Analisi dei costi di buprenorfina vs metadone nella terapia dei soggetti con dipendenza da oppiacei
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7175/fe.v4i4.778Abstract
In the last decades, methadone has virtually represented the only available option for the treatment of opioid addicts in Italy. Early in the year 2000 buprenorphine has been introduced on the market as a possible alternative to methadone. While most of the research conducted so far in our country has focused on possible differences in clinical outcomes, depending on the pharmacological differences among the two molecules, the economical aspects of the choice between the two drugs have barely been addressed. In this paper we present a pharmacoeconomical comparison between buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of heroin dependence by the Italian health service, adopting the perspective of the Society. For this purpose, we constructed a decision analysis model comprising the possible clinical pathways a patient can go through following the inclusion in the therapeutic programs of the SerT. Two types of incremental costs have been considered in the model: direct health costs, i.e. drug acquisition and medical staff costs, and indirect cost, due to loss of working hours for the administration of the drug. The analysis was conducted with a cost-minimization approach, mandatory in the absence of reliable data on clinical differences, and with a time perspective of 12 months. Our results indicate that buprenorphine, despite its higher pharmaceutical cost, is the more convenient option for the treatment of opioid dependence in Italy, as it permits a significant saving of productivity losses. The difference in indirect costs relies on the shorter mean treatment time with buprenorphine and on the possibility of reducing dosing frequency, which allows many patients to attend health services only thrice in week, instead of the daily visits to the SerT necessary for most methadone-treated patients. The results were challenged in a series of sensibility analysis conducted on all relevant and uncertain paramenters, and in no case the option methadone resulted more convenient than buprenorphine, confirming the reliability of the results obtained in the base case scenario.Downloads
Published
2003-12-15
How to Cite
Colombo, G. L., Faillace, G., & Ferdico, M. (2003). Analisi dei costi di buprenorfina vs metadone nella terapia dei soggetti con dipendenza da oppiacei. Farmeconomia. Health Economics and Therapeutic Pathways, 4(4), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.7175/fe.v4i4.778
Issue
Section
Review (Economic Analysis)
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. The Publication Agreement can be downloaded here, and should be signed by the Authors and sent to the Publisher when the article has been accepted for publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
- Authors are permitted to post their work online after publication (the article must link to publisher version, in html format)