Babasoji E Oyemakinde, Danielle Ryan, Techna Cadet, Tyler Judge, Manesh Gopaldas, Ali Jalali, Sean M Murphy
{"title":"无阿片类药物年成本:系统回顾和总结分析。","authors":"Babasoji E Oyemakinde, Danielle Ryan, Techna Cadet, Tyler Judge, Manesh Gopaldas, Ali Jalali, Sean M Murphy","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Opioids remain a leading cause of death in the United States, and time free from opioid use is a common measure of effectiveness in economic evaluations of opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions. This study reviews the economic evaluation literature on OUD, identifies studies that calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) based on time free from opioids, and establishes a benchmark for comparison in future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review examined economic evaluations of OUD interventions published in the peer-reviewed literature from inception to September 2024. ICERs of cost per period of opioid-free time were extracted or calculated from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Monetary values were converted to 2024 USD and ICERs normalized to cost per opioid-free year (OfY). Articles were classified by intervention location (United States vs international) and economic perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 from the United States, 4 from Australia, 1 from Malaysia, and 1 from the United Kingdom. Among the US-based studies, the average ICER per OfY for the healthcare-sector, the state policymaker, and the societal perspective were $243 053/OfY, $17 674/OfY, and $32 125/OfY, respectively. For international studies, average ICERs for the healthcare-sector and societal perspectives were $79 765/OfY and $195 980/OfY, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cost per OfY is a widely used metric in economic evaluations because of its relative importance as a measure of clinical effectiveness. However, a universally accepted benchmark for decision making does not yet exist. This review aggregates data from existing studies that provided this measure, offering an initial step for establishing a cost-effectiveness threshold for cost per OfY.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406688/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost per Opioid-Free Year: A Systematic Review and Summary Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Babasoji E Oyemakinde, Danielle Ryan, Techna Cadet, Tyler Judge, Manesh Gopaldas, Ali Jalali, Sean M Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Opioids remain a leading cause of death in the United States, and time free from opioid use is a common measure of effectiveness in economic evaluations of opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions. This study reviews the economic evaluation literature on OUD, identifies studies that calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) based on time free from opioids, and establishes a benchmark for comparison in future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review examined economic evaluations of OUD interventions published in the peer-reviewed literature from inception to September 2024. ICERs of cost per period of opioid-free time were extracted or calculated from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Monetary values were converted to 2024 USD and ICERs normalized to cost per opioid-free year (OfY). Articles were classified by intervention location (United States vs international) and economic perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 from the United States, 4 from Australia, 1 from Malaysia, and 1 from the United Kingdom. Among the US-based studies, the average ICER per OfY for the healthcare-sector, the state policymaker, and the societal perspective were $243 053/OfY, $17 674/OfY, and $32 125/OfY, respectively. For international studies, average ICERs for the healthcare-sector and societal perspectives were $79 765/OfY and $195 980/OfY, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cost per OfY is a widely used metric in economic evaluations because of its relative importance as a measure of clinical effectiveness. However, a universally accepted benchmark for decision making does not yet exist. This review aggregates data from existing studies that provided this measure, offering an initial step for establishing a cost-effectiveness threshold for cost per OfY.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406688/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost per Opioid-Free Year: A Systematic Review and Summary Analysis.
Objectives: Opioids remain a leading cause of death in the United States, and time free from opioid use is a common measure of effectiveness in economic evaluations of opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions. This study reviews the economic evaluation literature on OUD, identifies studies that calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) based on time free from opioids, and establishes a benchmark for comparison in future research.
Methods: The review examined economic evaluations of OUD interventions published in the peer-reviewed literature from inception to September 2024. ICERs of cost per period of opioid-free time were extracted or calculated from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Monetary values were converted to 2024 USD and ICERs normalized to cost per opioid-free year (OfY). Articles were classified by intervention location (United States vs international) and economic perspective.
Results: Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 from the United States, 4 from Australia, 1 from Malaysia, and 1 from the United Kingdom. Among the US-based studies, the average ICER per OfY for the healthcare-sector, the state policymaker, and the societal perspective were $243 053/OfY, $17 674/OfY, and $32 125/OfY, respectively. For international studies, average ICERs for the healthcare-sector and societal perspectives were $79 765/OfY and $195 980/OfY, respectively.
Conclusions: Cost per OfY is a widely used metric in economic evaluations because of its relative importance as a measure of clinical effectiveness. However, a universally accepted benchmark for decision making does not yet exist. This review aggregates data from existing studies that provided this measure, offering an initial step for establishing a cost-effectiveness threshold for cost per OfY.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.