identified among Medicaid enrollees.Main outcomes and measuresQuarterly total number of buprenorphine prescriptions for each state was calculated, and stratification analyses were conducted by dosage form (films and tablets).ResultsAmong the 2 state Medicaid programs (California and Illinois) that removed buprenorphine PAs, there was a total of 702 643 and 415 115 eligible buprenorphine prescription claims, respectively. After removing PA requirements for buprenorphine, there was an immediate increase that was not statistically significant (rate ratio [RR], 1.11; 95% CI, 0.76-1.61) in the number of all buprenorphine prescriptions in California and a statistically significant increase (RR, 6.99; 95% CI, 4.67-10.47) in the number of all buprenorphine prescriptions in Illinois relative to the change in the control states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Additionally, there was a statistically significant decreasing trend in the number of all buprenorphine prescriptions in California (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) and a statistically significant increasing trend in Illinois (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.19) relative to the trend in control states.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, removal of buprenorphine PA requirements was associated with a statistically significant increase in the number of buprenorphine prescription fills among Medicaid populations in 1 of the 2 included states.
| S-EPMC9233239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAlthough opioid maintenance is a first-line approach for treating opioid use disorder (OUD), suboptimal treatment outcomes have been reported among emerging adults (EAs; 18-25 years of age). In this secondary analysis, we compared treatment outcomes between EAs and older adults (OAs; ? 26 years of age) receiving low-barrier, technology-assisted Interim Buprenorphine Treatment (IBT) during waitlist delays to comprehensive opioid maintenance treatment.MethodParticipants were 35 individuals with OUD who received IBT consisting of 12-weeks of buprenorphine maintenance with bi-monthly clinic visits and technology-assisted monitoring. At monthly follow-up assessments, participants completed staff-observed urinalysis, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), and Addiction Severity Index (ASI).ResultsAt study intake, EAs (n = 10) reported greater past-year intravenous drug use and greater employment, legal, and psychiatric severity (p's < .05) compared to OAs (n = 25). Despite these initial differences, there were no significant differences in the percentages of urine specimens testing negative for illicit opioids between EA and OA participants at Study Week 4 (90 % vs. 88 %, p = .99), Week 8 (80 % vs. 76 %, p = .99) or Week 12 (60 % vs. 68 %, p = .71). Relative to their older peers, EAs also demonstrated significantly greater improvements on the BAI, BDI-II, and ASI Employment and Legal subscales (p's < .05).ConclusionsDespite presenting with greater past-year intravenous drug use and psychosocial severity relative to OAs, EAs responded favorably to the IBT intervention.
| S-EPMC7108757 | biostudies-literature