Cost Effectiveness of Varenicline in Belgium, Compared with Bupropion, Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Brief Counselling and Unaided Smoking Cessation

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 655-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lieven Annemans ◽  
Kristiaan Nackaerts ◽  
Pierre Bartsch ◽  
Jacques Prignot ◽  
Sophie Marbaix
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (59) ◽  
pp. 1-224
Author(s):  
Kyla H Thomas ◽  
Michael N Dalili ◽  
José A López-López ◽  
Edna Keeney ◽  
David Phillippo ◽  
...  

Background Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. Design Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. Setting Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. Participants Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. Interventions Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. Main outcome measures Effectiveness – continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety – serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. Data sources Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. Review methods Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. Results Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. Limitations Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. Conclusions Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. Future work Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Author(s):  
Saba Madae’en ◽  
Nour Obeidat ◽  
Mohammad Adeinat

Abstract Background Smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (SCPs) have been established as cost-effective for the treatment of tobacco use disorder across a variety of settings. In Jordan, a resource-constrained country where smoking rates rank at one of the highest globally, the cost-effectiveness of SCPs has not yet been quantified. The lack of information about the value of SCPs has contributed to low demand for them (from public and private payers) and consequently low availability of these medications. The aim of this study was to simulate—in a hypothetical cohort of Jordanian smokers—the clinical and economic impact of using two smoking cessation regimens and to generate cost-effectiveness values that can support policy changes to avail smoking cessation medication in a country burdened with heavy tobacco use. Methods We employed a similar approach to a widely used economic model, the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model. A hypothetical cohort of Jordanian male smokers aged 30 to 70 years and making a quit attempt using either a varenicline regimen or a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) regimen were followed over time (until reaching 70 years of age). Markov simulations were run for the cohort, and life years gained were computed for each arm (compared to no intervention). Drug costs, prevalence of smoking, and population life expectancies were based on Jordanian data. Efficacy data were obtained from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios as well as the potential budgetary impact of employing these regimens were generated. Several parameters were modified in sensitivity analyses to capture potential challenges unique to Jordan and that could impact the results. Results For a treatment cohort of 527,118 Jordanian male smokers who intended to quit, 103,970 life years were gained using the varenicline regimen, while 64,030 life years were gained using the NRT regimen (compared to the no-intervention arm of life years). The cost per life year gained was JD1204 ($1696 USD) and JD1342 ($1890 USD) for varenicline and NRT, respectively.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-03
Author(s):  
Charl Woo

Evidence shows that successful treatment of nicotine addiction improves mortality, despite age at cessation. The extreme hazards of smoking stress the importance of patient-physician discussion that is a significant factor in tobacco cessation. Discussion alone and other methods such as “cold turkey” have proven to have low efficacy at cessation which has led to the development nicotine replacement therapy to help augment cessation.


BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S92-S93
Author(s):  
Flensham Mohamed ◽  
Mohamed Bader

AimsAudit carried out to assess whether or not patients had been asked about their smoking status during admission onto an acute adult mental health ward, as well as if they had received any smoking cessation advice or offered nicotine replacement therapy.Background•Physical health outcomes in patients with serious mental illness (SMI) are consisitently worse than the general public This is due to multiple factors; adverse effects of medication (including metabolic syndromes with psychotropics) as well as poor lifestyle factors such as smoking status•Patients with an SMI are 3–6 times more likely to die due to coronary artery disease. 70% of patients in inpatient psychiatric units are smokers, a strong independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease.•Smoking cessation is a potent modifiable risk factor that can prevent mortality and reduce morbidity.MethodA cross-sectional review of all 34 inpatients across four general adult acute psychiatric wards.Patient records were explored using the Aneuran Bevan Health Board admission proformas to identify evidence of smoking status and whether advice was offered.ResultSmoker but not given cessation advice n = 13 (38%)Not asked about smoking n = 11 (32%)Smoker and given cessation advice n = 4 (12%)Non-smoker n = 6 (18%)ConclusionPatients were asked about their smoking status the majority of the time (68%) but provision of advice or nicotine replacement therapy was only done in 14% of potential smokers (identified smokers and patients not asked about smoking status).A consideration to be taken into account is that on admission, a patient's physical health status may be unknown, with the additional difficulty of a patient's acute distress complicating the physical examination, smoking status and modification of patient's smoking status may not be the highest priory in that context.Data regarding asking about smoking were different amongst wards, potentially signifying differences between assessors willingness to ask about smoking status.There is a lack of smoking cessation literature available on the wards and patients are often unaware of what options are available to quit smoking.The audit simply determined whether or not assessors were documenting smoking status, it does not measure the quantity or quality of smoking cessation advice provided.Further quality improvement projects should be launched, with focus groups as the intial step at further investigating inpatient smoking rates, as well as attempting to reduce them in a more systemic way.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document