Cost-effectiveness of enhancing a Quit-and-Win smoking cessation program for college students

["Smoke-free in May 2024": concept and description of the participants]

BACKGROUND

Far too many people smoke in Germany, and the number of serious attempts to stop smoking has been falling for years.

METHODS

Smoke-free in May 2024 is a low-threshold measure to encourage people to stop smoking. Adults who "regularly" consume nicotine products as well as support persons were eligible to take part. As part of the measure, participants and supporters were offered daily support via app notifications, emails and/or WhatsApp. They were also made aware of existing stop-smoking programmes. Finally, prizes were raffled off among the successful participants.

RESULTS

A total of 6,386 individuals registered to take part. Of these, 550 individuals registered with a person of their choice to support them. Smokers were predominantly female (56.5%) and on average 42.9 (SD=13.2) years old. They came from all federal states in Germany, with a disproportionately high number from the federal states of Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hamburg and Bavaria in relation to the population distribution. Compared to a representative sample from a study by the Robert Koch Institute (2012), they reported a significantly higher subjective socio-economic status. Of the participants, 79.3% categorised their addiction as high. Regular use of more than one nicotine products occurred in 35.3% of the sample; 39.8% of the participants stated that they had not tried to stop smoking during the last 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of smokers participating in the program is encouraging. In addition to an efficacy study, it should be examined in subsequent years how more males and individuals with a low subjective social status can be encouraged to initiate smoking cessation.

Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT

Background

Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear.

Objectives

The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective.

Design

This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation.

Setting and participants

Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458).

Intervention

The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed.

Results

The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236).

Conclusions

There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective.

Limitations

Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence.

Future work

Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with varenicline for nicotine dependence compared with smoking cessation without pharmacotherapy in the real world

PURPOSE

Smoking is an important public health issue. Although measures to support smoking cessation have been implemented worldwide, smokers often fail to quit smoking after receiving pharmacotherapies for nicotine dependence. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation compared with no pharmacotherapy using actual paid medical cost data in Japan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 3657 subjects who had quit smoking with varenicline or no pharmacotherapy. We extracted health examination and medical claim data from a health insurer database for the period 2012-2015. We calculated the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of varenicline using actual paid medical costs for nicotine dependence and the number needed to treat to maintain smoking cessation compared with no pharmacotherapy, considering sex, age, income, and occupation.

RESULTS

The 1- and 2-year smoking cessation maintenance rates were 69.7% and 62.4%, respectively. We found that 8.8% of subjects who quit smoking used varenicline for nicotine dependence and the cost per person was Japanese Yen (JPY) 52 177 (U.S. dollars [USD] 474; USD 1 = JPY 110). The ICER of varenicline was dominant when comparing 2-year cessation with 1-year cessation. Male, age <40 years, low income, and manufacturing workers were the most cost-effective variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effective variables of varenicline in the real world were investigated. The results of this study strengthen the evidence regarding which type of people should be targeted for measures to support smoking cessation using varenicline.

Campus tobacco control policies and cessation interventions in college students: a commentary calling for research and action to address tobacco-related health disparities

Tobacco-related health disparities (TRHDs) have a significant impact on population health in the USA. Effectively preventing and controlling TRHDs among young adult populations require multiple prevention and cessation points, including within college/university contexts. This commentary addresses current campus tobacco control policies and cessation interventions for U.S. college students, with an emphasis on TRHDs and opportunities for research and research translation to reduce these disparities. This commentary is informed by literature published between 2010 and 2020 regarding (a) prevalence and impact of campus tobacco control policies; and/or (b) behavioral outcomes from cessation interventions for young adults attending colleges. Despite a doubling of college campuses adopting tobacco-free policies from 2012 to 2017, roughly two-thirds continue to operate without such policies. Few policies address alternative tobacco products (e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars/cigarillos, and hookah), and communication about and enforcement of existing policies is extremely limited. A broad range of cessation intervention strategies have targeted individuals in this age group, but with little focus on TRHDs and limited intervention dissemination. Importantly, college students representing populations at risk for TRHDs (e.g., racial/ethnic/sexual/gender minorities, low socioeconomic status) are less likely to be exposed to strong tobacco control policies or supports for cessation. There are untapped opportunities for behavioral medicine approaches to reduce TRHDs in college settings. Research findings regarding multilevel (policy, community-level, and individual-level) interventions must be translated to policy/practice in order to address tobacco use, particularly among vulnerable college student populations.

Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary.

METHODS

This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of public health interventions targeting alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use and problematic gambling: Using a case study to assess transferability

AIMS

To identify and assess the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions targeting the use of alcohol, illicit drugs and tobacco, as well as problematic gambling behavior (ANDTS), and consider whether the results from these evaluations are transferable to the Swedish setting.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic evaluations within the area of ANDTS was conducted including studies published between January 2000 and November 2018, identified through Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment. The quality of relevant studies and the possibilities of transferring results were assessed using criteria set out by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment.

RESULTS

Out of 54 relevant studies, 39 were of moderate to high quality and included in the review, however none for problematic gambling. Eighty-one out of a total of 91 interventions were cost-effective. The interventions largely focusing on taxed-based policies or screening and brief interventions. Thirteen of these studies were deemed to have high potential for transferability, with effect estimates considered relevant, and with good feasibility for implementation in Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions targeting alcohol- and illicit-drug use and tobacco use are cost-effective approaches, and results may be transferred to the Swedish setting. Caution must be taken regarding cost estimates and the quality of the evidence which the studies are based upon.

Sex Differences in Use of Smoking Cessation Services and Resources: A Real-World Study

Objectives:

Smoking cessation interventions with sex considerations have been found to effectively increase cessation rates. However, evidence is limited and weak. This study examined sex differences in the use of smoking cessation services or resources among Ontario adults.

Methods:

Data are from the Smokers’ Panel, an ongoing online survey of Ontario adult smokers and recent quitters. The analysis included 1009 male and 1765 female participants. Bivariate analysis was used to examine differences in sociodemographic characteristics and smoking-related variables by use of cessation services/resources. Logistic regression was then used to identify sociodemographic characteristics and smoking-related variables associated with the use of cessation services/resources.

Results:

The analysis shows that there were significant sex differences in the use of individual interventions. Female participants were more likely to use nicotine patch (63% vs 58%; adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-1.67), varenicline (29% vs 24%; AOR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.13-1.66), Smokers’ Helpline phone (14% vs 10%; AOR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07-1.79), Smokers’ Helpline online (27% vs 21%; AOR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.18-1.74), self-help materials (23% vs 16%; AOR: 1.81 95% CI: 1.46-2.26), and alternative methods (23% vs 19%; AOR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.14-1.73) compared with male participants, after adjusting for covariates.

Conclusion:

Consistent with other findings, the study shows sex differences in the use of smoking cessation services or resources among adult smokers. Women are more likely to use recommended cessation resources such as nicotine patch, varenicline, and Smokers’ Helpline than men. Health professionals should use this increased willingness to help female smokers quit. However, men may be underserved and more men-specific interventions need to be developed and evaluated.

Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up.

DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5-8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (€) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

SETTING

The study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

294 smokers aged 19-71 years were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Behaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).

RESULTS

The more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5-8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to €918 and €3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.

CONCLUSION

CEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.

Competitions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Competitions might encourage people to undertake and/or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. Competitions involve individuals or groups having the opportunity to win a prize following successful cessation, either through direct competition or by entry into a lottery or raffle.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions lead to higher long-term smoking quit rates. We also aimed to examine the impact on the population, the costs, and the unintended consequences of smoking cessation competitions.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has merged two previous Cochrane reviews. Here we include studies testing competitions from the reviews 'Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation' and 'Quit & Win interventions for smoking cessation'. We updated the evidence by searching the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures in which participants were assigned to interventions by the investigators. Participants were smokers, of any age and gender, in any setting. Eligible interventions were contests, competitions, lotteries, and raffles, to reward cessation and continuous abstinence in smoking cessation programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, data from new studies were extracted independently by two review authors. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We performed meta-analyses to pool study effects where suitable data were available and where the effect of the competition component could be separated from that of other intervention components, and report other findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Five investigated performance-based reward, where groups of smokers competed against each other to win a prize (N = 915). The remaining 15 used performance-based eligibility, where cessation resulted in entry into a prize draw (N = 10,580). Five of these used Quit & Win contests (N = 4282), of which three were population-level interventions. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and the remainder quasi-randomized or controlled trials. Six had suitable abstinence data for a meta-analysis, which did not show evidence of effectiveness of performance-based eligibility interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.74, N = 3201, I2 = 57%). No trials that used performance-based rewards found a beneficial effect of the intervention on long-term quit rates.The three population-level Quit & Win studies found higher smoking cessation rates in the intervention group (4% to 16.9%) than the control group at long-term follow-up, but none were RCTs and all had important between-group differences in baseline characteristics. These studies suggested that fewer than one in 500 smokers would quit because of the contest.Reported unintended consequences in all sets of studies generally related to discrepancies between self-reported smoking status and biochemically-verified smoking status. More serious adverse events were not attributed to the competition intervention.Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for smoking cessation as 'very low', because of the high and unclear risk of bias associated with the included studies, substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the limited population investigated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness, or a lack of it, of smoking cessation competitions. This is due to a lack of well-designed comparative studies. Smoking cessation competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. The limited evidence suggesting that population-based Quit & Win contests at local and regional level might deliver quit rates above baseline community rates has not been tested adequately using rigorous study designs. It is also unclear whether the value or frequency of possible cash reward schedules influence the success of competitions. Future studies should be designed to compensate for the substantial biases in the current evidence base.