Cost-effectiveness of Increasing the Reach of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Germany: Results from the EQUIPTMOD

Overview

Journal Addiction

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2017 Dec 16

PMID 29243347

Citations 5

Authors

Manuel B Huber

Maximilian Prager

Kathryn Coyle

Doug Coyle

Adam Lester-George

Marta Trapero-Bertran

Bertalan Nemeth

Kei Long Cheung

Renee Stark

Matthias Vogl

Subhash Pokhrel

Reiner Leidl

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany.

Design: A Markov-based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A health-care perspective (extended to include out-of-pocket payments) with life-time horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty concerning predicted estimates.

Setting: Germany.

Participants: Cohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany.

Interventions: Interventions included group-based behavioural support, financial incentive programmes and varenicline. For prospective scenario 1 the reach of group-based behavioral support, financial incentive programme and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (= 57 915 quit attempts), while prospective scenario 2 represented a higher reach, mirroring the levels observed in England.

Measurements: EQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, quality-of-life years (QALYs) gained, cost-effectiveness and return on investment.

Findings: The highest returns through reduction in smoking-related health-care costs were seen for the financial incentive programme (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group-based behavioural support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, prospective scenario 1 led to 15 034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost-savings, compared with current investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return-on-investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of only €5000, the probability of being cost-effective is approximately 75% for prospective scenario 1.

Conclusions: Increasing the reach of group-based behavioural support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policymakers that improves the population's health outcomes and that may be considered cost-effective.

Citing Articles

Burden of disease scenarios for 204 countries and territories, 2022-2050: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

Lancet. 2024; 403(10440):2204-2256.

PMID: 38762325 PMC: 11121021. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00685-8.

Identifying best modelling practices for tobacco control policy simulations: a systematic review and a novel quality assessment framework.

Huang V, Head A, Hyseni L, Oflaherty M, Buchan I, Capewell S Tob Control. 2022; 32(5):589-598.

PMID: 35017262 PMC: 10447402. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056825.

Assessment of cost-effective changes to the current and potential provision of smoking cessation services: an analysis based on the EQUIPTMOD.

Anraad C, Cheung K, Hiligsmann M, Coyle K, Coyle D, Owen L Addiction. 2018; 113 Suppl 1:96-105.

PMID: 29430762 PMC: 6033165. DOI: 10.1111/add.14093.

Cost-effectiveness of increasing the reach of smoking cessation interventions in Germany: results from the EQUIPTMOD.

Huber M, Prager M, Coyle K, Coyle D, Lester-George A, Trapero-Bertran M Addiction. 2017; 113 Suppl 1:52-64.

PMID: 29243347 PMC: 6033002. DOI: 10.1111/add.14062.

Estimates of effectiveness and reach for 'return on investment' modelling of smoking cessation interventions using data from England.

West R, Coyle K, Owen L, Coyle D, Pokhrel S Addiction. 2017; 113 Suppl 1:19-31.

PMID: 28833834 PMC: 6032933. DOI: 10.1111/add.14006.

References

Kotz D, Brown J, West R . Prospective cohort study of the effectiveness of varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation in the "real world". BMC Public Health. 2014; 14:1163. PMC: 4242476. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1163. View

Wenig J, Erfurt L, Kroger C, Nowak D . Smoking cessation in groups--who benefits in the long term?. Health Educ Res. 2013; 28(5):869-78. DOI: 10.1093/her/cyt086. View

Sterling L, Windle S, Filion K, Touma L, Eisenberg M . Varenicline and Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5(2). PMC: 4802486. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002849. View

Yeh E, Levasseur G, Kaiserman M . Evaluation of urinary cotinine immunoassay test strips used to assess smoking status. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011; 13(11):1045-51. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr127. View

Galaznik A, Cappell K, Montejano L, Makinson G, Zou K, Lenhart G . Impact of access restrictions on varenicline utilization. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013; 13(5):651-6. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2013.837770. View

Powers K, Kay D, Factor S, Zabetian C, Higgins D, Samii A . Combined effects of smoking, coffee, and NSAIDs on Parkinson's disease risk. Mov Disord. 2007; 23(1):88-95. DOI: 10.1002/mds.21782. View

Carter B, Abnet C, Feskanich D, Freedman N, Hartge P, Lewis C . Smoking and mortality--beyond established causes. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(7):631-40. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1407211. View

Morens D, Grandinetti A, Davis J, Ross G, White L, Reed D . Evidence against the operation of selective mortality in explaining the association between cigarette smoking and reduced occurrence of idiopathic Parkinson disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1996; 144(4):400-4. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008941. View

Raich A, Ballbe M, Nieva G, Cano M, Fernandez T, Bruguera E . Safety of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Psychiatric and Addicts Patients. Subst Use Misuse. 2016; 51(5):649-57. DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2015.1133646. View

10.

Stead L, Lancaster T . Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; (2):CD001007. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub2. View

11.

Kirsch F . A systematic review of quality and cost-effectiveness derived from Markov models evaluating smoking cessation interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015; 15(2):301-16. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1001976. View

12.

Wacker M, Holle R, Heinrich J, Ladwig K, Peters A, Leidl R . The association of smoking status with healthcare utilisation, productivity loss and resulting costs: results from the population-based KORA F4 study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13:278. PMC: 3722023. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-278. View

13.

Erfurt L, Kroger C . [Use of medication in combination with a modern group programme for smoking cessation]. Gesundheitswesen. 2014; 77(2):74-80. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1367039. View

14.

van der Mark M, Nijssen P, Vlaanderen J, Huss A, Mulleners W, Sas A . A case-control study of the protective effect of alcohol, coffee, and cigarette consumption on Parkinson disease risk: time-since-cessation modifies the effect of tobacco smoking. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4):e95297. PMC: 4005732. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095297. View

15.

Kroger C, Gomes de Matos E, Piontek D, Wenig J . [Quitting Attempts and Utilisation of Smoking Cessation Aids among Smokers in Germany: Results from the 2012 Epidemiological Survey of Substance Abuse]. Gesundheitswesen. 2015; 78(11):752-758. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1548913. View

16.

Voko Z, Cheung K, Jozwiak-Hagymasy J, Wolfenstetter S, Jones T, Munoz C . Similarities and differences between stakeholders' opinions on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information across five European countries: results from the EQUIPT survey. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016; 14(1):38. PMC: 4882811. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0110-7. View

17.

Cheung K, Evers S, Hiligsmann M, Voko Z, Pokhrel S, Jones T . Understanding the stakeholders' intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool. Health Policy. 2016; 120(1):46-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.11.004. View

18.

Checkoway H, Powers K, Smith-Weller T, Franklin G, Longstreth Jr W, Swanson P . Parkinson's disease risks associated with cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and caffeine intake. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 155(8):732-8. DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.8.732. View

19.

Borland R, Li L, Driezen P, Wilson N, Hammond D, Thompson M . Cessation assistance reported by smokers in 15 countries participating in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) policy evaluation surveys. Addiction. 2011; 107(1):197-205. PMC: 3237953. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03636.x. View

20.

Thyrian J, Panagiotakos D, Polychronopoulos E, West R, Zatonski W, John U . The relationship between smokers' motivation to quit and intensity of tobacco control at the population level: a comparison of five European countries. BMC Public Health. 2008; 8:2. PMC: 2245926. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-2. View