The cost-effectiveness of an extended course (12+12 weeks) of varenicline plus brief counselling compared with other reimbursed smoking cessation interventions in Belgium, from a public payer perspective

Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT

Background

Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear.

Objectives

The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective.

Design

This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation.

Setting and participants

Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458).

Intervention

The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed.

Results

The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236).

Conclusions

There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective.

Limitations

Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence.

Future work

Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.

Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.

Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.

Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Finding the optimal mix of smoking initiation and cessation interventions to reduce smoking prevalence

There are more than one billion smokers globally according to the World Health Organization (WHO) report in 2017. Every year tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths worldwide. To deal with the smoking epidemic, society needs to invest resources efficiently. In this paper we introduce an optimal control model to determine the optimal mix of smoking initiation and cessation interventions to reduce smoking. We construct the model to reach a smoking prevalence target within a specific time horizon while minimizing cost. Our performance measure captures the cost of policy implementation over time, adjusting for inflation and social discounting. The analytical solutions to the model are presented in forms of ordinary differential equations (ODE). We then conduct several numerical simulations using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and empirical studies. We first present analytical solutions for our model to solve for the optimal mix of smoking interventions. Then we simulate a public health policy to achieve 5% smoking prevalence in the US by 2030 using different combinations of real-life interventions. We examine the optimal trajectories, allocative efficiency and annual total cost of smoking cessation and initiation interventions. We find consistent results across all simulations. Our specific example reveals that the most efficient way to reach stated goal is by targeting cessation interventions first, and then gradually shifting resources to initiation interventions over time. While our numerical results are specific to the intervention we selected, our framework can be easily expanded to consider other potential interventions. We discuss the implications of our approach for the formulation of dynamic public health policies.

Economic evaluation of a brief counselling for smoking cessation in dentistry: a case study comparing two health economic models

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of a brief counselling of smoking cessation in dentistry by using two different health economic models.

DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a cluster randomised controlled trial. The number of quitters was estimated based on 7-day abstinence and on smoking reduction at follow-up. Health economic evaluation was performed using two models: (1) a population-based model employing potential impact fractions and (2) a Markov model estimating the cost-effectiveness of the intervention for the actual participants. The evaluation was performed from healthcare and societal perspectives, and health gains were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

SETTING

Dental clinics in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

205 Swedish smokers aged 20-75 years.

INTERVENTIONS

A brief, structured behavioural intervention was compared with 'usual care'.

RESULTS

The cost per quitter was US$552 in the intervention and US$522 in the 'usual care' condition. The net saving estimated with the population-based model was US$17.3 million for intervention and US$49.9 million for 'usual care', with health gains of 1428 QALYs and 2369 QALYs, respectively, for the whole Swedish population during 10 years. The intervention was thus dominated by 'usual care'. The reverse was true when using the Markov model, showing net societal savings of US$71 000 for the intervention and US$57000 for 'usual care', with gains of 5.42 QALYs and 4.74 QALYs, respectively, for lifelong quitters.

CONCLUSION

The comparison of intervention and 'usual care' derived from small-scale studies may be highly sensitive to the choice of the model used to calculate cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The cluster randomised trial is registered in the ISRCTN register of controlled trials with identification number ISRCTN50627997.

Maintenance pharmacotherapy normalizes the relapse curve in recently abstinent tobacco smokers with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of maintenance pharmacotherapy on sustained abstinence rates between recently abstinent smokers with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (SBD) and general population smokers without psychiatric illness.

METHOD

We performed a person-level, pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials of maintenance varenicline, conducted in adult smokers with SBD and general population smokers, controlling for severity of dependence. Smokers abstinent after 12-weeks of open varenicline treatment were randomly assigned to ≥12-weeks maintenance varenicline or identical placebo.

RESULTS

In those assigned to maintenance placebo, the abstinence rate at week-24 was lower in those with SBD than for those without psychiatric illness (29.4±1.1% vs. 61.8±0.4%, OR:0.26, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.52, p<0.001). In smokers assigned to maintenance pharmacotherapy, however, there was no effect of diagnosis on abstinence rates at week-24 (87.2±0.8% vs. 81.9±0.2%, OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 0.53, 5.32, p=0.38). Time to first lapse was shortest in those with SBD assigned to maintenance placebo (Q1=12days, 95%CI: 4, 16), longer in those without psychiatric illness assigned to maintenance placebo (Q1=17days, 95%CI: 17, 29), still longer in general-population smokers assigned to maintenance varenicline (Q1=88, 95% CI:58,91, and longest in those with SBD who received maintenance varenicline (Q1>95days, 95%CI:non-est), (Χ²_3df=96.99, p<0.0001; all pairwise comparisons p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Following a standard 12-week course of pharmacotherapy, people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were more likely to relapse to smoking without maintenance varenicline treatment. Maintenance pharmacotherapy could improve longer-term tobacco abstinence rates and reduce known smoking-related health disparities in those with SMI.

Cost-effectiveness of retreatment with varenicline after failure with or relapse after initial treatment for smoking cessation

OBJECTIVES

A recent trial showed the clinical benefit of retreatment with varenicline in subjects failing on the initial treatment, or relapsing after initial success. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of retreatment with varenicline compared with other smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

A published Markov model was adapted to compare one quit attempt of varenicline followed by retreatment to treatment/retreatment with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion or placebo, and with only 1 quit attempt of varenicline. Efficacy was obtained from clinical trials. Incidence of smoking-related diseases was based on published data. Cost of therapies and complications was obtained from databases and literature.

RESULTS

For 1000 smokers willing to quit, varenicline retreatment saves 275,000€, 118,000€, 316,000€ and 237,000€ compared to NRT, bupropion, placebo, or one single varenicline quit attempt respectively at lifetime and from the healthcare payer perspective. The number of quality adjusted life years gained is 74, 63, 193 and 111 respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that in the long term, varenicline retreatment is a dominant intervention, meaning both greater health gains and greater costs saved, over other possible interventions and therefore should be considered as a standard option.