Stephanie Coward1, Steven J Heitman1, Fiona Clement2, Maria Negron3, Remo Panaccione4, Subrata Ghosh4, Herman W Barkema3, Cynthia Seow4, Yvette P Y Leung4, Gilaad G Kaplan1. 1. 1] Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada [2] Department of Community Health Sciences and Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences and Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. 1] Department of Community Health Sciences and Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada [2] Department of Production Animal Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who smoke are at a higher risk of flaring and requiring surgery. Cost-effectiveness studies of funding smoking cessation programs are lacking. Thus, we performed a cost-utility analysis of funding smoking cessation programs for CD. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing five smoking cessation strategies: No Program, Counseling, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), NRT+Counseling, and Varenicline. The time horizon for the Markov model was 5 years. The health states included medical remission (azathioprine or antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), dose escalation of an anti-TNF, second anti-TNF, surgery, and death. Probabilities were taken from peer-reviewed literature, and costs (CAN$) for surgery, medications, and smoking cessation programs were estimated locally. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained associated with each smoking cessation strategy. Threshold, three-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and budget impact analysis (BIA) were carried out. RESULTS: All strategies dominated No Program. Strategies from most to least cost effective were as follows: Varenicline (cost: $55,614, QALY: 3.70), NRT+Counseling (cost: $58,878, QALY: 3.69), NRT (cost: $59,540, QALY: 3.69), Counseling (cost: $61,029, QALY: 3.68), and No Program (cost: $63,601, QALY: 3.67). Three-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that No Program was only more cost effective when every strategy's cost exceeded approximately 10 times their estimated costs. The PSA showed that No Program was the most cost-effective <1% of the time. The BIA showed that any strategy saved the health-care system money over No Program. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care systems should consider funding smoking cessation programs for CD, as they improve health outcomes and reduce costs.
OBJECTIVES:Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who smoke are at a higher risk of flaring and requiring surgery. Cost-effectiveness studies of funding smoking cessation programs are lacking. Thus, we performed a cost-utility analysis of funding smoking cessation programs for CD. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing five smoking cessation strategies: No Program, Counseling, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), NRT+Counseling, and Varenicline. The time horizon for the Markov model was 5 years. The health states included medical remission (azathioprine or antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), dose escalation of an anti-TNF, second anti-TNF, surgery, and death. Probabilities were taken from peer-reviewed literature, and costs (CAN$) for surgery, medications, and smoking cessation programs were estimated locally. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained associated with each smoking cessation strategy. Threshold, three-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and budget impact analysis (BIA) were carried out. RESULTS: All strategies dominated No Program. Strategies from most to least cost effective were as follows: Varenicline (cost: $55,614, QALY: 3.70), NRT+Counseling (cost: $58,878, QALY: 3.69), NRT (cost: $59,540, QALY: 3.69), Counseling (cost: $61,029, QALY: 3.68), and No Program (cost: $63,601, QALY: 3.67). Three-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that No Program was only more cost effective when every strategy's cost exceeded approximately 10 times their estimated costs. The PSA showed that No Program was the most cost-effective <1% of the time. The BIA showed that any strategy saved the health-care system money over No Program. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care systems should consider funding smoking cessation programs for CD, as they improve health outcomes and reduce costs.
Authors: J R Hughes; S B Gulliver; J W Fenwick; W A Valliere; K Cruser; S Pepper; P Shea; L J Solomon; B S Flynn Journal: Health Psychol Date: 1992 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: J Burisch; N Pedersen; S Cukovic-Cavka; N Turk; I Kaimakliotis; D Duricova; M Bortlik; O Shonová; I Vind; S Avnstrøm; N Thorsgaard; S Krabbe; V Andersen; J F Dahlerup; J Kjeldsen; R Salupere; J Olsen; K R Nielsen; P Manninen; P Collin; K H Katsanos; E V Tsianos; K Ladefoged; L Lakatos; G Ragnarsson; E Björnsson; Y Bailey; C O'Morain; D Schwartz; S Odes; M Giannotta; G Girardin; G Kiudelis; L Kupcinskas; S Turcan; L Barros; F Magro; D Lazar; A Goldis; I Nikulina; E Belousova; D Martinez-Ares; V Hernandez; S Almer; Y Zhulina; J Halfvarson; N Arebi; H H Tsai; S Sebastian; P L Lakatos; E Langholz; P Munkholm Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Jean-Frédéric Colombel; William J Sandborn; Paul Rutgeerts; Robert Enns; Stephen B Hanauer; Remo Panaccione; Stefan Schreiber; Dan Byczkowski; Ju Li; Jeffrey D Kent; Paul F Pollack Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Machaon M K Bonafede; Shravanthi R Gandra; Crystal Watson; Nicole Princic; Kathleen M Fox Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Robert M Anthenelli; Chad Morris; Tanya S Ramey; Sarah J Dubrava; Kostas Tsilkos; Cristina Russ; Carla Yunis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: George E Reese; Theodore Nanidis; Catherine Borysiewicz; Takayuki Yamamoto; Timothy Orchard; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Alexandra Frolkis; Levinus A Dieleman; Herman W Barkema; Remo Panaccione; Subrata Ghosh; Richard N Fedorak; Karen Madsen; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Christopher Andrew Lamb; Nicholas A Kennedy; Tim Raine; Philip Anthony Hendy; Philip J Smith; Jimmy K Limdi; Bu'Hussain Hayee; Miranda C E Lomer; Gareth C Parkes; Christian Selinger; Kevin J Barrett; R Justin Davies; Cathy Bennett; Stuart Gittens; Malcolm G Dunlop; Omar Faiz; Aileen Fraser; Vikki Garrick; Paul D Johnston; Miles Parkes; Jeremy Sanderson; Helen Terry; Daniel R Gaya; Tariq H Iqbal; Stuart A Taylor; Melissa Smith; Matthew Brookes; Richard Hansen; A Barney Hawthorne Journal: Gut Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Tiago Nunes; Maria Josefina Etchevers; Valle García-Sánchez; Daniel Ginard; Eva Martí; Manuel Barreiro-de Acosta; Fernando Gomollón; Maite Arroyo; Guillermo Bastida; Benito Gonzalez; David Monfort; Esther García-Planella; Carolina Figueroa; Julián Panés; Miquel Sans Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alexandra D Frolkis; Jennifer de Bruyn; Nathalie Jette; Mark Lowerison; Jordan Engbers; William Ghali; James D Lewis; Isabelle Vallerand; Scott Patten; Bertus Eksteen; Cheryl Barnabe; Remo Panaccione; Subrata Ghosh; Samuel Wiebe; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Michael J Diamant; Samuel Schaffer; Stephanie Coward; M Ellen Kuenzig; James Hubbard; Bertus Eksteen; Steven Heitman; Remo Panaccione; Subrata Ghosh; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 3.240