Cargando…
Healthcare Costs of Smokers Using Varenicline Versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy Patch in the United States: Evidence from Real-World Practice
INTRODUCTION: Varenicline (VAR) is an effective smoking-cessation therapy compared to the commonly used nicotine-replacement therapy patch (NRT-P). However, comparative real-world evidence on smoking-cessation therapies is limited, especially for economic outcomes. METHODS: Using national claims dat...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30569324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0858-y |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Varenicline (VAR) is an effective smoking-cessation therapy compared to the commonly used nicotine-replacement therapy patch (NRT-P). However, comparative real-world evidence on smoking-cessation therapies is limited, especially for economic outcomes. METHODS: Using national claims databases (2012–2016) in the United States (US), adults initiating VAR or NRT-P without use of any other smoking-cessation products were followed for up to 1 year on a quarterly basis. Outcomes included smoking-attributable (SA) (cardiovascular, diabetes, pulmonary diseases, and smoking cessation) and all-cause costs (2017 US dollars). Adjusted mean costs were estimated from multivariable regressions, with baseline characteristics and propensity scores as covariates. Annual adjusted costs were calculated from quarterly averages. RESULTS: The VAR cohort (n = 209,284) was younger (mean age 46.7 vs. 49.0 years) and had fewer comorbidities [mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI): 0.8 vs. 1.6] than the NRT-P cohort (n = 34,593). After adjustment, VAR cohort had lower SA and all-cause medical costs than NRT-P cohort in Quarters 1–4 (Q1–Q4) of follow-up, and had lower SA and all-cause total costs in Q2–Q4. Annually, VAR cohort had higher SA total costs ($307) and lower all-cause costs (− $2089) than NRT-P cohort. Annual medical costs were lower in VAR cohort (− $640 for SA and − $2876 for all-cause), and pharmacy costs were higher ($762 for SA and $777 for all-cause). In adherent patients (VAR: n = 38,744; NRT-P: n = 2702), VAR patients had lower annual medical costs (− $794 for SA and − $1636 for all-cause) and higher pharmacy costs ($1175 for SA and $1269 for all-cause); differences in SA and all-cause total costs were not statistically significant between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lower SA and all-cause medical costs associated with the use of VAR versus NRT-P resulted in savings in all-cause total costs and, among adherent patients, potentially offset the high pharmacy costs of VAR. FUNDING: Pfizer, Inc. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0858-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
---|