Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line therapies for nicotine dependence
- 147 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSmoking 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.
- 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.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.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.Silagy C (2001) Physician advice for smoking cessation (Cochrane review, November 1998). In: The Cochrane library, Issue 1, Update software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cornuz J (2002) Désaccoutumance au tabac en Suisse. Recommandations d'un panel d'experts. Bulletin des médecins suisses 83:611–615Google Scholar
- 12.Enquête suisse sur la santé (1997) Office fédéral de la statistique, BerneGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Drummond M, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford Med Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 19.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999) The health benefit of smoking cessation. (DHHS publication no 90–8416) Rockville, MdGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Compendium Suisse des Médicaments (2001) Documed AG, BaselGoogle Scholar
- 28.Pinget CH (2001) Analyses coût-efficacité de l'aide pharmacologique pour l'arrêt du tabac. School of business, Lausanne UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 29.Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1992) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 30.Viscusi WK (1995) Discounting health effects for medical decisions. In: Sloan FA (ed) Valuing health care. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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