Cost-effectiveness of extended cessation treatment for older smokers

Identifying best modelling practices for tobacco control policy simulations: a systematic review and a novel quality assessment framework

BACKGROUND

Policy simulation models (PSMs) have been used extensively to shape health policies before real-world implementation and evaluate post-implementation impact. This systematic review aimed to examine best practices, identify common pitfalls in tobacco control PSMs and propose a modelling quality assessment framework.

METHODS

We searched five databases to identify eligible publications from July 2013 to August 2019. We additionally included papers from Feirman et al for studies before July 2013. Tobacco control PSMs that project tobacco use and tobacco-related outcomes from smoking policies were included. We extracted model inputs, structure and outputs data for models used in two or more included papers. Using our proposed quality assessment framework, we scored these models on population representativeness, policy effectiveness evidence, simulated smoking histories, included smoking-related diseases, exposure-outcome lag time, transparency, sensitivity analysis, validation and equity.

FINDINGS

We found 146 eligible papers and 25 distinct models. Most models used population data from public or administrative registries, and all performed sensitivity analysis. However, smoking behaviour was commonly modelled into crude categories of smoking status. Eight models only presented overall changes in mortality rather than explicitly considering smoking-related diseases. Only four models reported impacts on health inequalities, and none offered the source code. Overall, the higher scored models achieved higher citation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

While fragments of good practices were widespread across the reviewed PSMs, only a few included a 'critical mass' of the good practices specified in our quality assessment framework. This framework might, therefore, potentially serve as a benchmark and support sharing of good modelling practices.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

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.

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.

Behavioral Smoking Cessation Counseling During Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost effectiveness of using behavioral smoking cessation counseling during pregnancy.

METHODS

We designed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge Pro 2020 software to compare the cost effectiveness and outcomes among women who received behavioral smoking cessation counseling compared with women who received usual care during pregnancy. We used a theoretical cohort of 285,000 women, the approximate number of pregnant women who smoke each year in the United States. Outcomes included maternal abstinence from smoking, fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, preterm delivery, neonatal death, and cerebral palsy, in addition to cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both the woman and the neonate. All model inputs were derived from the literature, and a willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of baseline assumptions.

RESULTS

In our theoretical cohort, behavioral smoking cessation counseling compared with usual care was associated with 9,019 additional women stopping smoking during pregnancy (34,604 vs 25,585). Smoking cessation counseling also resulted in 911 fewer cases of fetal growth restriction, 20 fewer stillbirths, 250 fewer preterm deliveries, 11 fewer neonatal deaths, and one less case of cerebral palsy. Using behavioral smoking cessation counseling interventions during pregnancy led to better outcomes despite higher costs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,658 per QALY, which was below our willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, making the intervention cost effective. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the counseling intervention was cost effective at probabilities of smoking cessation greater than 11.6% (baseline input: 12.1%) or the cost of the behavioral intervention was less than $475.21 (baseline input: $368.78).

CONCLUSION

Behavioral smoking cessation counseling during pregnancy was associated with fewer adverse neonatal outcomes and was cost effective. Increasing utilization of such interventions and increasing insurance coverage of this care are important initiatives to improve outcomes in this at-risk population.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of population-level proactive tobacco cessation outreach among socio-economically disadvantaged smokers: evaluation of a randomized control trial

AIMS

To estimate the cost-effectiveness at population-level of the OPT-IN proactive tobacco cessation outreach program for adult smokers enrolled in publicly funded health insurance plans for low-income persons (e.g. Medicaid).

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a state transition model based on data from the Offering Proactive Treatment Intervention (OPT-IN) randomized control trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted in Minnesota, USA, and the economic analysis was conducted from the Medicaid program perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were used from 2406 smokers who were randomized into the intervention or comparator groups.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

The intervention was comprised of proactive outreach (mailed invitation and telephone calls) and free cessation treatment (nicotine replacement therapy and intensive telephone counseling). The comparator was usual care, which comprised access to a primary care physician, insurance coverage of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved smoking cessation medications and the state's telephone quitline.

MEASUREMENTS

Smoking status, quality of life and health-care use at varying times, including at baseline and 1 year.

FINDINGS

The OPT-IN program cost an average of $84 per participant greater than the comparator. One year after randomization, the population-level, 6-month prolonged smoking abstinence rate was 16.5% in the proactive outreach intervention group and 12.1% in the usual care group (P < 0.05). The model projected that the proactive outreach intervention added $78 in life-time cost and generated 0.005 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4231 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that the proactive outreach intervention would be cost-effective against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY approximately 68% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-level proactive tobacco treatment with personal telephone outreach was effective in achieving higher population-level quit rates and was cost-effective at various willingness-to-pay thresholds, compared with usual care (i.e. reactive treatment). Taken together with prior research, population-level proactive tobacco cessation outreach programs are judged to be highly cost-effective over the long term.

The Effect of Auricular Acupressure and Positive Group Psychotherapy With Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation in Korean Adults

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of positive group psychotherapy with auricular acupressure on tobacco withdrawal symptoms and smoking cessation. This study used a randomized controlled trial design. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: group 1 (counseling and auricular acupressure), group 2 (counseling and placebo acupressure), and the control group (self-help for smoking cessation). Positive group psychotherapy and auricular acupressure were performed once a week for 6 weeks. The smoking cessation rates for 1 year in groups 1 and 2 were higher than that in the control group (9.5%, 15.6%, and 0%, respectively; odd ratio: 7.98, P = .019, n = 109). There was a significant difference of tobacco withdrawal symptoms among the 3 groups over 4 weeks (F = 2.9, P = .04). The mean differences between week 1 and week 4 among the 3 groups were statistically significant (4.7 ± 6.96, 5.18 ± 7.9, and 0.14 ± 7.15, F = 4.25, P = .018).

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration

National recommendations for lung cancer screening for former and current smokers aged 55-80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history create demand to implement efficient and effective systems to offer smoking cessation on a large scale. These older, high-risk smokers differ from participants in past clinical trials of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for tobacco dependence. There is a gap in knowledge about how best to design systems to extend reach and treatments to maximize smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. Eight clinical trials, seven funded by the National Cancer Institute and one by the Veterans Health Administration, address this gap and form the SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. This paper describes methodological issues related to the design of these clinical trials: clinical workflow, participant eligibility criteria, screening indication (baseline or annual repeat screen), assessment content, interest in stopping smoking, and treatment delivery method and dose, all of which will affect tobacco treatment outcomes. Tobacco interventions consider the "teachable moment" offered by lung cancer screening, how to incorporate positive and negative screening results, and coordination of smoking cessation treatment with clinical events associated with lung cancer screening. Unique data elements, such as perceived risk of lung cancer and costs of tobacco treatment, are of interest. Lung cancer screening presents a new and promising opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from lung cancer that can be amplified by effective smoking cessation treatment. SCALE teamwork and collaboration promise to maximize knowledge gained from the clinical trials.

Smoking Cessation for Smokers Not Ready to Quit: Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

CONTEXT

To provide a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis on smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit, a population that makes up approximately 32% of current smokers.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Twenty-two studies on pharmacological, behavioral, and combination smoking-cessation interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit (defined as those who reported they were not ready to quit at the time of the study) published between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. The effectiveness (measured by the number needed to treat) and cost effectiveness (measured by costs per quit) of interventions were calculated. All data collection and analyses were performed in 2017.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit can be as effective as similar interventions for smokers ready to quit; however, costs of intervening on this group may be higher for some intervention types. The most cost-effective interventions identified for this group were those using varenicline and those using behavioral interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Updating clinical recommendations to provide cessation interventions for this group is recommended. Further research on development of cost-effective treatments and effective strategies for recruitment and outreach for this group are needed. Additional studies may allow for more nuanced comparisons of treatment types among this group.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Hepatitis C Self-Management Program

BACKGROUND

Despite the emergence of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) antiviral medications, many people with chronic HCV know little about their disease, are at risk for transmitting HCV to others, and/or are not considered good treatment candidates. Self-management interventions can educate HCV-infected persons, improve their quality of life, and prepare them for treatment.

PURPOSE

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the HCV Self-Management Program is presented.

METHOD

Effectiveness data in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the previously published prospective, randomized controlled trial ( n = 134). Health care utilization was abstracted from medical records in 2011 for the 12 months before and after study enrollment. Intervention costs were tracked from the payer's perspective and combined with health care costs. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine assumptions. Data were analyzed in 2014.

RESULTS

Estimated intervention costs including organizational overhead were $1,760 per 6-week workshop, or $229/person. Health care costs were $815 lower/person for self-management participants, resulting in a cost savings of $586/person. Self-management participants had an average net gain of 0.02975 QALYs after 1 year. When removing inpatient substance use treatment days from analyses, costs were similar between groups, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6,218/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results and conclusions change little when assumptions were varied.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to information-only, the HCV Self-Management Program led to more QALYs and cost savings in the randomized controlled trial. Independent of health care costs, the intervention is low-cost and educates HCV-infected individuals about antiviral treatment and avoiding viral transmission. Low-cost interventions that can enhance the outcomes derived from expensive antiviral treatments should be studied further.

E-cigarette marketing and older smokers: road to renormalization

OBJECTIVES

To describe older smokers' perceptions of risks and use of e-cigarettes, and their responses to marketing and knowledge of, and opinions about, regulation of e-cigarettes.

METHODS

Eight 90-minute focus groups with 8 to 9 participants met in urban and suburban California to discuss topics related to cigarettes and alternative tobacco products.

RESULTS

Older adults are using e-cigarettes for cessation and as a way to circumvent no-smoking policies; they have false perceptions about the effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes. They perceive e-cigarette marketing as a way to renormalize smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

To stem the current epidemic of nicotine addiction, the FDA must take immediate action because e-cigarette advertising promotes dual use and may contribute to the renormalization of smoking.