Office-Based Buprenorphine Versus Clinic-Based Methadone: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of clinic-based methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and office-based buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. The authors used a Markov cost-effectiveness model. A hypothetical cohort of 1000 adult, opioid-dependent patients was modeled over a 1-year time horizon. Patients were allowed to transition between the health states of in opioid dependence treatment and either abusing or not abusing opioids, or to have dropped out of treatment. Probabilities were derived from randomized clinical trials comparing methadone and buprenorphine. Costs included drug and administration, clinic visits, and therapy sessions. Effectiveness outcomes examined were (1) retention in the treatment program and (2) opioid abuse-free weeks. For retention in treatment at 1 year, MMT was more costly ($4,613 vs. $4,155) and more effective (20.3% vs. 15.9%) than BMT, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,437 per additional patient retained in treatment. MMT was also more effective than BMT in terms of opioid abuse-free weeks (9.2 vs. 9.1 weeks), resulting in an ICER of $8,515 per opioid abuse-free week gained. One-way sensitivity analyses found costs per week of MMT to have the largest impact on the retention-in-treatment outcome, whereas the probability of dropping out with MMT had the greatest impact on opioid abuse-free weeks. The authors conclude that MMT is cost-effective compared with BMT for the treatment of patients with opioid dependence. However, the treatment of substance abuse is complex, and decision makers should also consider individual patient characteristics when making coverage decisions.