Cargando…

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

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 in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huber, Manuel B., Präger, Maximilian, Coyle, Kathryn, Coyle, Doug, Lester‐George, Adam, Trapero‐Bertran, Marta, Nemeth, Bertalan, Cheung, Kei Long, Stark, Renee, Vogl, Matthias, Pokhrel, Subhash, Leidl, Reiner
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6033002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29243347
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14062
Descripción
Sumario: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.