Cost-effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy, and unaided cessation in Greece

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit.

METHODS

A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.

RESULTS

Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

Does a Standard Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Exist? The Case of Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review the use of cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold for evaluating pharmacological interventions in Greece.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted between January 2009 and June 2022. The data of selected studies were extracted using a relevant form and consequently were synthesized. Qualitative variables were presented with relative frequencies (%) and quantitative variables with median and interquartile range (IQR).

RESULTS

From the 302 identified studies, 83 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized to oncology (26.5%) and a nononcology related (73.5%) based on drug treatment. The most frequently reported outcome associated with CE threshold was the "per quality-adjusted life-year gained." A total of 32.5% of the studies with a reported threshold did not specify the origin of the threshold. From the rest of studies, the vast majority (92.8%) adopted thresholds equal to 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, whereas the rest similar to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The median CE threshold was differentiated between oncology (€51 000 [IQR €50 000-€60 000]) and nononcology studies (€34 000 [IQR €30 000-€36 000]; P < .001). In both type of studies, the median CE thresholds were not statistically significantly different among GDP, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and not specified approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligned with other countries where there is no standard CE threshold to promote efficient use of healthcare resources, the most prominent practice in Greece was found to be that of 1 to 3 times the GDP per capita irrespective of type of treatment or outcome studied.

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 Smoking Cessation Interventions With Behavioral Support: A Study Based on the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) Model

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have compared cost-effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) that include behavioral support, considering smoking-related diseases. Therefore, we compare the cost-effectiveness of SCIs with behavioral support in South Korea using the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model.

AIMS AND METHODS

We used the BENESCO model to estimate the cost and utility of the SCIs with behavioral support, including pharmacist counseling with nicotine replacement therapy (pharmacist+NRT), expert counseling with NRT (expert+NRT), and expert counseling with varenicline (expert+varenicline). The target population was adult smokers who wanted to cease smoking within 1 month. We applied transitional probabilities and epidemiological data from the literature. Medical costs and utilities were calculated using claims and national survey data, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within the threshold (17 926 USD per quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The model cohort included 1 219 390 male and 298 511 female smokers. The pharmacist+NRT group had 32 842 more QALYs gained and 26 689 958 USD less expended than the expert+NRT group. The ICER for the expert+varenicline group versus the pharmacist+NRT and expert+NRT groups was 27 247 and 4074 USD per QALY, respectively. The robustness of the results was confirmed by sensitivity analyses, except for the discount rate and cost of the expert+varenicline group.

CONCLUSIONS

In Korea, pharmacist counseling with NRT showed higher QALY gains and lower costs than expert counseling with NRT. Expert counseling with varenicline was more effective for smoking cessation and more cost-effective than expert counseling with NRT but was not cost-effective compared with pharmacist counseling with NRT.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides evidence for decision-making on smoking cessation programs by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of SCIs. Furthermore, we attempted to use the BENESCO model to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCIs with behavioral support. It is meaningful because this study showed the availability of using the BENESCO model in the future cost-effectiveness analysis of various SCIs.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Sampling in Primary Care: a Markov Cohort Simulation Model

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies remain a central focus of successful tobacco control, but uptake remains very low.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of a primary care nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling intervention.

DESIGN

A Markov cohort simulation model was constructed to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses. Clinical trial results were used to initialize the Markov model. All other model parameters were derived from the literature. The study was conducted over a lifetime horizon, from the payers' budgetary perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers with a primary care visit.

INTERVENTION

Medication sampling, which provided short, starter packets of NRT (nicotine patch and lozenge) to smokers in the primary care setting.

MAIN MEASURES

Lifetime healthcare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years, and life years.

KEY RESULTS

Medication sampling was the dominant strategy compared to standard care. Our intervention cost $75, yielding a discounted lifetime savings of $1065 in healthcare expenditures, and increased both discounted quality-adjusted life years and discounted life years by 0.01. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that medication sampling remained dominant in plausible ranges except when it failed to increase cessation relative to standard care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that medication sampling was dominant in 94.1% of the simulated cases, with an implementation cost of $74 (95% CI $73-$76) and discounted lifetime savings in health expenditures of $1061 (- $1106 to - $1,017), increasing quality-adjusted life years by 0.008 (0.0085-0.0093) and life years by 0.008 (0.0081-0.0089).

CONCLUSION

Medication sampling, an easily implementable, scalable and low-cost intervention to encourage smoking cessation, is cost saving and improves quality of life.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

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. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events

OBJECTIVES

Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information.

RESULTS

When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose.

CONCLUSION

Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.

Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

SETTING

Three stop-smoking service sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values.

FINDINGS

The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY).

CONCLUSION

Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.

An examination of user costs in relation to smokers using a cessation service based in the UK

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation services provide support to smokers who desire to quit. Published studies to date have looked at the cost and benefit of service provision but typically focus on clinical trial data. Using routinely collected observational data, this study examined the costs involved in providing a service in terms of average health care expenditure per successful quit attempt in addition to population - level cost-effectiveness measures.

METHODS

Data were analysed from Quit-51 smoking cessation service across five English regions between March 2013 and March 2016 (n = 9116). For each user, costs were estimated in relation to: (i) time spent with advisers; (ii) prescription of pharmacotherapy. The total costs compared against self-reported quit at 12 weeks, which represents the time period for which the service is offered. Cost per quit (CPQ), with 95% confidence interval (CI), was calculated by relating total expenditure to the number of quitters, firstly for the whole dataset and then by subgroups of key categorical variables, namely; gender, age group, the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence (FTND) and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Confidence intervals (CIs) for the mean estimates were derived using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure. Parameters derived from the calculation in relation to treatment were used to estimate potential long-term population outcomes under a scenario where the Quit 51 prescription was rolled out nationally.

RESULTS

The overall mean CPQ for this sample as estimated at 12 weeks was £403.51 (95% CI = £393.36 to £413.76). The estimated CPQs at this time point were comparable for those aged 12-19 (£423.56, 95% CI = £369.45 to £492.60) and those aged 20-29 (£430.76, 95% CI = £395.95 to £470.56). Differences were also seen in relation to other subgroups considered. The treatment parameters translated to a projected increase of 1.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per 1000 smokers in the short-term and 23.4 QALYS per 1000 smokers based on a lifetime horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

These figures throw light on service expenditure for each successful quit over the timeframe for which the service is offered in addition to highlighting variability in these costs across different subgroups of the user population.

Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review

AIMS

To identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist-based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model-based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high-income country were excluded.

FINDINGS

Among the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state-transition Markov model was the most frequently used method (n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life-time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35-0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method.

CONCLUSION

All existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.

Gender difference and effect of pharmacotherapy: findings from a smoking cessation service

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation services are available in England to provide assistance to those wishing to quit smoking. Data from one such service were analysed in order to investigate differences in quit rate between males and females prescribed with different treatments.

METHODS

A logistic regression model was fitted to the data using the binary response of self-reported quit (failed attempt = 0, successful attempt = 1), validated by Carbon Monoxide (CO) monitoring, 4 weeks after commencing programme. Main effects fitted were: client gender; age; region; the type of advisory sessions; and pharmacotherapy, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) or Varenicline. A second model was fitted including all main effects plus two-way interactions except region. These models were repeated using 12-week self-reported quit as the outcome.

RESULTS

At 4 weeks, all main effects were statistically significant, with males more likely (odds ratio and 95 % CI, females v males = 0.88 [0.79-0.97]), older smokers more likely (adjusted odds ratios [OR] and 95 % confidence interval [CI] respectively for groups 20-29, 30-49, 50-69 and 70+ vs 12-19 age group: 1.79 [1.39-2.31], 2.12 [1.68-2.68], 2.30 [1.80-2.92] and 2.47 [1.81-3.37] and for overall difference between groups, χ2(4) = 53.5, p < 0.001) and clients being treated with Varenicline more likely to have successfully quit than those on NRT (adjusted OR and 95 % CI for Varenicline vs NRT = 1.41 [1.21-1.64]). Statistically significant interactions were observed between (i) gender and type of counselling, and (ii) age and type of counselling. Similar results were seen in relation to main effects at 12 weeks except that type of counselling was non-significant. The only significant interaction at this stage was between gender and pharmacotherapy (adjusted OR and 95 % CI for females using Varenicline versus all other groups = 1.43 [1.06-1.94]).

CONCLUSION

Gender and treatment options were identified as predictors of abstinence at both 4 and 12 weeks after quitting smoking. Furthermore, interactions were observed between gender and (i) type of counselling received (ii) pharmacotherapy. In particular, the quit rate in women at 12 weeks was significantly improved in conjunction with Varenicline use. These findings have implications for service delivery.

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 retreatment with varenicline after failure with or relapse after initial treatment for smoking cessation

OBJECTIVES

A recent trial showed the clinical benefit of retreatment with varenicline in subjects failing on the initial treatment, or relapsing after initial success. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of retreatment with varenicline compared with other smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

A published Markov model was adapted to compare one quit attempt of varenicline followed by retreatment to treatment/retreatment with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion or placebo, and with only 1 quit attempt of varenicline. Efficacy was obtained from clinical trials. Incidence of smoking-related diseases was based on published data. Cost of therapies and complications was obtained from databases and literature.

RESULTS

For 1000 smokers willing to quit, varenicline retreatment saves 275,000€, 118,000€, 316,000€ and 237,000€ compared to NRT, bupropion, placebo, or one single varenicline quit attempt respectively at lifetime and from the healthcare payer perspective. The number of quality adjusted life years gained is 74, 63, 193 and 111 respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that in the long term, varenicline retreatment is a dominant intervention, meaning both greater health gains and greater costs saved, over other possible interventions and therefore should be considered as a standard option.