4.5 Article

Cost-effectiveness of an Intensive Smoking Cessation Intervention for COPD Outpatients

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 657-663

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr263

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Dutch Asthma Foundation [NAF 3.4.01.67]
  2. Comprehensive Cancer Centre Stedendriehoek Twente

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity smoking cessation program (SmokeStop Therapy; SST) versus a medium-intensity treatment (Minimal Intervention Strategy for Lung patients [LMIS]) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outpatients. The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of the SST compared with the LMIS with 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the cotinine-validated continuous abstinence rate based on intention to treat. A health care perspective was adopted, with outcomes assessed in terms of (incremental) additional quitters gained, exacerbations prevented, and hospital days prevented. Health care resource use, associated with smoking cessation, was collected at baseline and 12 months after the start of the interventions. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. The average patient receiving SST generated euro581 in health care costs, including the costs of the smoking cessation program, versus euro595 in the LMIS. The SST is also associated with a lower average number of exacerbations (0.38 vs. 0.60) and hospital days (0.39 vs. 1) per patient and a higher number of quitters (20 vs. 9) at lower total costs. This leads to a dominance of the SST compared with the LMIS. The high-intensive SST is more cost-effective than the medium-intensive LMIS after 1 year. This is associated with cost savings per additional quitter, prevented exacerbations, and hospital days at lower or equal costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available