Cost-effectiveness of varenicline and three different behavioral treatment formats for smoking cessation

Cost-Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Primary Care Smoking Treatment Program

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness from a healthcare system perspective of a comprehensive primary care intervention to reduce smoking rates.

METHODS

This pragmatic trial implemented electronic health record prompts during primary care visits and employed certified tobacco cessation specialists to offer proactive outreach and smoking cessation treatment to patients who smoke. The data, analyzed in 2022, included 10,683 patients in the smoking registry from 2017 to 2020. Pre-post analyses compared intervention costs to treatment engagement, successful self-reported smoking cessation, and acute health care utilization (urgent care, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalization). Cost per quality-adjusted life year was determined by applying conversion factors obtained from the tobacco research literature to the cost per patient who quit smoking.

RESULTS

Tobacco cessation outreach, medication, and counseling costs increased from $2.64 to $6.44 per patient per month, for a total post-implementation intervention cost of $500,216. Smoking cessation rates increased from 1.3% pre-implementation to 8.7% post-implementation, for an incremental effectiveness of 7.4%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $628 (95% CI: $568, $695) per person who quit smoking, and $905 (95% CI: $822, $1,001) per quality-adjusted life year gained. Acute health care costs decreased by an average of $42 (95% CI: -$59, $145) per patient per month for patients in the smoking registry.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a comprehensive and proactive smoking cessation outreach and treatment program for adult primary care patients who smoke meets typical cost-effectiveness thresholds for healthcare.

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.

Financial incentives to Medicaid smokers for engaging tobacco quit line treatment: maximising return on investment

BACKGROUND

Low-income smokers experience greater difficulty in quitting smoking than do other smokers. Providing financial incentives for treatment engagement increases smoking cessation success. This study models the cost-effectiveness of varying levels of financial incentives to maximise return on investment (ROI) for engaging low-income Medicaid recipients who smoke to take calls from a tobacco quit line.

METHODS

Participants (N=1900) were recruited from May 2013 to June 2015 through quit line-based (n=980), clinic-based (n=444) or community-based referrals (n=476) into the Wisconsin Medicaid Quit Line Incentive project. Incentive (n=948) and control group participants (n=952) received $30 versus $0 per call, respectively, for taking up to five Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (WTQL) calls. Cost-effectiveness analyses estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for alternative financial incentives for engagement with WTQL calls. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to determine an optimal strategy for financial incentives to minimise the cost per individual who quit smoking.

RESULTS

Using fixed payments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2316 per smoker who quit in the randomised trial decreased to $2150 per smoker who quit when the incentives were modelled at $20 per each of five WTQL calls taken. Using variable payments, the minimal cost per additional smoker who quit was $2125 when incentives for the first four WTQL calls were set at $20, and the financial payment for the fifth WTQL call was set at $70.

CONCLUSIONS

Modelling suggests that financial incentives in the amount of $20 per call for taking the first four quit line calls and $70 for taking a fifth quit line call maximise ROI to engage low-income smokers with evidence-based smoking cessation treatment.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

Paying Low-Income Smokers to Quit? The Cost-Effectiveness of Incentivizing Tobacco Quit Line Engagement for Medicaid Recipients Who Smoke

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of an incentive-based stop-smoking intervention that paid Medicaid recipients who smoke to take calls from a tobacco quit line.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. The analysis was conducted from a health care systems perspective on the basis of costs and effectiveness over a 6-month follow-up. Participants (n = 1900) were recruited from May 2013 to June 2015 through quit line (n = 980), clinic-based (n = 444), or community-based (n = 476) referrals. Incentive group participants (n = 948) received $30 a call for taking up to five tobacco quit line calls and $40 for biochemically verified tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Control group participants (n = 952) did not receive financial incentives for taking quit line calls. Intervention resource costs included incentive payments to participants, counselor and administrative staff time, and smoking cessation medications. Smoking status at baseline and 6 months was determined for all study participants via carbon monoxide (CO) breath tests (abstinence: CO < 7 ppm). Cost-effectiveness analysis calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Incentive treatment produced higher 6-month CO-confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence than did the control treatment (21.6 vs. 13.8%; P < 0.001). The ICER of the financial incentives intervention was $2316 (95% confidence interval $1582-$4270) per additional person who quit. The study ICER compares favorably with other smoking treatments, such as varenicline combined with proactive telephone counseling, whose ICER has been estimated at $2600 per additional smoker who quits.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of financial incentives to engage with tobacco quit line treatment is a cost-effective option to enhance smoking cessation rates for low-income smokers.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Health System-Based Smoking Cessation Program

Introduction

Project CLIQ (Community Link to Quit) was a proactive population-outreach strategy using an electronic health records-based smoker registry and interactive voice recognition technology to connect low- to moderate-income smokers with cessation counseling, medications, and social services. A randomized trial demonstrated that the program increased cessation. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CLIQ from a provider organization's perspective if implemented outside the trial framework.

Methods

We calculated the cost, cost per smoker, incremental cost per additional quit, and, secondarily, incremental cost per additional life year saved of the CLIQ system compared to usual care using data from a 2011-2013 randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of the CLIQ system. Sensitivity analyses considered economies of scale and initial versus ongoing costs.

Results

Over a 20-month period (the duration of the trial) the program cost US $283 027 (95% confidence interval [CI] $209 824-$389 072) more than usual care in a population of 8544 registry-identified smokers, 707 of whom participated in the program. The cost per smoker was $33 (95% CI 28-40), incremental cost per additional quit was $4137 (95% CI $2671-$8460), and incremental cost per additional life year saved was $7301 (95% CI $4545-$15 400). One-time costs constituted 28% of costs over 20 months. Ongoing costs were dominated by personnel costs (71% of ongoing costs). Sensitivity analyses showed sharp gains in cost-effectiveness as the number of identified smokers increased because of the large initial costs.

Conclusions

The CLIQ system has favorable cost-effectiveness compared to other smoking cessation interventions. Cost-effectiveness will be greatest for health systems with high numbers of smokers and with the high smoker participation rates.

Implications

Health information systems capable of establishing registries of patients who are smokers are becoming more prevalent. This economic analysis illustrates the cost implications for health care systems adopting a proactive tobacco treatment outreach strategy for low- and middle-income smokers. We find that under many circumstances, the CLIQ system has a favorable cost-per-quit compared to other population-based tobacco treatment strategies. The strategy could be widely disseminable if health systems leverage economies of scale.

Evaluation of a population-level strategy to promote tobacco treatment use among insured smokers: a pragmatic, randomized trial

Background

Most smokers do not use evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Increasing utilization of these services is an important public health goal. Health care systems and insurers are well positioned to support this goal within their patient populations. We tested whether a brief, mail-based intervention increased utilization of tobacco cessation services among insured smokers.

Methods

Adult smokers were identified via automated health plan data and randomized to one of five treatment arms (n = 4767). Randomization was stratified by gender, age, and type of health plan coverage. Three arms received a letter containing motivational content and treatment referral information. Motivational content emphasized either the financial, health, or values-based benefits of quitting. One arm received a referral letter with no motivational content, and one arm received no letter. Enrollment in the referred tobacco cessation program was monitored for 5 months. Treatment was available to all participants through their insurance.

Results

Across all four letter conditions, 0.8% of participants enrolled in tobacco treatment compared to 0.9% in the no letter reference group (p = .69). No single letter condition was superior to the others (p = .71), but treatment uptake was greater among participants who received their care and coverage from the health plan versus those with insurance coverage only (1.2% vs. 0.3%, p < .01).

Conclusions

A one-time, mailed letter is not a cost-effective strategy for promoting use of covered smoking cessation treatment within large health plan populations, particularly when the message source is an insurance provider only and does not also provide clinical care. Health plans and insurers should consider alternative outreach efforts to promote treatment uptake among smokers.

Trial registrations

TRN registered retrospectively with ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com). Registered on 11/01/2018. Registration number: ISRCTN32311137.

Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is estimated to kill 7 million people a year. Nicotine is highly addictive, but surveys indicate that almost 70% of US and UK smokers would like to stop smoking. Although many smokers attempt to give up on their own, advice from a health professional increases the chances of quitting. As of 2016 there were 3.5 billion Internet users worldwide, making the Internet a potential platform to help people quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation, whether intervention effectiveness is altered by tailoring or interactive features, and if there is a difference in effectiveness between adolescents, young adults, and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which included searches of MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (through OVID). There were no restrictions placed on language, publication status or publication date. The most recent search was conducted in August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were people who smoked, with no exclusions based on age, gender, ethnicity, language or health status. Any type of Internet intervention was eligible. The comparison condition could be a no-intervention control, a different Internet intervention, or a non-Internet intervention. To be included, studies must have measured smoking cessation at four weeks or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed and extracted data. We extracted and, where appropriate, pooled smoking cessation outcomes of six-month follow-up or more, reporting short-term outcomes narratively where longer-term outcomes were not available. We reported study effects as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).We grouped studies according to whether they (1) compared an Internet intervention with a non-active control arm (e.g. printed self-help guides), (2) compared an Internet intervention with an active control arm (e.g. face-to-face counselling), (3) evaluated the addition of behavioural support to an Internet programme, or (4) compared one Internet intervention with another. Where appropriate we grouped studies by age.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 67 RCTs, including data from over 110,000 participants. We pooled data from 35,969 participants.There were only four RCTs conducted in adolescence or young adults that were eligible for meta-analysis.Results for trials in adults: Eight trials compared a tailored and interactive Internet intervention to a non-active control. Pooled results demonstrated an effect in favour of the intervention (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30, n = 6786). However, statistical heterogeneity was high (I2 = 58%) and was unexplained, and the overall quality of evidence was low according to GRADE. Five trials compared an Internet intervention to an active control. The pooled effect estimate favoured the control group, but crossed the null (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, n = 3806, I2 = 0%); GRADE quality rating was moderate. Five studies evaluated an Internet programme plus behavioural support compared to a non-active control (n = 2334). Pooled, these studies indicated a positive effect of the intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.18). Although statistical heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 60%) and was unexplained, the GRADE rating was moderate. Four studies evaluated the Internet plus behavioural support compared to active control. None of the studies detected a difference between trial arms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18, n = 2769, I2 = 0%); GRADE rating was moderate. Seven studies compared an interactive or tailored Internet intervention, or both, to an Internet intervention that was not tailored/interactive. Pooled results favoured the interactive or tailored programme, but the estimate crossed the null (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.22, n = 14,623, I2 = 0%); GRADE rating was moderate. Three studies compared tailored with non-tailored Internet-based messages, compared to non-tailored messages. The tailored messages produced higher cessation rates compared to control, but the estimate was not precise (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41, n = 4040), and there was evidence of unexplained substantial statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 57%); GRADE rating was low.Results should be interpreted with caution as we judged some of the included studies to be at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials in adults suggests that interactive and tailored Internet-based interventions with or without additional behavioural support are moderately more effective than non-active controls at six months or longer, but there was no evidence that these interventions were better than other active smoking treatments. However some of the studies were at high risk of bias, and there was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity. Treatment effectiveness in younger people is unknown.

Medical costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with smoking: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Estimated medical costs ("T") and QALYs ("Q") associated with smoking are frequently used in cost-utility analyses of tobacco control interventions. The goal of this study was to understand how researchers have addressed the methodological challenges involved in estimating these parameters.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a systematic review of tobacco modeling studies. We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 with no date restrictions and synthesized studies qualitatively. Studies were eligible for the current analysis if they were U.S.-based, provided an estimate for Q, and used a societal perspective and lifetime analytic horizon to estimate T. We identified common methods and frequently cited sources used to obtain these estimates.

RESULTS

Across all 18 studies included in this review, 50 % cited a 1992 source to estimate the medical costs associated with smoking and 56 % cited a 1996 study to derive the estimate for QALYs saved by quitting or preventing smoking. Approaches for estimating T varied dramatically among the studies included in this review. T was valued as a positive number, negative number and $0; five studies did not include estimates for T in their analyses. The most commonly cited source for Q based its estimate on the Health Utilities Index (HUI). Several papers also cited sources that based their estimates for Q on the Quality of Well-Being Scale and the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D).

CONCLUSIONS

Current estimates of the lifetime medical care costs and the QALYs associated with smoking are dated and do not reflect the latest evidence on the health effects of smoking, nor the current costs and benefits of smoking cessation and prevention. Given these limitations, we recommend that researchers conducting economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions perform extensive sensitivity analyses around these parameter estimates.

Economic evaluations of Internet interventions for mental health: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Internet interventions are assumed to be cost-effective. However, it is unclear how strong this evidence is, and what the quality of this evidence is.

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search (1990-2014) in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment Database, Office of Health Economics Evaluations Database, Compendex and Inspec was conducted. We included economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials of Internet interventions for a range of mental health symptoms compared to a control group, consisting of a psychological or pharmaceutical intervention, treatment-as-usual (TAU), wait-list or an attention control group.

RESULTS

Of the 6587 abstracts identified, 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies featured a societal perspective. Results demonstrated that guided Internet interventions for depression, anxiety, smoking cessation and alcohol consumption had favourable probabilities of being more cost-effective when compared to wait-list, TAU, group cognitive behaviour therapy (CBGT), attention control, telephone counselling or unguided Internet CBT. Unguided Internet interventions for suicide prevention, depression and smoking cessation demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to TAU or attention control. In general, results from cost-utility analyses using more generic health outcomes (quality of life) were less favourable for unguided Internet interventions. Most studies adhered reasonably to economic guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of guided Internet interventions being cost-effective are promising with most studies adhering to publication standards, but more economic evaluations are needed in order to determine cost-effectiveness of Internet interventions compared to the most cost-effective treatment currently available.

The Economic Impact of Smoking and of Reducing Smoking Prevalence: Review of Evidence

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year.

OBJECTIVES

This paper examines global and UK evidence on the economic impact of smoking prevalence and evaluates the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of smoking cessation measures.

STUDY SELECTION

SEARCH METHODS We used two major health care/economic research databases, namely PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) database that contains the British National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database; Cochrane Library of systematic reviews in health care and health policy; and other health-care-related bibliographic sources. We also performed hand searching of relevant articles, health reports, and white papers issued by government bodies, international health organizations, and health intervention campaign agencies. SELECTION CRITERIA The paper includes cost-effectiveness studies from medical journals, health reports, and white papers published between 1992 and July 2014, but included only eight relevant studies before 1992. Most of the papers reviewed reported outcomes on smoking prevalence, as well as the direct and indirect costs of smoking and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions. We excluded papers that merely described the effectiveness of an intervention without including economic or cost considerations. We also excluded papers that combine smoking cessation with the reduction in the risk of other diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The included studies were assessed against criteria indicated in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook version 5.0.0. OUTCOMES ASSESSED IN THE REVIEWPrimary outcomes of the selected studies are smoking prevalence, direct and indirect costs of smoking, and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions (eg, "cost per quitter", "cost per life year saved", "cost per quality-adjusted life year gained," "present value" or "net benefits" from smoking cessation, and "cost savings" from personal health care expenditure).

MAIN RESULTS

The main findings of this study are as follows: The costs of smoking can be classified into direct, indirect, and intangible costs. About 15% of the aggregate health care expenditure in high-income countries can be attributed to smoking. In the US, the proportion of health care expenditure attributable to smoking ranges between 6% and 18% across different states. In the UK, the direct costs of smoking to the NHS have been estimated at between £2.7 billion and £5.2 billion, which is equivalent to around 5% of the total NHS budget each year. The economic burden of smoking estimated in terms of GDP reveals that smoking accounts for approximately 0.7% of China's GDP and approximately 1% of US GDP. As part of the indirect (non-health-related) costs of smoking, the total productivity losses caused by smoking each year in the US have been estimated at US$151 billion.The costs of smoking notwithstanding, it produces some potential economic benefits. The economic activities generated from the production and consumption of tobacco provides economic stimulus. It also produces huge tax revenues for most governments, especially in high-income countries, as well as employment in the tobacco industry. Income from the tobacco industry accounts for up to 7.4% of centrally collected government revenue in China. Smoking also yields cost savings in pension payments from the premature death of smokers.Smoking cessation measures could range from pharmacological treatment interventions to policy-based measures, community-based interventions, telecoms, media, and technology (TMT)-based interventions, school-based interventions, and workplace interventions.The cost per life year saved from the use of pharmacological treatment interventions ranged between US$128 and US$1,450 and up to US$4,400 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. The use of pharmacotherapies such as varenicline, NRT, and Bupropion, when combined with GP counseling or other behavioral treatment interventions (such as proactive telephone counseling and Web-based delivery), is both clinically effective and cost effective to primary health care providers.Price-based policy measures such as increase in tobacco taxes are unarguably the most effective means of reducing the consumption of tobacco. A 10% tax-induced cigarette price increase anywhere in the world reduces smoking prevalence by between 4% and 8%. Net public benefits from tobacco tax, however, remain positive only when tax rates are between 42.9% and 91.1%. The cost effectiveness ratio of implementing non-price-based smoking cessation legislations (such as smoking restrictions in work places, public places, bans on tobacco advertisement, and raising the legal age of smokers) range from US$2 to US$112 per life year gained (LYG) while reducing smoking prevalence by up to 30%-82% in the long term (over a 50-year period).Smoking cessation classes are known to be most effective among community-based measures, as they could lead to a quit rate of up to 35%, but they usually incur higher costs than other measures such as self-help quit-smoking kits. On average, community pharmacist-based smoking cessation programs yield cost savings to the health system of between US$500 and US$614 per LYG.Advertising media, telecommunications, and other technology-based interventions (such as TV, radio, print, telephone, the Internet, PC, and other electronic media) usually have positive synergistic effects in reducing smoking prevalence especially when combined to deliver smoking cessation messages and counseling support. However, the outcomes on the cost effectiveness of TMT-based measures have been inconsistent, and this made it difficult to attribute results to specific media. The differences in reported cost effectiveness may be partly attributed to varying methodological approaches including varying parametric inputs, differences in national contexts, differences in advertising campaigns tested on different media, and disparate levels of resourcing between campaigns. Due to its universal reach and low implementation costs, online campaign appears to be substantially more cost effective than other media, though it may not be as effective in reducing smoking prevalence.School-based smoking prevalence programs tend to reduce short-term smoking prevalence by between 30% and 70%. Total intervention costs could range from US$16,400 to US$580,000 depending on the scale and scope of intervention. The cost effectiveness of school-based programs show that one could expect a saving of approximately between US$2,000 and US$20,000 per QALY saved due to averted smoking after 2-4 years of follow-up.Workplace-based interventions could represent a sound economic investment to both employers and the society at large, achieving a benefit-cost ratio of up to 8.75 and generating 12-month employer cost savings of between $150 and $540 per nonsmoking employee. Implementing smoke-free workplaces would also produce myriads of new quitters and reduce the amount of cigarette consumption, leading to cost savings in direct medical costs to primary health care providers. Workplace interventions are, however, likely to yield far greater economic benefits over the long term, as reduced prevalence will lead to a healthier and more productive workforce.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (ie, in terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce). There are enormous differences in the application and economic measurement of smoking cessation measures across various types of interventions, methodologies, countries, economic settings, and health care systems, and these may have affected the comparability of the results of the studies reviewed. However, on the balance of probabilities, most of the cessation measures reviewed have not only proved effective but also cost effective in delivering the much desired cost savings and net gains to individuals and primary health care providers.

A randomised controlled trial to prevent smoking relapse among recently quit smokers enrolled in employer and health plan sponsored quitlines

OBJECTIVE

To test adding an interactive voice response (IVR)-supported protocol to standard quitline treatment to prevent relapse among recently quit smokers.

DESIGN

Parallel randomised controlled trial with three arms: standard quitline, standard plus technology enhanced quitline with 10 risk assessments (TEQ-10), standard plus 20 TEQ assessments (TEQ-20).

SETTING

Quit For Life (QFL) programme.

PARTICIPANTS

1785 QFL enrolees through 19 employers or health plans who were 24+ h quit.

INTERVENTIONS

QFL is a 5-call telephone-based cessation programme including medications and web-based support. TEQ interventions included 10 or 20 IVR-delivered relapse risk assessments over 8 weeks with automated transfer to counselling for those at risk.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported 7-day and 30-day abstinence assessed at 6-month and 12-month post-enrolment (response rates: 61% and 59%, respectively). Missing data were imputed.

RESULTS

1785 were randomised (standard n=592, TEQ-10 n=602, TEQ-20 n=591). Multiple imputation-derived, intent-to-treat 30-day quit rates (95% CI) at 6 months were 59.4% (53.7% to 63.8%) for standard, 62.3% (57.7% to 66.9%) for TEQ-10, 59.4% (53.7% to 65.1%) for TEQ-20 and 30-day quit rates at 12 months were 61.2% (55.6% to 66.8%) for standard, 60.6% (56.0% to 65.2%) for TEQ-10, 54.9% (49.0% to 60.9%) for TEQ-20. There were no significant differences in quit rates. 73.3% of TEQ participants were identified as at-risk by IVR assessments; on average, participants completed 0.41 IVR-transferred counselling calls. Positive risk assessments identified participants less likely (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76) to be abstinent at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard treatment was highly effective, with 61% remaining abstinent at 12 months using multiple imputation intent-to-treat (intent-to-treat missing=smoking quit rate: 38%). TEQ assessments identified quitters at risk for relapse. However, adding IVR-transferred counselling did not yield higher quit rates. Research is needed to determine if alternative designs can improve outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00888992.

Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies.

RESULTS

The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.

Cost-effectiveness of internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation: an economic evaluation of The iQUITT Study

BACKGROUND

Internet and telephone treatments for smoking cessation can reach large numbers of smokers. There is little research on their costs and the impact of adherence on costs and effects.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an economic evaluation of The iQUITT Study, a randomised trial comparing Basic Internet, Enhanced Internet and Enhanced Internet plus telephone counselling ('Phone') at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months.

METHODS

We used a payer perspective to evaluate the average and incremental cost per quitter of the three interventions using intention-to-treat analysis of 30-day single-point prevalence and multiple-point prevalence (MPP) abstinence rates. We also examined results based on adherence. Costs included commercial charges for each intervention. Discounting was not included given the short time horizon.

RESULTS

Basic Internet had the lowest cost per quitter at all time points. In the analysis of incremental costs per additional quitter, Enhanced Internet+Phone was the most cost-effective using both single and MPP abstinence metrics. As adherence increased, the cost per quitter dropped across all arms. Costs per quitter were lowest among participants who used the 'optimal' level of each intervention, with an average cost per quitter at 3 months of US$7 for Basic Internet, US$164 for Enhanced Internet and US$346 for Enhanced Internet+Phone.

CONCLUSIONS

'Optimal' adherence to internet and combined internet and telephone interventions yields the highest number of quitters at the lowest cost. Cost-effective means of ensuring adherence to such evidence-based programmes could maximise their population-level impact on smoking prevalence.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive telephone support via helplines and in other settings to help smokers quit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author identified and data extracted trials, and a second author checked them. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio for abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We selected the strictest measure of abstinence, using biochemically validated rates where available. We considered participants lost to follow-up to be continuing smokers. Where trials had more than one arm with a less intensive intervention we used only the most similar intervention without the telephone component as the control group in the primary analysis. We assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. We considered trials recruiting callers to quitlines separately from studies recruiting in other settings. Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. We used a meta-regression to investigate the effect of differences in planned number of calls, selection for motivation, and the nature of the control condition (self help only, minimal intervention, pharmacotherapy) in the group of studies recruiting in non-quitline settings.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials met the inclusion criteria. Some trials were judged to be at risk of bias in some domains but overall we did not judge the results to be at high risk of bias. Among smokers who contacted helplines, quit rates were higher for groups randomized to receive multiple sessions of proactive counselling (nine studies, > 24,000 participants, risk ratio (RR) for cessation at longest follow-up 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 1.50). There was mixed evidence about whether increasing the number of calls altered quit rates but most trials used more than two calls. Three studies comparing different counselling approaches during a single quitline contact did not detect significant differences. Of three studies that tested the provision of access to a hotline two detected a significant benefit and one did not.Telephone counselling not initiated by calls to helplines also increased quitting (51 studies, > 30,000 participants, RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.36). In a meta-regression controlling for other factors the effect was estimated to be slightly larger if more calls were offered, and in trials that specifically recruited smokers motivated to try to quit. The relative extra benefit of counselling was smaller when it was provided in addition to pharmacotherapy (usually nicotine replacement therapy) than when the control group only received self-help material or a brief intervention.A further eight studies were too diverse to contribute to meta-analyses and are discussed separately. Two compared different intensities of counselling, both of which detected a dose response; one of these detected a benefit of multiple counselling sessions over a single call for people prescribed bupropion. The others tested a variety of interventions largely involving offering telephone counselling as part of a referral or systems change and none detected evidence of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines. Telephone quitlines provide an important route of access to support for smokers, and call-back counselling enhances their usefulness. There is limited evidence about the optimal number of calls. Proactive telephone counselling also helps people who receive it in other settings. There is some evidence of a dose response; one or two brief calls are less likely to provide a measurable benefit. Three or more calls increase the chances of quitting compared to a minimal intervention such as providing standard self-help materials, or brief advice, or compared to pharmacotherapy alone.

Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The Internet is now an indispensable part of daily life for the majority of people in many parts of the world. It offers an additional means of effecting changes to behaviour such as smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. There were no restrictions placed on language of publication or publication date. The most recent search was conducted in April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials. Participants were people who smoked, with no exclusions based on age, gender, ethnicity, language or health status. Any type of Internet intervention was eligible. The comparison condition could be a no-intervention control, a different Internet intervention, or a non-Internet intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed and extracted data. Methodological and study quality details were extracted using a standardized form. We extracted smoking cessation outcomes of six months follow-up or more, reporting short-term outcomes where longer-term outcomes were not available. We reported study effects as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Clinical and statistical heterogeneity limited our ability to pool studies.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes a total of 28 studies with over 45,000 participants. Some Internet programmes were intensive and included multiple outreach contacts with participants, whilst others relied on participants to initiate and maintain use.Fifteen trials compared an Internet intervention to a non-Internet-based smoking cessation intervention or to a no-intervention control. Ten of these recruited adults, one recruited young adult university students and two recruited adolescents. Seven of the trials in adults had follow-up at six months or longer and compared an Internet intervention to usual care or printed self help. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, pooled results from three trials that compared interactive and individually tailored interventions to usual care or written self help detected a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78). However all three trials were judged to be at high risk of bias in one domain and high statistical heterogeneity was detected (I² = 53%), with no obvious clinical explanation. Pooled results from two studies of an interactive, tailored intervention involving the Internet and automated phone contacts also detected a significant effect (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.97, I² = 42%). Results from a sixth study comparing an interactive but non-tailored intervention to control did not detect a significant effect, nor did the seventh study, which compared a non-interactive, non-tailored intervention to control. Three trials comparing Internet interventions to face-to-face or phone counselling also did not detect evidence of an effect, nor did two trials evaluating Internet interventions as adjuncts to other behavioural interventions. A trial in college students increased point prevalence abstinence after 30 weeks but had no effect on sustained abstinence. Two small trials in adolescents did not detect an effect on cessation compared to control.Fourteen trials, all in adult populations, compared different Internet sites or programmes. Pooled estimates from three trials that compared tailored and/or interactive Internet programmes with non-tailored, non-interactive Internet programmes did not detect evidence of an effect (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32, I² = 0%). One trial detected evidence of a benefit from a tailored email compared to a non-tailored one, whereas a second trial comparing tailored messages to a non-tailored message did not detect evidence of an effect. Trials failed to detect a benefit of including a mood management component (three trials), or an asynchronous bulletin board.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that some Internet-based interventions can assist smoking cessation at six months or longer, particularly those which are interactive and tailored to individuals. However, the trials that compared Internet interventions with usual care or self help did not show consistent effects and were at risk of bias. Further research is needed despite 28 studies on the subject. Future studies should carefully consider optimising the interventions which promise most effect such as tailoring and interactivity.

Early diagnosis of lung cancer

A large randomized controlled trial, The National Lung Screening Study (NLST), has demonstrated that screening with low-dose spiral computed tomography saved lives from lung cancer when compared with screening with chest radiographs. This is the first test showing efficacy in screening for lung cancer as previous trials of chest radiographs and sputum cytology failed to result in fewer deaths with screening. This review will examine the problem of lung cancer, the issues presented by screening, and the results of computed tomography (CT) studies for lung cancer screening. Now that CT screening has been shown to be effective, implementation of screening becomes the next step.

A direct method and ICER tables for the estimation of the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in general populations: application to a new cytisine trial and other examples

INTRODUCTION

The popularity of smoking cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis has grown rapidly. Differences in models and inputs mean results may not be comparable, and researchers may have to take them on trust because the methods are beyond their expertise and not always transparent. We describe a direct method and tables of results for researchers without specialist knowledge.

METHODS

We estimate the health benefit to an individual attributed to an intervention and compute tables of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for interventions with varying incremental intervention effects and costs. Estimates of life years gained come from the longest epidemiological study. After discounting, adjustments are made for future cessation and relapse. The method is described in simple steps, and conservative inputs are used throughout.

RESULTS

To look up an ICER, the user needs only to know the cost of the intervention per smoker and the effect as measured by the percentage of ex-smokers attributable to the intervention at either 6- or 12-month follow-up. Reanalysis of authoritative reports indicates that these ICERs are comparable to those from decision-analytic simulation models.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers can now obtain immediate estimates of the CE of interventions in general populations. The method is easily programmed in a spreadsheet. ICERs are from the payer perspective and exclude offset and societal costs. Interventions in subpopulations will require inputs specific to those populations. Readers who wish to include an adjustment for quality of life can easily do so. The tables might promote a standard approach, with interventions compared on a consistent and transparent basis.