Cost-Effectiveness and Guidelines for Opioid Substitution Treatment

There was evidence indicating that in the treatment of opioid use disorder, injectable hydromorphone, or injectable methadone provided more benefit at less cost compared with injectable diacetylmorphine over a 6-month time horizon. Evidence suggests that in the treatment of opioid use disorder, both injectable hydromorphone and injectable diacetylmorphine are likely to provide more benefit at less cost than methadone maintenance treatment. Treatment with injectable hydromorphone was more cost-effective than injectable diacetylmorphine in opioid use disorder patients who do not respond to or relapse from drug treatments. The evidence is limited because observed data were collected during a short-term follow-up, and long-term cost-effectiveness outcomes were based on extrapolations beyond data from the actual studies.