Literature DB >> 12759795

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

Jacques Cornuz1, Christophe Pinget, Allison Gilbert, Fred Paccaud.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: The cost per life-year saved for only counselling ranged from Euro 385 to Euro 622 for men and from Euro 468 to Euro 796 for women. The CE ratios for the five pharmacological treatments varied from Euro 1768 to Euro 6879 for men, and from Euro 2146 to Euro 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12759795     DOI: 10.1007/s00228-003-0610-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   2.953


  22 in total

Review 1.  Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: a literature review and a decision analytic analysis.

Authors:  Fujian Song; James Raftery; Paul Aveyard; Chris Hyde; Pelham Barton; Nerys Woolacott
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  Cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation therapies. Interpretation of the evidence-and implications for coverage.

Authors:  K E Warner
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The health care costs of smoking.

Authors:  J J Barendregt; L Bonneux; P J van der Maas
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-10-09       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Cost-effectiveness of nicotine gum as an adjunct to physician's advice against cigarette smoking.

Authors:  G Oster; D M Huse; T E Delea; G A Colditz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1986-09-12       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Duration of smoking abstinence and success in quitting.

Authors:  E A Gilpin; J P Pierce; A J Farkas
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-04-16       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Does smoking increase medical care expenditure?

Authors:  R E Leu; T Schaub
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  State-specific prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults, and policies and attitudes about secondhand smoke--United States, 2000.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2001-12-14       Impact factor: 17.586

Review 8.  Smoking cessation: a consensus statement with special reference to primary care.

Authors:  G Jackson; A Bobak; I Chorlton; G Fowler; R Hall; H Khimji; H Matthews; J Stapleton; C Steele; P Stillman; G Sutherland; R H Swanton
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapies according to selected patient characteristics.

Authors:  L A Prosser; A A Stinnett; P A Goldman; L W Williams; M G Hunink; L Goldman; M C Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-05-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  The cost-effectiveness of the nicotine transdermal patch for smoking cessation.

Authors:  M A Wasley; S E McNagny; V L Phillips; J S Ahluwalia
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  13 in total

1.  The cost effectiveness of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in developing countries: a case study in the Seychelles.

Authors:  A R Gilbert; C Pinget; P Bovet; J Cornuz; C Shamlaye; F Paccaud
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Free nicotine replacement therapy programs vs implementing smoke-free workplaces: a cost-effectiveness comparison.

Authors:  Michael K Ong; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for nicotine dependence in primary care settings: a multinational comparison.

Authors:  J Cornuz; A Gilbert; C Pinget; P McDonald; K Slama; E Salto; F Paccaud
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing to tailor smoking-cessation treatment.

Authors:  D F Heitjan; D A Asch; Riju Ray; Margaret Rukstalis; Freda Patterson; C Lerman
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 3.550

Review 5.  Economic evaluation of smoking-cessation therapies: a critical and systematic review of simulation models.

Authors:  Kristian Bolin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  University-Based Smoking Cessation Program Through Pharmacist-Physician Initiative: An Economic Evaluation.

Authors:  Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim; Nagmeldien Ahmed Mohammed Magzoub; Norlela Maarup
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-02-01

7.  Encouraging smokers to quit: the cost effectiveness of reimbursing the costs of smoking cessation treatment.

Authors:  Janneke Kaper; Edwin J Wagena; Constant P van Schayck; Johan L Severens
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Tobacco dependence and withdrawal: science base, challenges and opportunities for pharmacotherapy.

Authors:  Jack E Henningfield; Saul Shiffman; Stuart G Ferguson; Ellen R Gritz
Journal:  Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 12.310

9.  Using discounting biases, risk characteristics, and perceived control improves preventive programs.

Authors:  Monica Ortendahl
Journal:  Int J Biomed Sci       Date:  2007-06

10.  Self-reported smoking cessation activities among Swiss primary care physicians.

Authors:  Isabelle Jacot Sadowski; Christiane Ruffieux; Jacques Cornuz
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.