We investigated prescribing patterns for four opioid use disorder (OUD) medications: 1) injectable naltrexone, 2) oral naltrexone, 3) sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, and 4) sublingual buprenorphine as well as transdermal buprenorphine (which is approved for treating pain, but not OUD) in a nationally representative claims-based database (Truven Health MarketScan®) of commercially insured individuals in the United States. We calculated the prevalence of OUD in the database for each year from 2010 to 2014 and the proportion of diagnosed patient months on OUD medication. We compared characteristics of individuals diagnosed with OUD who did and did not receive these medications with bivariate descriptive statistics. Finally, we fit a Cox proportional hazards model of time to discontinuation of therapy as a function of therapy type, controlling for relevant confounders. From 2010 to 2014, the proportion of commercially insured individuals diagnosed with OUD grew by fourfold (0.12% to 0.48%), but the proportion of diagnosed patient-months on medication decreased from 25% in 2010 (0.05% injectable naltrexone, 0.4% oral naltrexone, 23.1% sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 1.5% sublingual buprenorphine, and 0% transdermal buprenorphine) to 16% in 2014 (0.2% injectable naltrexone, 0.4% oral naltrexone, 13.8% sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 1.4% sublingual buprenorphine, and 0.3% transdermal buprenorphine). Individuals who received medication therapy were more likely to be male, younger, and have an additional substance use disorder compared with those diagnosed with OUD who did not receive medication therapy. Those prescribed injectable naltrexone were more often male, younger, and diagnosed with additional substance use disorders compared with those prescribed other medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs). At 30 days after initiation, 52% for individuals treated with injectable naltrexone, 70% for individuals treated with oral naltrexone, 31% for individuals treated with sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 58% for individuals treated with sublingual buprenorphine, and 51% for individuals treated with transdermal buprenorphine discontinued treatment. In the Cox proportional hazard model, use of injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, sublingual buprenorphine, and transdermal buprenorphine were all associated with significantly greater hazard of discontinuing therapy beginning >30days after MOUD initiation (HR=2.17, 2.54, 1.15, and 2.21, respectively, 95% CIs 2.04-2.30, 2.45-2.64, 1.10-1.19, and 2.11-2.33), compared with the use of sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone. This analysis demonstrates that the use of evidence-based medication therapies has not kept pace with increases in OUD diagnoses in commercially insured populations in the United States. Among those who have been treated, discontinuation rates >30days after initiation are high. The proportion treated with injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, and transdermal buprenorphine grew ...

Background Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3 can be treated with sofosbuvir without interferon. Because sofosbuvir is costly, its benefits should be compared with the additional resources used. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection in the United States. Design Monte Carlo simulation, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Data Sources Randomized trials, observational cohorts, and national health care spending surveys. Target Population 8 patient types defined by HCV genotype (2 vs. 3), treatment history (naive vs. experienced), and cirrhosis status (noncirrhotic vs. cirrhotic). Time Horizon Lifetime. Perspective Payer. Intervention Sofosbuvir-based therapies, pegylated interferon–ribavirin, and no therapy. Outcome Measures Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results of Base-Case Analysis The ICER of sofosbuvir-based treatment was less than $100 000 per QALY in cirrhotic patients (genotype 2 or 3 and treatment-naive or treatment-experienced) and in treatment-experienced noncirrhotic patients but was greater than $200 000 per QALY in treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients. Results of Sensitivity Analysis The ICER of sofosbuvir-based therapy for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection was less than $100 000 per QALY when the cost of sofosbuvir was reduced by approximately 40% and 60%, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, cost-effectiveness conclusions were robust to uncertainty in treatment efficacy. Limitation The analysis did not consider possible benefits of preventing HCV transmission. Conclusion Sofosbuvir provides good value for money for treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection and those with cirrhosis. At their current cost, sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients exceed willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly cited in the United States. Primary Funding Source National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.