Becky Pennington1,2, Alex Filby3, Lesley Owen4, Matthew Taylor3. 1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. b.pennington@sheffield.ac.uk. 2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 10 Spring Gardens, London, SW1A 2BU, UK. b.pennington@sheffield.ac.uk. 3. York Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK. 4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 10 Spring Gardens, London, SW1A 2BU, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions have used cohort state-transition models. Discrete event simulations (DESs) have been proposed as a superior approach. OBJECTIVE: We developed a state-transition model and a DES using the discretely integrated condition event (DICE) framework and compared the cost-effectiveness results. We performed scenario analysis using the DES to explore the impact of alternative assumptions. METHODS: The models estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the intervention and comparator from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. The models considered five comorbidities: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. The state-transition model used prevalence data, and the DES used incidence. The costs and utility inputs were the same between two models and consistent with those used in previous analyses for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. RESULTS: In the state-transition model, the intervention produced an additional 0.16 QALYs at a cost of £540, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3438. The comparable DES scenario produced an ICER of £5577. The ICER for the DES increased to £18,354 when long-term relapse was included. CONCLUSIONS: The model structures themselves did not influence smoking cessation cost-effectiveness results, but long-term assumptions did. When there is variation in long-term predictions between interventions, economic models need a structure that can reflect this.
BACKGROUND: Most economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions have used cohort state-transition models. Discrete event simulations (DESs) have been proposed as a superior approach. OBJECTIVE: We developed a state-transition model and a DES using the discretely integrated condition event (DICE) framework and compared the cost-effectiveness results. We performed scenario analysis using the DES to explore the impact of alternative assumptions. METHODS: The models estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the intervention and comparator from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. The models considered five comorbidities: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. The state-transition model used prevalence data, and the DES used incidence. The costs and utility inputs were the same between two models and consistent with those used in previous analyses for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. RESULTS: In the state-transition model, the intervention produced an additional 0.16 QALYs at a cost of £540, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3438. The comparable DES scenario produced an ICER of £5577. The ICER for the DES increased to £18,354 when long-term relapse was included. CONCLUSIONS: The model structures themselves did not influence smoking cessation cost-effectiveness results, but long-term assumptions did. When there is variation in long-term predictions between interventions, economic models need a structure that can reflect this.
Authors: Beate Pesch; Benjamin Kendzia; Per Gustavsson; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Georg Johnen; Hermann Pohlabeln; Ann Olsson; Wolfgang Ahrens; Isabelle Mercedes Gross; Irene Brüske; Heinz-Erich Wichmann; Franco Merletti; Lorenzo Richiardi; Lorenzo Simonato; Cristina Fortes; Jack Siemiatycki; Marie-Elise Parent; Dario Consonni; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil Caporaso; David Zaridze; Adrian Cassidy; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Peter Rudnai; Jolanta Lissowska; Isabelle Stücker; Eleonora Fabianova; Rodica Stanescu Dumitru; Vladimir Bencko; Lenka Foretova; Vladimir Janout; Charles M Rudin; Paul Brennan; Paolo Boffetta; Kurt Straif; Thomas Brüning Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: I Pluvy; M Panouillères; I Garrido; J Pauchot; J Saboye; J P Chavoin; Y Tropet; J L Grolleau; B Chaput Journal: Ann Chir Plast Esthet Date: 2014-10-25 Impact factor: 0.660
Authors: Phyo K Myint; Shubhada Sinha; Robert N Luben; Sheila A Bingham; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2008-12
Authors: Michael Chaiton; Lori Diemert; Joanna E Cohen; Susan J Bondy; Peter Selby; Anne Philipneri; Robert Schwartz Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Talitha Feenstra; Isaac Corro-Ramos; Dominique Hamerlijnck; George van Voorn; Salah Ghabri Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Anuraag R Kansal; Odette S Reifsnider; Sarah B Brand; Neil Hawkins; Anna Coughlan; Shujun Li; Lael Cragin; Clark Paramore; Andrew C Dietz; J Jaime Caro Journal: J Mark Access Health Policy Date: 2021-06-07