Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment

Bohdan Nosyk, Daphne P. Guh, Nicholas J. Bansback, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Suzanne Brissette, David C. Marsh, Evan Meikleham, Martin T. Schechter and Aslam H. Anis
CMAJ April 03, 2012 184 (6) E317-E328; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.110669
Bohdan Nosyk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daphne P. Guh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas J. Bansback
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suzanne Brissette
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David C. Marsh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evan Meikleham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin T. Schechter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aslam H. Anis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: aslam.anis@ubc.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Although diacetylmorphine has been proven to be more effective than methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence, its direct costs are higher. We compared the cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine and methadone maintenance treatment for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment.

Methods: We constructed a semi-Markov cohort model using data from the North American Opiate Medication Initiative trial, supplemented with administrative data for the province of British Columbia and other published data, to capture the chronic, recurrent nature of opioid dependence. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to compare diacetylmorphine and methadone over 1-, 5-, 10-year and lifetime horizons.

Results: Diacetylmorphine was found to be a dominant strategy over methadone maintenance treatment in each of the time horizons. Over a lifetime horizon, our model showed that people receiving methadone gained 7.46 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) on average (95% credibility interval [CI] 6.91–8.01) and generated a societal cost of $1.14 million (95% CI $736 800–$1.78 million). Those who received diacetylmorphine gained 7.92 discounted QALYs on average (95% CI 7.32–8.53) and generated a societal cost of $1.10 million (95% CI $724 100–$1.71 million). Cost savings in the diacetylmorphine cohort were realized primarily because of reductions in the costs related to criminal activity. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of diacetylmorphine being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $0 per QALY gained was 76%; the probability was 95% at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Results were confirmed over a range of sensitivity analyses.

Interpretation: Using mathematical modelling to extrapolate results from the North American Opiate Medication Initiative, we found that diacetylmorphine may be more effective and less costly than methadone among people with chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment.

View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 184 (6)
CMAJ
Vol. 184, Issue 6
3 Apr 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment
Bohdan Nosyk, Daphne P. Guh, Nicholas J. Bansback, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Suzanne Brissette, David C. Marsh, Evan Meikleham, Martin T. Schechter, Aslam H. Anis
CMAJ Apr 2012, 184 (6) E317-E328; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110669

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment
Bohdan Nosyk, Daphne P. Guh, Nicholas J. Bansback, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Suzanne Brissette, David C. Marsh, Evan Meikleham, Martin T. Schechter, Aslam H. Anis
CMAJ Apr 2012, 184 (6) E317-E328; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110669
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Supervised injectable opioid agonist therapy in a supported housing setting for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder
  • Heroin on trial: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of diamorphine-prescribing as treatment for refractory heroin addiction
  • Drug users should be able to get heroin from the health system
  • A Call For Evidence-Based Medical Treatment Of Opioid Dependence In The United States And Canada
  • Treating opioid addiction
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Emergency department use following incentives to provide after-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort study
  • Physician choices in pulmonary embolism testing
  • Diagnosis-wide analysis of COVID-19 complications: an exposure-crossover study
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Public health
    • Addiction medicine

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire