Cost Effectiveness of Free Access to Smoking Cessation Treatment in France Considering the Economic Burden of Smoking-Related Diseases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Context
In France more than 70,000 deaths from diseases related to smoking are recorded each year, and since 2005 prevalence of tobacco has increased. Providing free access to smoking cessation treatment would reduce this burden. The aim of our study was to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of providing free access to cessation treatment taking into account the cost offsets associated with the reduction of the three main diseases related to smoking: lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). To measure the financial impact of such a measure we also conducted a probabilistic budget impact analysis.Methods and findings
We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov state-transition model that compared free access to cessation treatment to the existing coverage of €50 provided by the French statutory health insurance, taking into account the cost offsets among current French smokers aged 15-75 years. Our results were expressed by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2009 Euros per life year gained (LYG) at the lifetime horizon. We estimated a base case scenario and carried out a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis to account for uncertainty. Assuming a participation rate of 7.3%, the ICER value for free access to cessation treatment was €3,868 per LYG in the base case. The variation of parameters provided a range of ICER values from -€736 to €15,715 per LYG. In 99% of cases, the ICER for full coverage was lower than €11,187 per LYG. The probabilistic budget impact analysis showed that the potential cost saving for lung cancer, COPD and CVD ranges from €15 million to €215 million at the five-year horizon for an initial cessation treatment cost of €125 million to €421 million.Conclusion
The results suggest that providing medical support to smokers in their attempts to quit is very cost-effective and may even result in cost savings.
SUBMITTER: Cadier B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4766094 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Internet and telephone treatments for smoking cessation can reach large numbers of smokers. There is little research on their costs and the impact of adherence on costs and effects.To conduct an economic evaluation of The iQUITT Study, a randomised trial comparing Basic Internet, Enhanced Internet and Enhanced Internet plus telephone counselling ('Phone') at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months.We used a payer perspective to evaluate the average and incremental cost per quitter of the three interventions using intention-to-treat analysis of 30-day single-point prevalence and multiple-point prevalence (MPP) abstinence rates. We also examined results based on adherence. Costs included commercial charges for each intervention. Discounting was not included given the short time horizon.Basic Internet had the lowest cost per quitter at all time points. In the analysis of incremental costs per additional quitter, Enhanced Internet+Phone was the most cost-effective using both single and MPP abstinence metrics. As adherence increased, the cost per quitter dropped across all arms. Costs per quitter were lowest among participants who used the 'optimal' level of each intervention, with an average cost per quitter at 3 months of US$7 for Basic Internet, US$164 for Enhanced Internet and US$346 for Enhanced Internet+Phone.'Optimal' adherence to internet and combined internet and telephone interventions yields the highest number of quitters at the lowest cost. Cost-effective means of ensuring adherence to such evidence-based programmes could maximise their population-level impact on smoking prevalence.
| S-EPMC3626730 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5896510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTailored smoking cessation interventions, which combine behavioural and pharmaceutical support, are effective in populations with severe mental illness (SMI). We establish the cost-effectiveness of two tailored interventions in the UK: (i) a bespoke smoking cessation intervention (BSCI) versus usual care, and (ii) integrated tobacco cessation and mental health care (IC) versus standard smoking cessation clinic (SCC) referral.MethodsThis economic evaluation was conducted between January 15th 2019 and August 4th 2022. We adapted a Markov model estimating smoking status, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) across the lifetime. Intervention effectiveness and costs were obtained from a systematic review and a meta-analysis. We obtained specific parameter values for populations with SMI for mortality, risk of smoking related comorbidities, and health utility. Uncertainty was analysed in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).FindingsThe BSCI was cost-effective versus usual care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3145 per QALY (incremental costs: £165; incremental QALYs: 0.05). Integrated care was cost-effective versus SCC with an ICER of £6875 per QALY (incremental costs: £292; incremental QALYs: 0.04). The BSCI and IC were cost-effective in 89% and 83% of PSA iterations respectively. The main area of uncertainty related to relapse rates.InterpretationOur findings suggested that the tailored interventions were cost-effective and could increase QALYs and decrease expenditure on treating smoking related morbidities if offered to people with SMI.FundingYork Health Economics Consortium was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce economic evaluations to inform public health guidelines.
| S-EPMC9925867 | biostudies-literature
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 $3786 (best case).Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.
| S-EPMC9185176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:This review aims to synthesise the studies on smoking-attributable burden of diseases in China to assess the economic burden of smoking and highlight the weakness in these studies to inform future studies. METHODS:A systematic search of studies on smoking-attributable burden of disease in seven databases was conducted in 2019 and studies were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The evaluation of studies was based on the seven key elements for burden of disease studies. Costs were converted into 2013 Renminbi (RMB), with 1000 RMB about 163 US$ in 2013, the year of the first search, using the Consumer Price Index and the then exchange rate. RESULTS:Twenty studies were identified that estimated the costs of smoking in China, ranging from 57.162 to 368.273 billion RMB in total. The largest proportion of direct costs was allocated to outpatient visits, accounting for 49.17-68.94% of the direct costs. Meanwhile, costs resulting from mortality constituted 64.52-98.82% of the indirect costs. In mainland China, the understanding of PAR% (ratio of population attributable risk and incidence in the total population) in studies is not consistent. Studies on the cost of passive smoking are lacking and the research method for diseases needs to be improved. CONCLUSIONS:Smoking-attributable diseases have exerted substantial direct and indirect economic burden on China. The methodologies for future studies should be improved. Hong Kong and Taiwan provide good examples for future research in mainland China and researchers there should use PAR% correctly. More studies on the burden of passive smoking should be conducted. We propose a combination of single and all-disease research methods, if data are sufficient.
| S-EPMC7263360 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC4468596 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8136338 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8017473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a lack of evidence of the relative cost-effectiveness of proactive telephone counseling (PTC) and Web-based delivery of smoking cessation services in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. We calculated the differential cost-effectiveness of three behavioral smoking cessation modalities with varenicline treatment in a randomized trial of current smokers from a large health system. Eligible participants were randomized to one of three smoking cessation interventions: Web-based counseling (n=401), PTC (n=402), or combined PTC-Web counseling (n=399). All participants received a standard 12-week course of varenicline. The primary outcome was a 7-day point prevalent nonsmoking at the 6month follow-up. The Web intervention was the least expensive followed by the PTC and PTC-Web groups. Costs per additional 6-month nonsmoker and per additional lifetime quitter were $1,278 and $2,601 for Web, $1,472 and $2,995 for PTC, and $1,617 and $3,291 for PTC-Web. Cost per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved were $1,148 and $1,136 for Web, $1,320 and $1,308 for PTC, and $1,450 and $1,437 for PTC-Web. Based on the cost per LY and QALY saved, these interventions are among the most cost-effective life-saving medical treatments. Web, PTC, and combined PTC-Web treatments were all highly cost-effective, with the Web treatment being marginally more cost-effective than the PTC or combined PTC-Web treatments.
| S-EPMC3124766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough evidence exists for the effectiveness of web-based smoking cessation interventions, information about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is limited.ObjectiveThe study investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two web-based computer-tailored (CT) smoking cessation interventions (video- vs. text-based CT) compared to a control condition that received general text-based advice.MethodsIn a randomized controlled trial, respondents were allocated to the video-based condition (N?=?670), the text-based condition (N?=?708) or the control condition (N?=?721). Societal costs, smoking status, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-3L) were assessed at baseline, six-and twelve-month follow-up. The incremental costs per abstinent respondent and per QALYs gained were calculated. To account for uncertainty, bootstrapping techniques and sensitivity analyses were carried out.ResultsNo significant differences were found in the three conditions regarding demographics, baseline values of outcomes and societal costs over the three months prior to baseline. Analyses using prolonged abstinence as outcome measure indicated that from a willingness to pay of €1,500, the video-based intervention was likely to be the most cost-effective treatment, whereas from a willingness to pay of €50,400, the text-based intervention was likely to be the most cost-effective. With regard to cost-utilities, when quality of life was used as outcome measure, the control condition had the highest probability of being the most preferable treatment. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable results.ConclusionThe video-based CT smoking cessation intervention was the most cost-effective treatment for smoking abstinence after twelve months, varying the willingness to pay per abstinent respondent from €0 up to €80,000. With regard to cost-utility, the control condition seemed to be the most preferable treatment. Probably, more time will be required to assess changes in quality of life. Future studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to investigate whether cost-utility results regarding quality of life may change in the long run.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR3102.
| S-EPMC4195710 | biostudies-literature