Economic evaluation: a comparison of methadone versus buprenorphine for opiate substitution treatment.

BACKGROUND

The cost of opiate substitution is usually considered lower in cost when methadone is used, as compared to that of buprenorphine, however the overall cost effectiveness of substitution programmes comparing the two drugs remains largely unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated the treatment cost and effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine when used in an opiate substitution programme in Norfolk, UK. All programme costs, estimated from the perspective of the drug treatment clinic, were collected on 361 opiate-dependent participants over a six-month period. Total costs comprised medication (methadone or buprenorphine) costs, pharmacy supervision and dispensing costs, and drug service clinic costs. Effectiveness was measured in terms of (1) each programmes ability to retain participants in the programme for six months, and (2) the ability of the programme to accomplish complete abstinence from illicit opiate consumption.

RESULTS

Overall, mean medication-only costs of methadone were lower than that of buprenorphine, however, pharmacy and clinic costs were lower for the buprenorphine programme. The covariate-adjusted mean total cost of the two programmes was not significantly different. Mean six-month retention rates were higher on the methadone programme, therefore, the methadone programme "dominates" the buprenorphine programme as it was slightly more effective for the same cost. Conversely, when ability to stop taking illicit opiates concomitant with opiate substitution medication was considered, the buprenorphine programme was more effective with an additional cost of £903 per individual who stopped illicit opiate use.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of buprenorphine should be considered an appropriate treatment if cessation of illicit opiate use, concomitant with programme retention is considered an important outcome.