Search

Background: Only 1 in 5 of the nearly 2.4 million Americans with an opioid use disorder received treatment in 2015. Fewer than half of Californians who received treatment in 2014 received opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and regulations for admission to OAT in California are more stringent than federal regulations. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of OAT for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care for patients presenting with opioid use disorder to California's publicly funded treatment facilities. Design: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Linked population-level administrative databases capturing treatment and criminal justice records for California (2006 to 2010); published literature. Target Population: Persons initially presenting for publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Immediate access to OAT with methadone for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care (54.3% initiate opioid use disorder treatment with medically managed withdrawal). Outcome Measures: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and discounted costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Immediate access to OAT for all treatment recipients costs less (by $78 257), with patients accumulating more QALYs (by 0.42) than with the observed standard of care. In a hypothetical scenario where all Californians starting treatment of opioid use disorder in 2014 had immediate access to OAT, total lifetime savings for this cohort could be as high as $3.8 billion. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: 99.6% of the 2000 simulations resulted in lower costs and more QALYs. Limitation: Nonrandomized delivery of OAT or medically managed withdrawal. Conclusion: The value of publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder in California is maximized when OAT is delivered to all patients presenting for treatment, providing greater health benefits and cost savings than the observed standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In California, Proposition 36 (Prop. 36) has led to positive outcomes for a significant pro- portion of participants-increases in drug treatment completion, reduced drug use and recidivism, and increased employment. However, there are notable differences in outcomes among Prop. 36 subgroups, with some of the poorest Outcomes observed among opioid users. This may be because very few Prop. 36 opioid users were placed in narcotic treatment programs (NTPs). Prop. 36 opioid users who were placed in NTPs using methadone had the greatest reductions in opioid use from treatment intake to discharge, as compared to Prop. 36 opioid users who received outpatient drug-free or residential treat- ment. As such, NTPs should be considered to be a highly efficacious and viable treatment option for Prop. 36 opioid users. Thus, to improve treatment outcomes among Prop. 36 opioid users, it is essential that the provision and utilization of NTPs be enhanced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Representing a major shift in criminal justice policy, Proposition 36 became law in November 2000 as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), permitting eligible offenders to receive probation with drug treatment instead of probation or incarceration. UCLA's Integrated Substance Abuse Programs was chosen by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to conduct an independent evaluation of SACPA. Analysis of the first three years of data provides information on the flow of offenders through SACPA, client and program characteristics, treatment completion rates, and effects on re-offending. Results show that most eligible offenders chose to participate in SACPA; almost two-thirds of these went on to enter treatment. Compared to other treatment clients, SACPA treatment clients included fewer women, were predominately between 26 and 45 years old, were more likely to use methamphetamine, and had been using drugs a longer. Most SACPA clients were referred to outpatient drug-free treatment regardless of primary drug problem, and about one-third completed treatment. Re-offending was lowest among SACPA offenders who completed treatment. Felony and misdemeanor drug arrests were higher among SACPA-era drug offenders than in a similar group of pre-SACPA drug offenders. Future reports will cover possible SACPA cost savings, additional clients outcomes, and overall lessons learned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluates HIV/AIDS risk-reduction interventions for clients enrolled in drug abuse treatment programs using a treatment-comparison group design. Characteristics of HIV risk-reduction and risk-reduction intervention studies; Weighted correlation of effect sizes with hypothesized and exploratory study variables.

Background California treats the largest population of opioid dependent individuals in the USA and is among a small group of states that applies regulations for opioid treatment that are more stringent than existing federal regulations. We aim to characterize changes in patient characteristics and treatment utilization over time, and identify determinants of successful completion of detoxification and MMT retention in repeated attempts. Methods State-wide administrative data was obtained from California Outcome Measurement System during the period: January 1st, 1991–March 31st, 2012. Short-term detoxification treatment and long-term maintenance treatment, primarily with methadone, was available to study participants. Mixed effects regression models were used to define determinants of successful completion of the detoxification treatment protocol (as classified by treatment staff) and duration of maintenance treatment. Results The study sample consisted of 237,709 unique individuals and 885,971 treatment episodes; 837% were detoxification treatment episodes in 1994, dropping to 40.5% in 2010. Among individuals accessing only detoxification, the adjusted odds of success declined with each successive attempt (vs. 1st attempt: 2nd: OR: 0.679; 95% CI (0.610, 0.755); 3rd: 0.557 (0.484, 0.641); 4th: 0.526 (0.445, 0.622); 5th: 0.407 (0.334, 0.497); ≥6th: 0.339 (0.288, 0.399). For those ever accessing maintenance treatment, later subsequent attempts were longer in duration, and those with two or more prior attempts at detoxification had marginally longer subsequent maintenance episodes (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99). Finally, only 10.9% of all detoxification episodes were followed by admission into maintenance treatment within 14 days. Conclusions This study has revealed high rates of detoxification treatment for opioid dependence in California throughout the study period, and decreasing odds of success in repeated attempts at detoxification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A meta-analysis was conducted on 78 studies of drug treatment conducted between 1965 and 1996. Each study compared outcomes among clients who received drug treatment with outcomes among clients who received either minimal treatment or no treatment. Five methodological variables were significant predictors of effect size. Larger effect sizes were associated with studies with the following characteristics: smaller numbers of dependent variables, significant differences between groups at admission, low levels of attrition in the treatment group, a passive comparison group (no treatment, minimal treatment) as opposed to an active comparison group (standard treatment), and drug use determined by a drug test. Controlling for these methodological variables, further analyses indicated that drug abuse treatment has both a statistically significant and a clinically meaningful effect in reducing drug use and crime, and that these effects are unlikely to be due to publication bias. For substance abuse outcomes, larger effect sizes tended to be found in studies in which treatment implementation was rated high, the degree of theoretical development of the treatment was rated low, or researcher allegiance to the treatment was rated as favorable. For crime outcomes, only the average age of study participants was a significant predictor of effect size, with treatment reducing crime to a greater degree among studies with samples consisting of younger adults as opposed to older adults. Treatment modality and other variables were not related to effect sizes for either drug use or crime outcomes [Copyright &y& Elsevier]