Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative naloxone distribution strategies: First responder and lay distribution in the United States
Open accessAbstract
Background The U.S. is facing an unprecedented number of opioid-related overdose deaths, and an array of other countries have experienced increases in opioid-related fatalities. In the U.S., naloxone is increasingly distributed to first responders to improve early administration to overdose victims, but its cost-effectiveness has not been studied. Lay distribution, in contrast, has been found to be cost-effective, but rising naloxone prices and increased mortality due to synthetic opioids may reduce cost-effectiveness. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of increased naloxone distribution to (a) people likely to witness or experience overdose ("laypeople"); (b) police and firefighters; (c) emergency medical services (EMS) personnel; and (d) combinations of these groups. Methods We use a decision-analytic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of eight naloxone distribution strategies. We use a lifetime horizon and conduct both a societal analysis (accounting for productivity and criminal justice system costs) and a health sector analysis. We calculate: the ranking of strategies by net monetary benefit; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; and number of fatal overdoses. Results High distribution to all three groups maximized net monetary benefit and minimized fatal overdoses; it averted 21% of overdose deaths compared to minimum distribution. High distribution to laypeople and one of the other groups comprised the second and third best strategies. The majority of health gain…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our findings support previously published studies regarding the effectiveness of widespread naloxone distribution to people who use illicit drugs.
“Our findings support previously published studies regarding the effectiveness of widespread naloxone distribution to people who use illicit drugs [10, 15,51–54].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 83
- Authors
- Townsend, T., Blostein, F., Doan, T., Madson-Olson, S., Galecki, P., & Hutton, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Townsend, Tarlise
- Venue
- International Journal of Drug Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 75
- Pages
- 102536
- ISSN
- 0955-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2969328184
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 6.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Drug Policy (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- naloxone, cost-effectiveness, opioid overdose, first responders, emergency medical services, synthetic opioids, drug overdose deaths, net monetary benefit, criminal justice costs
- MeSH terms
- Analgesics, Opioid, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, Emergency Medical Services, Humans, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, United States, Emergency Responders, Drug Overdose
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review