Cited by 83Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative naloxone distribution strategies: First responder and lay distribution in the United States

Open access
Townsend, Tarlise, Blostein, Freida, Doan, Tran, Madson-Olson, Samantha, Galecki, Paige, Hutton, David W.·2020·International Journal of Drug Policy

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.07.031

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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