European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 201–206 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line therapies for nicotine dependence

  • Jacques Cornuz
  • Christophe Pinget
  • Allison Gilbert
  • Fred Paccaud



Nicotine dependence is the major obstacle for smokers who want to quit. Guidelines have identified five effective first-line therapies, four nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs)—gum, patch, nasal spray and inhaler—and bupropion. Studying the extent to which these various treatments are cost-effective requires additional research.


To determine cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios of pharmacotherapies for nicotine dependence provided by general practitioners (GPs) during routine visits as an adjunct to cessation counselling.


We used a Markov model to generate two cohorts of one-pack-a-day smokers: (1) the reference cohort received only cessation counselling from a GP during routine office visits; (2) the second cohort received the same counselling plus an offer to use a pharmacological treatment to help them quit smoking. The effectiveness of adjunctive therapy was expressed in terms of the resultant differential in mortality rate between the two cohorts. Data on the effectiveness of therapies came from meta-analyses, and we used odds ratio for quitting as the measure of effectiveness. The costs of pharmacotherapies were based on the cost of the additional time spent by GPs offering, prescribing and following-up treatment, and on the retail prices of the therapies. We used the third-party-payer perspective. Results are expressed as the incremental cost per life-year saved.


The cost per life-year saved for only counselling ranged from €385 to €622 for men and from €468 to €796 for women. The CE ratios for the five pharmacological treatments varied from €1768 to €6879 for men, and from €2146 to €8799 for women. Significant variations in CE ratios among the five treatments were primarily due to differences in retail prices. The most cost-effective treatments were bupropion and the patch, and, then, in descending order, the spray, the inhaler and, lastly, gum. Differences in CE between men and women across treatments were due to the shape of their respective mortality curve. The lowest CE ratio in men was for the 45- to 49-year-old group and for women in the 50- to 54-year-old group. Sensitivity analysis showed that changes in treatment efficacy produced effects only for less-well proven treatments (spray, inhaler, and bupropion) and revealed a strong influence of the discount rate and natural quit rate on the CE of pharmacological treatments.


The CE of first-line treatments for nicotine dependence varied widely with age and sex and was sensitive to the assumption for the natural quit rate. Bupropion and the nicotine patch were the two most cost-effective treatments.


Smoking Nicotine replacement therapy Pharmacology Cost-effectiveness Counselling 



We thank Professor Ken Warner for his very helpful comments on a previous version. Grant support by Swiss Federal Office for Public Health.


  1. 1.
    Henningfield JE (1995) Nicotine medications for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med 333:1196–1203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Orleans CT (1993) Treating nicotine dependence in medical settings: a stepped-care model. In: Orleans CT, Slade J (eds) Nicotine addiction: principles and management. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al (2000) Treating tobacco use and dependence, clinical practice guideline. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silagy C, Mant D, Fowler G, et al (2001) Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation (Cochrane review, May 1998). In: The Cochrane library, Issue 1. Update software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silagy C (2001) Physician advice for smoking cessation (Cochrane review, November 1998). In: The Cochrane library, Issue 1, Update software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jorenby DE, Leischow SJ, Nides MA, et al (1999) A controlled trial of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med 340:685–691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tonnesen P, Norregarrd J, Mikkelsen K, et al (1993) A double-blind trial of nicotine inhaler for smoking cessation. JAMA 269:1268–1271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wasley MA, McNagny SE, Phillips VL, et al (1997) The cost-effectiveness of the nicotine transdermal patch for smoking cessation. Prev Med 26:264–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oster G, Huse DM, Delea TE, et al (1986) Cost-effectiveness of nicotine gum as an adjunct to physician's advice against cigarette smoking. JAMA 256:1315–1318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fiscella K, Franks P (1996) Cost-effectiveness of the transdermal nicotine patch as an adjunct to physician's smoking cessation counseling. JAMA 275:1247–1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cornuz J (2002) Désaccoutumance au tabac en Suisse. Recommandations d'un panel d'experts. Bulletin des médecins suisses 83:611–615Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Enquête suisse sur la santé (1997) Office fédéral de la statistique, BerneGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cornuz J, Humair JP, Seematter L, Stoianov R, Van Melle G, Stalder H, Pécoud A (2002) Efficacy of resident training in smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial of a program based on application of behavioral theory and practice with standardized patients. Ann Intern Med 136:429–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control (2001) State-specific prevalence of current cigarette smoking policies and attitudes about secondhand smoke. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 50:1101–1106Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drummond M, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford Med Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Centers for disease control and prevention (1993) Smoking cessation during previous year among adults-United States, 1990 and 1991. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 42:504–507Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prochaska JO, Goldstein MG (1991) Process of smoking cessation: implications for clinicians. Clin Chest Med 12:727–735PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jackson G, Bobak A, Chorlton I, et al (2001) Smoking cessation: a consensus statement with special reference to primary care. Int J Clin Pract 55:385–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999) The health benefit of smoking cessation. (DHHS publication no 90–8416) Rockville, MdGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilpin EA, Pierce JP, Farkas AJ (1997) Duration of smoking abstinence and success in quitting. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:572–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doll R, Peto R, Wheatley K, et al (1994) Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 309:901–911PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers RG, Powell-Griner E (1991) Life expectancy of cigarette smokers and nonsmokers in the United States. Soc Sci Med 32:1151–1159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Orleans CT, Resch N, Noll E, et al (1994) Use of transdermal nicotine in state-level prescription plan for the elderly. A first look at "real-world" patch users. JAMA 23:601–607Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gourlay SG, Forbes A, Marriner T, et al (1994) Prospective study of factors predicting outcome of transdermal nicotine treatment in smoking cessation. Br Med J 309:842–846Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Compendium Suisse des Médicaments (2001) Documed AG, BaselGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Hamilton VW, Racicot FE, Zowall H, Coupal L, Grover SA (1995) The cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA Reductase inhibitors to prevent coronary heart disease. JAMA 273:1032–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinget CH (2001) Analyses coût-efficacité de l'aide pharmacologique pour l'arrêt du tabac. School of business, Lausanne UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1992) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Viscusi WK (1995) Discounting health effects for medical decisions. In: Sloan FA (ed) Valuing health care. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human services (1992) Smoking and health in America: a report of the surgeon general. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leu RE, Schaub T (1983) Does smoking increase medical care expenditure. Soc Sci Med 23:1907–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barendregt JJ, Bonneux MD, van der Maas P (1997) The health care costs of smoking. N Engl J Med 337:1052–1057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kawachi I, Malcolm LA. (1991) The cost-effectiveness of treating mild-to-moderate hypertension: a reappraisal. J Hypertens 9:199–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hamilton VH, Racicot F-E, Zowall H, et al (1995) The cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to prevent coronary heart disease. JAMA 273:1032–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prosser LA, Stinnett AA, Goldman PA, et al (2000) Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapies according to selected patient characteristics. Ann Intern Med 132:769–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Song F, Raftery J, Aveyard P, et al (2002) Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: a literature review and a decision analytic analysis. Med Decis Making. 22[Suppl 5]:S26–S37Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Warner KE (1997) Cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation therapies – interpretation of the evidence and implications for coverage. Pharmacoeconomics 11:538–549PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Cornuz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christophe Pinget
    • 3
  • Allison Gilbert
    • 1
  • Fred Paccaud
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Medicine and Outpatient clinicUniversity HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute of Health Economics and ManagementUniversity of Lausanne, Champ de l'AirLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations