Cost-effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation

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.

[Cardiovascular risk in Spanish smokers compared to non-smokers: RETRATOS study]

AIM

To evaluate the level of cardiovascular risk in smokers seenin Primary Care clinics.

DESIGN

Epidemiologic, cross-sectional and multicentre study.

SETTING

Primary Care.

PATIENTS

Every investigator included 4 consecutive patients (3 smokers, 1 non-smoker) aged 35-50 years, who came to the clinic for any reason. A total of 2,184 patients were included; 2,124 (1,597 smokers; 527 non-smokers) were evaluated and 60 patients were excluded because they did not meet with selection criteria.

MEASUREMENTS

The 10-year risk of suffering from a fatal cardiovascular disease (CVDR) was calculated according to the SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) model. The 10-year lethal CVR according SCORE model, was classified as: very high (> 15%), high (10-14%), slightly high (5-9%), average (3-4%), low (2%), very low (1%) and negligible (< 1%). A logistical regression model was used to estimate the relationship between smoking and prior cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

10-year fatal CVDR according to the SCORE model was significantly higher in smokers (40±5.3) vs. non-smokers (1.9±2.5) (P<.0001).

RISK STRATIFICATION

low (< 3%) [78.0% non-smokers vs. 60.7% smokers (P<.0001)]; intermediate (3-5%) [11.1% non-smokers vs. 12.6% smokers (P<.001)]; high (> 5%) [10.9% non-smokers vs. 26.7% smokers (P<.001)]. The logistical regression model showed that non-smokers vs. smokers had less probability of suffering myocardial infarction (OR 0.3; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.1-0.8; P<.0001), peripheral vascular disease (OR 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4-1.0; P=.0180) and chronic obstructive lung disease (OR 0.18; 95% CI: 0.1-0.2; P=.0507).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking is related to a high risk of fatal cardiovascular disease. Active promotion in Primary Care clinics of measures aimed at reducing the prevalence of the smoking habit would lead to a lowering of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: current advances and research topics

Promoting smoking cessation is among the key medical interventions aimed at reducing worldwide morbidity and mortality in this century. Both behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy have been shown to significantly increase long-term abstinence rates, and combining the two treatment modalities is recommended. This article provides an update on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in the general population. Current first-line agents used to support quit attempts are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline. Research suggests that abstinence rates can be increased by combining different forms of NRT or simultaneously administering NRT and non-nicotine medications. New treatments targeting the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor as well as other pathophysiological pathways involved in nicotine addiction are being developed, with nicotine vaccines now being tested in phase III clinical trials. Among the numerous research topics currently addressed, pharmacogenetics and tailoring therapy to specific groups of smokers look most promising. However, substantial progress is unlikely to be made unless social gradients impeding effective treatment of all smokers are overcome. In addition, public smoking bans and reimbursement of medication costs are crucial in reducing the future burden of disease caused by smoking on a global level.

A review of cost-effectiveness of varenicline and comparison of cost-effectiveness of treatments for major smoking-related morbidities

RATIONALE

This review aims to examine economic evaluations of varenicline, to compare the reported cost-effectiveness of varenicline with that of treatments for major smoking-related diseases and to evaluate the findings for decision making.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published articles in English indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), which includes the Economic Evaluation Database. Additional sources also were searched to identify unpublished varenicline studies, including conference abstracts. The search for varenicline studies was limited from 2006 to October 2009; searches for all other types of studies were limited from 1990 to October 2009.

RESULTS

The search yielded a total of 20 relevant economic evaluations of varenicline. In addition, 37 reviews of economic evaluations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, non-small cell lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as studies evaluating the impact of economic rewarding were considered in this review. From these identified economic evaluations, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for varenicline ranged from dominance (more effective and cost saving) to €18,582 per quality-adjusted life-year (including indirect costs). These estimates appeared substantially lower when compared with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for secondary prevention of smoking-related diseases, which in some cases were as high as €66,218 per quality-adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline appears to be cost-effective from the perspective of both health care payers and employers, because of reduced health care consumption and costs. The cost-effectiveness of varenicline also compares favourably to that of interventions recommended for the treatment and prevention of smoking-related diseases.

Cost effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion and unaided cessation for smoking cessation in a cohort of Finnish adult smokers

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion or unaided cessation for smoking cessation in Finnish adult smokers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The BENESCO (BENEfits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes) Markov model was used to follow a hypothetical cohort of smokers making a single quit attempt over a lifetime. Gender and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], lung cancer, coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke and asthma exacerbations) were included in the model. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total treatment costs and the lifetime cumulative incidence of these parameters were the primary outcomes evaluated, and they were compared for varenicline versus bupropion and varenicline versus unaided cessation. The primary data were derived from Finnish publications and databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model.

RESULTS

The treatment cohort comprised 229 301 smokers making a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, use of varenicline prevented 1965 and 5057 additional cases of smoking-related disease, and 1184 and 3047 deaths attributable to smoking, when compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Compared with bupropion and unaided cessation varenicline treatment yielded 4392 and 11 303 additional LYs (4851 and 12 485 QALYs), respectively. Varenicline resulted in cost savings of 15 million and 43 million euros (euro) compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. In the 20-year time horizon analysis, varenicline yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro8791/QALY and euro7791/QALY gained in comparison to bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results for varenicline.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline dominated over its comparators, i.e. it was more effective and resulted in cost saving compared with bupropion and unaided cessation.

Varenicline: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use as an aid to smoking cessation

Varenicline (Chantix, Champix) is an orally administered alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist that is indicated as an aid to smoking cessation. Well designed clinical trials indicate that varenicline is an effective aid to smoking cessation. During the last 4 weeks of treatment, carbon monoxide-confirmed continuous abstinence rates were generally significantly higher with varenicline than with placebo, bupropion sustained release (SR) or nicotine replacement therapy. Varenicline also reduced cravings, the reinforcing effects of smoking and some withdrawal symptoms. Another well designed trial demonstrated that extending varenicline therapy by an additional 12 weeks helped maintain abstinence in individuals who had quit smoking. Varenicline was generally well tolerated in clinical trials; nausea, the most commonly occurring adverse event, diminished over time. More data are needed regarding the potential for neuropsychiatric events in varenicline recipients. Some of these events may be associated with nicotine withdrawal, rather than varenicline, although neuropsychiatric events have been observed in individuals who continued to smoke whilst receiving varenicline. In modelled cost-effectiveness analyses based on data from clinical trials in participants receiving smoking cessation therapy, 12 weeks' treatment with varenicline was predicted to be cost effective from a healthcare payer perspective in numerous countries. With regard to the incremental costs per QALY or life-year gained, 12 weeks' treatment with varenicline consistently dominated bupropion SR and nicotine replacement therapy and was dominant over or considered cost effective relative to unaided cessation, regular brief counselling or nortriptyline in analyses based on Markov models. In additional modelled analyses from a healthcare payer perspective, administering varenicline for an additional 12 weeks in participants who had successfully quit smoking was estimated to have acceptable incremental costs per QALY gained relative to varenicline for 12 weeks and to dominate other smoking cessation options. Moreover, in Swedish analyses that also included societal costs for production and consumption, the incremental cost per QALY gained for varenicline versus bupropion SR, and for an additional 12 weeks of varenicline therapy versus varenicline for 12 weeks only, was below commonly accepted thresholds of cost effectiveness. A US decision-analytic model from the perspective of various US health insurance plans demonstrated that, after 2 years, varenicline was predicted to dominate bupropion SR, in terms of the incremental cost per additional smoking cessation. Varenicline was also dominant or cost effective versus nicotine replacement therapy, and cost effective versus unaided cessation. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of cost-effectiveness studies were generally robust to plausible variations in key parameters. In conclusion, varenicline is an effective aid to smoking cessation. Varenicline was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, although more data are needed regarding the potential for neuropsychiatric events. The costs associated with varenicline are offset by direct savings associated with the reduction in smoking-related diseases. Despite their limitations, available pharmacoeconomic analyses from numerous countries support the use of varenicline for 12 or 24 weeks as a cost-effective treatment relative to other smoking cessation therapies in smokers who wish to quit smoking.