Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom.

Methods

An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information.

Results

When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose.

Conclusion

Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.

SUBMITTER: Keeney E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177405 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch on risk factors for neuropsychiatric adverse events (NAEs) in smoking cessation with pharmacotherapy is scarce. We aimed to identify predictors and develop a prediction model for risk of NAEs in smoking cessation with medications using Bayesian regularization.MethodsBayesian regularization was implemented by applying two shrinkage priors, Horseshoe and Laplace, to generalized linear mixed models on data from 1203 patients treated with nicotine patch, varenicline or placebo. Two predictor models were considered to separate summary scores and item scores in the psychosocial instruments. The summary score model had 19 predictors or 26 dummy variables and the item score model 51 predictors or 58 dummy variables. A total of 18 models were investigated.ResultsAn item score model with Horseshoe prior and 7 degrees of freedom was selected as the final model upon model comparison and assessment. At baseline, smokers reporting more abnormal dreams or nightmares had 16% greater odds of experiencing NAEs during treatment (regularized odds ratio (rOR) = 1.16, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.95 - 1.56, posterior probability P(rOR > 1) = 0.90) while those with more severe sleep problems had 9% greater odds (rOR = 1.09, 95% CrI = 0.95 - 1.37, P(rOR > 1) = 0.85). The prouder a person felt one week before baseline resulted in 13% smaller odds of having NAEs (rOR = 0.87, 95% CrI = 0.71 - 1.02, P(rOR < 1) = 0.94). Odds of NAEs were comparable across treatment groups. The final model did not perform well in the test set.ConclusionsWorse sleep-related symptoms reported at baseline resulted in 85%-90% probability of being more likely to experience NAEs during smoking cessation with pharmacotherapy. Treatment for sleep disturbance should be incorporated in smoking cessation program for smokers with sleep disturbance at baseline. Bayesian regularization with Horseshoe prior permits including more predictors in a regression model when there is a low number of events per variable.

Project description:BackgroundPre-treatment factors that increase smokers' risk of experiencing neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) when quitting smoking are unknown.ObjectiveTo identify baseline smoker characteristics beyond the history of mental illness that predict which participants were more likely to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs in EAGLES.DesignA prospective correlational cohort study in the context of a multinational, multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial.ParticipantsSmokers without (N = 3984; NPC)/with (N = 4050; PC) histories of, or current clinically stable, psychiatric disorders including mood (N = 2882; 71%), anxiety (N = 782; 19%), and psychotic (N = 386; 10%) disorders.InterventionsBupropion, 150 mg twice daily, or varenicline, 1 mg twice daily, versus active control (nicotine patch, 21 mg/day with taper) and placebo for 12 weeks with 12-week non-treatment follow-up.Main measuresPrimary safety outcome was the incidence of a composite measure of moderate/severe NPSAEs. Associations among baseline demographic/clinical characteristics and the primary safety endpoint were analyzed post hoc via generalized linear regression.Key resultsThe incidence of moderate to severe NPSAEs was higher among smokers in the PC (238/4050; 5.9%) than in the NPC (84/3984; 2.1%). Three baseline characteristics predicted increased risk for experiencing clinically significant NPSAEs when quitting regardless of carrying a psychiatric diagnosis: current symptoms of anxiety (for every ~ 4-unit increase in HADS anxiety score, the absolute risk of occurrence of the NPSAE endpoint increased by 1% in both PC and NPC); prior history of suicidal ideation and/or behavior (PC, 4.4% increase; P = 0.001; NPC, 4.1% increase; P = 0.02), and being of White race (versus Black: PC, 2.9% ± 0.9 [SE] increase; P = 0.002; and NPC, 3.4% ± 0.8 [SE] increase; P = 0.001). Among smokers with psychiatric disorders, younger age, female sex, history of substance use disorders, and proxy measures of nicotine dependence or psychiatric illness severity also predicted greater risk. There were no significant interactions between these characteristics and treatment. Smokers with unstable psychiatric disorders or with current, active substance abuse were excluded from the study.ConclusionsIrrespective of cessation pharmacotherapy use, smokers attempting to quit were more likely to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs if they reported current anxiety or prior suicidal ideation at baseline and were White. In smokers with a psychiatric history, female sex, younger age, and greater severity of nicotine dependence were also predictive.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Project description:IntroductionPsychiatric and substance use disorders represent barriers to smoking cessation. We sought to identify correlates of psychiatric comorbidity (CM; 2 diagnoses) and multimorbidity (MM; 3+ diagnoses) among smokers attempting to quit and to evaluate whether these conditions predicted neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), treatment adherence, or cessation efficacy (CE).Aims and methodsData were collected from November 2011 to January 2015 across sixteen countries and reflect the psychiatric cohort of the EAGLES trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks posttreatment. NPSAE outcomes reflected 16 moderate-to-severe neuropsychiatric symptom categories, and CE outcomes included continuous abstinence at weeks 9-12 and 9-24.ResultsOf the 4103 participants included, 36.2% were diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions (20.9% CM, 15.3% MM). Psychiatric CM and MM were associated with several baseline factors, including male gender, nonwhite race or ethnicity, more previous quit attempts, and more severe mental health symptoms. The incidence of moderate-to-severe NPSAEs was significantly higher (p < .01) in participants with MM (11.9%) than those with CM (5.1%) or primary diagnosis only (4.6%). There were no significant (ps > .05) main effects or interactions with treatment condition for diagnostic grouping on treatment adherence or CE outcomes.ConclusionsWhile having multiple psychiatric diagnoses increased risk of developing moderate-to-severe NPSAEs during a quit attempt, neither CM nor MM were associated with treatment adherence or odds of quitting. These findings reassure providers to advise smokers with multiple stable psychiatric conditions to consider using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications when trying to quit.ImplicationsPsychiatric MM may be associated with development of NPSAEs when smokers make a medication-assisted quit attempt, but it does not appear to be differentially associated with medication compliance or efficacy. Prescribing healthcare professionals are encouraged to not only promote use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies by smokers with complex psychiatric presentations, but also to closely monitor such smokers for neuropsychiatric side effects that may be related to their mental health conditions.Nct #NCT01456936.

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: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:BackgroundHealthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Main resultsFifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.