Dataset Information

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low-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.

Methods

Using 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.

Results

Offering 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.

Interpretation

Adding 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.

SUBMITTER: Evans WK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7641238 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

Evans William K WK Gauvreau Cindy L CL Flanagan William M WM Memon Saima S Yong Jean Hai Ein JHE Goffin John R JR Fitzgerald Natalie R NR Wolfson Michael M Miller Anthony B AB

CMAJ open 20200701 3

<h4>Background</h4>Low-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.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of ...[more]

PMID: 32963023

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany 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.MethodsTwo 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:The Basque Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme began in 2009 and the implementation has been complete since 2013. Faecal immunological testing was used for screening in individuals between 50 and 69 years old. Colorectal Cancer in Basque country is characterized by unusual epidemiological features given that Colorectal Cancer incidence is similar to other European countries while adenoma prevalence is higher. The object of our study was to economically evaluate the programme via cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses with microsimulation models.We applied the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN)-Colon model to predict trends in Colorectal Cancer incidence and mortality and to quantify the short- and long-term effects and costs of the Basque Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme. The model was calibrated to the Basque demographics in 2008 and age-specific Colorectal Cancer incidence data in the Basque Cancer Registry from 2005 to 2008 before the screening begun. The model was also calibrated to the high adenoma prevalence observed for the Basque population in a previously published study. The multi-cohort approach used in the model included all the cohorts in the programme during 30 years of implementation, with lifetime follow-up. Unit costs were obtained from the Basque Health Service and both cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis were carried out.The goodness-of-fit of the model adaptation to observed programme data was evidence of validation. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the savings from treatment were larger than the added costs due to screening. Thus, the Basque programme was dominant compared to no screening, as life expectancy increased by 29.3 days per person. The savings in the budget analysis appeared 10 years after the complete implementation of the programme. The average annual budget was €73.4 million from year 2023 onwards.This economic evaluation showed a screening intervention with a major health gain that also produced net savings when a long follow-up was used to capture the late economic benefit. The number of colonoscopies required was high but remain within the capacity of the Basque Health Service. So far in Europe, no other population Colorectal Cancer screening programme has been evaluated by budget impact analysis.

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:BACKGROUND:Previous simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population. METHODS/FINDINGS:Utilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016-2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55-77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%-17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%-3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%-4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%-3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429-149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011-9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208-253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies. CONCLUSIONS:The mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50-64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50-64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.

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).

Dataset Information

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure