Dataset Information

Within a smoking-cessation program, what impact does genetic information on lung cancer need to have to demonstrate cost-effectiveness?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many smoking-cessation programs and pharmaceutical aids demonstrate substantial health gains for a relatively low allocation of resources. Genetic information represents a type of individualized or personal feedback regarding the risk of developing lung cancer, and hence the potential benefits from stopping smoking, may motivate the person to remain smoke-free. The purpose of this study was to explore what the impact of a genetic test needs to have within a typical smoking-cessation program aimed at heavy smokers in order to be cost-effective.

Methods

Two strategies were modelled for a hypothetical cohort of heavy smokers aged 50 years; individuals either received or did not receive a genetic test within the course of a usual smoking-cessation intervention comprising nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and counselling. A Markov model was constructed using evidence from published randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses for estimates on 12-month quit rates and long-term relapse rates. Epidemiological data were used for estimates on lung cancer risk stratified by time since quitting and smoking patterns. Extensive sensitivity analyses were used to explore parameter uncertainty.

Results

The discounted incremental cost per QALY was AU$34,687 (95% CI $12,483, $87,734) over 35 years. At a willingness-to-pay of AU$20,000 per QALY gained, the genetic testing strategy needs to produce a 12-month quit rate of at least 12.4% or a relapse rate 12% lower than NRT and counselling alone for it to be equally cost-effective. The likelihood that adding a genetic test to the usual smoking-cessation intervention is cost-effective was 20.6% however cost-effectiveness ratios were favourable in certain situations (e.g., applied to men only, a 60 year old cohort).

Conclusions

The findings were sensitive to small changes in critical variables such as the 12-month quit rates and relapse rates. As such, the cost-effectiveness of the genetic testing smoking cessation program is uncertain. Further clinical research on smoking-cessation quit and relapse rates following genetic testing is needed to inform its cost-effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Gordon LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2949618 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Within a smoking-cessation program, what impact does genetic information on lung cancer need to have to demonstrate cost-effectiveness?

Gordon Louisa G LG Hirst Nicholas G NG Young Robert P RP Brown Paul M PM

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 20100916

<h4>Background</h4>Many smoking-cessation programs and pharmaceutical aids demonstrate substantial health gains for a relatively low allocation of resources. Genetic information represents a type of individualized or personal feedback regarding the risk of developing lung cancer, and hence the potential benefits from stopping smoking, may motivate the person to remain smoke-free. The purpose of this study was to explore what the impact of a genetic test needs to have within a typical smoking-ces ...[more]

PMID: 20843376

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionProject 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOver 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.ConclusionsThe 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.ImplicationsHealth 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.

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness.MethodsUsing the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars.ResultsOffering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt.InterpretationAdding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.ObjectiveTo estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.ExposuresIntensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).Main outcomes and measuresTotal costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).ResultsThe per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Project description:BackgroundIn rural America, cigarette smoking is prevalent and health care providers lack the time and resources to help smokers quit. Telephone quitlines are important avenues for cessation services in rural areas, but they are poorly integrated with local health care resources.ObjectiveThe intent of the study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two models for delivering expert tobacco treatment at a distance: telemedicine counseling that was integrated into smokers' primary care clinics (Integrated Telemedicine-ITM) versus telephone counseling, similar to telephone quitline counseling, delivered to smokers in their homes (Phone).MethodsSmokers (n=566) were recruited offline from 20 primary care and safety net clinics across Kansas. They were randomly assigned to receive 4 sessions of ITM or 4 sessions of Phone counseling. Patients in ITM received real-time video counseling, similar to Skype, delivered by computer/webcams in clinic exam rooms. Three full-time equivalent trained counselors delivered the counseling. The counseling duration and content was the same in both groups and was available in Spanish or English. Both groups also received identical materials and assistance in selecting and obtaining cessation medications. The primary outcome was verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at month 12, using an intent-to-treat analysis.ResultsThere were no significant baseline differences between groups, and the trial achieved 88% follow-up at 12 months. Verified abstinence at 12 months did not significantly differ between ITM or Phone (9.8%, 27/280 vs 12%, 34/286; P=.406). Phone participants completed somewhat more counseling sessions than ITM (mean 2.6, SD 1.5 vs mean 2.4, SD 1.5; P=.0837); however, participants in ITM were significantly more likely to use cessation medications than participants in Phone (55.9%, 128/280 vs 46.1%, 107/286; P=.03). Compared to Phone participants, ITM participants were significantly more likely to recommend the program to a family member or friend (P=.0075). From the combined provider plus participant (societal) perspective, Phone was significantly less costly than ITM. Participants in ITM had to incur time and mileage costs to travel to clinics for ITM sessions. From the provider perspective, counseling costs were similar between ITM (US $45.46, SD 31.50) and Phone (US $49.58, SD 33.35); however, total provider costs varied widely depending on how the clinic space for delivering ITM was valued.ConclusionsFindings did not support the superiority of ITM over telephone counseling for helping rural patients quit smoking. ITM increased utilization of cessation pharmacotherapy and produced higher participant satisfaction, but Phone counseling was significantly less expensive. Future interventions could combine elements of both approaches to optimize pharmacotherapy utilization, counseling adherence, and satisfaction. Such an approach could commence with a telemedicine-delivered clinic office visit for pharmacotherapy guidance, and continue with telephone or real-time video counseling delivered via mobile phones to flexibly deliver behavioral support to patients where they most need it-in their homes and communities.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00843505; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00843505 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YKSinVZ9).

Project description:BackgroundSmoking cessation represents an opportunity to reduce both short and long-term effects of smoking on complications after lumbar fusion and smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the cost-effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions prior to lumbar fusion is not fully known.MethodsWe created a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 5 smoking-cessation strategies (behavioral counseling, nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], bupropion or varenicline monotherapy, and a combined intervention) prior to single-level, instrumented lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) from the health payer perspective. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. We calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each strategy over multiple time horizons and accounted for uncertainty with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) consisting of 10,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsEvery smoking-cessation intervention was more effective and less costly than usual care at the lifetime horizon. In the short term, behavioral counseling, NRT, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were also cost-saving, while bupropion monotherapy was more effective but more costly than usual care. The mean lifetime cost savings for behavioral counseling, NRT, bupropion monotherapy, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were $3,291 (standard deviation [SD], $868), $2,571 (SD, $479), $2,851 (SD, $830), $6,767 (SD, $1,604), and $34,923 (SD, $4,248), respectively. The minimum efficacy threshold (relative risk for smoking cessation) for lifetime cost savings varied from 1.01 (behavioral counseling) to 1.15 (varenicline monotherapy). A PSA revealed that the combined smoking-cessation intervention was always more effective and less costly than usual care.ConclusionsEven brief smoking-cessation interventions yield large short-term and long-term cost savings. Smoking-cessation interventions prior to PLF can both reduce costs and improve patient outcomes as health payers/systems shift toward value-based reimbursement (e.g., bundled payments) or population health models.Level of evidenceEconomic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:ImportanceParental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresThe trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs.ResultsThe study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

Dataset Information

Within a smoking-cessation program, what impact does genetic information on lung cancer need to have to demonstrate cost-effectiveness?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Within a smoking-cessation program, what impact does genetic information on lung cancer need to have to demonstrate cost-effectiveness?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets