Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Many smokers find the cost of smoking cessation medications a barrier. Financial coverage for these medications increases utilization of pharmacotherapies. This study assesses whether financial coverage increases the proportion of successful quitters. Methods A pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 58 Canadian sites between March 2009 and September 2010. Smokers (≥10 cigarettes/day) without insurance coverage who were motivated to quit within 14 days were randomized (1:1) in a blinded manner to receive either full coverage eligibility for 26 weeks or no coverage. Pharmacotherapies covered were varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine patches/gum. Investigators/subjects were unblinded to study group assignment after randomization and prior to choosing a smoking cessation method(s). All subjects received brief smoking cessation counseling. The primary outcome measure was self-reported 7-day point prevalence of abstinence (PPA) at week 26. Results Of the 1380 randomized subjects (coverage, 696; no coverage, 684), 682 (98.0%) and 435 (63.6%), respectively, were dispensed at least one smoking cessation medication dose. The 7-day PPA at week 26 was higher in the full coverage versus no coverage group: 20.8% ( n  = 145) and 13.9% ( n  = 95), respectively; odds ratio (OR) = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23–2.18; p  = 0.001. Urine cotinine-confirmed 7-day PPA at week 26 was 15.7% ( n  = 109) and 10.1% ( n  = 69), respectively; OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.21–2.33; p  = 0.002. After pharmacotherapy, coverage eligibility was withdrawn from the full coverage group, continuous abstinence between weeks 26 and 52 was 6.6% ( n  = 46) and 5.6% ( n  = 38), in the full coverage and no coverage groups, respectively; OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.76–1.87; p  = 0.439. Conclusions In this study, the adoption of a smoking cessation medication coverage drug policy was an effective intervention to improve 26-week quit rates in Canada. The advantages were lost once coverage was discontinued. Further study is required on the duration of coverage to prevent relapse to smoking. (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00818207; the study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc.).

We examined the cost-effectiveness of providing systematic smoking cessation interventions to oncology patients at point-of-care. A decision analytic model was completed from the healthcare payer's perspective and included all incident cancer cases involving patients who smoke in New Brunswick, Canada (n = 1040), cancer site stratifications, and risks of mortality, continued smoking, and cancer treatment failure over one year. Usual care (no cessation support) was compared to the standard Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention, and to OMSC plus unlimited cost-free stop smoking medication (OMSC + SSM), including nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, or bupropion. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quit (ICQ) and incremental cost per cancer treatment failure avoided (ICTFA). The ICQ was $C143 and ICTFA $C1193 for standard OMSC. The ICQ was $C503 and ICTFA was $C5952 for OMSC + SSM. The number needed to treat (NNT) to produce one quit was 9 for standard OMSC and 4 for OMSC + SSM, and the NNT to avoid one first-line treatment failure was 78 for OMSC and 45 for OMSC + SSM. Both were cost-effective in 100% of 1000 simulations. Given the high clinical benefits and low incremental costs, systematic smoking cessation interventions should be a standard component of first-line cancer treatment.

Objectives This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies approved by Canada Health, i.e., orlistat, naltrexone 32 mg/bupropion 360 mg (NB-32), liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg as compared to the current standard of care (SoC). Methods Analyses were conducted using a cohort with a mean starting age 50 years, body mass index (BMI) 37.5 kg/m 2 , and 27.6% having type 2 diabetes. Using treatment-specific changes in surrogate endpoints from the STEP trials (BMI, glycemic, blood pressure, lipids), besides a network meta-analysis, the occurrence of weight-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were projected over lifetime. Results From a societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY, semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment, at an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 31 243 and CAD 29 014 per QALY gained versus the next best alternative, i.e., orlistat, and SoC, respectively. Semaglutide 2.4 mg extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg and remained cost-effective both under a public and private payer perspective. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses varying post-treatment catch-up rates, longer treatment durations and using real-world cohort characteristics. Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the preferred intervention, with a likelihood of 70% at a WTP threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY gained. However, when the modeled benefits of weight-loss on cancer, mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or osteoarthritis surgeries were removed simultaneously, orlistat emerged as the best value for money compared with SoC, with an ICUR of CAD 35 723 per QALY gained. Conclusion Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment alternative compared with D&E or orlistat alone, and extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg. Results were sensitive to the inclusion of the combined benefits of mortality, cancer, CVD, and knee osteoarthritis.

Smoking is a major public health concern in Tamil Nadu, as it is in many parts of the world. It is a leading cause of preventable diseases and deaths, with a significant economic burden on healthcare systems and society as a whole. Recognizing the need to address this issue, the implementation of smoking cessation strategies at primary health care (PHC) settings has gained attention. Conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis in this context can help policymakers and healthcare providers make informed decisions about the allocation of resources for such interventions. To compare the cost-effectiveness of the smoking cessation of proposed strategies (PSs), PS1: enhanced counselling (EC) + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) + bupropion tablet; PS2: behavioural intervention (BI) + NRT + promotion of bupropion sustained release (SR); PS3: EC + NRT + promotion of bupropion SR with the current strategy (BI +NRT+ Bupropion) in a population of smokers aged ≥15 years attending the PHC in Tamil Nadu. In this hypothetical cohort of 100,000 individuals using the decision tree analysis, a cost-effectiveness assessment was conducted for both proposed and existing strategies. The results were evaluated in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per person quitting smoking. To assess the robustness of the findings, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed which aims to explore and address the uncertainties associated with the outcomes. The cost of the current strategy (CS) was higher (₹359 or $4.28 million) when compared with PS1 (₹327 or $3.90 million) and PS3 (₹327 or $3.90 million) strategies. The PS2 with BI + bupropion SR + NRT was found to be more cost (₹2,720,571 or $ 32,414.76) as compared to current strategy. ICER values indicates that compared to the current strategy, the PS1 and PS3 were found to be cost-saving, whereas the PS2 was found to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that the PS1 and PS3 indicates 100% probability of the intervention being cost-saving. After excluding dominated interventions (PS2 and CS), the remaining strategies (PS1 and PS3) were compared. The PS3, with an incremental cost of ₹462,497 ($5,510) for 131 additional quitters, resulted in an ICER of ₹3,531 ($42) per quitter, making it a cost-effective option compared to PS1. Our study findings indicate that the need for healthcare providers and policymakers to implement PS3 with EC, NRT, Bupropion SR, as which was found to be cost-saving compared to current practices.

Introduction: An employer-based cost-benefit analysis for varenicline versus bupropion was conducted using clinical outcomes from a recently published trial. Methods: A decision tree model was developed based on the net benefit of treatment to produce a nonsmoker at 1 year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on quit rates with placebo and varenicline and the cost of varenicline. Results: Estimated 12-month employer cost savings per non-smoking employee were $540.60 for varenicline, $269.80 for bupropion SR generic, $150.80 for bupropion SR brand, and $81.80 for placebo. Varenicline was more cost beneficial than placebo, which had quit rates of 16.9% or less. The quit rate with varenicline would have to be ≤ 16.9% to lose cost benefit over bupropion SR generic. Conclusions: The economic benefit of varenicline is improved over bupropion, despite the increased initial cost of varenicline. (J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49:453—460)

Medicaid enrollees are about twice as likely as the general US population to smoke tobacco: 32 percent of people in the program identify themselves as smokers. This article provides the first data about the effectiveness of state Medicaid programs in promoting smoking cessation. Our analysis of Medicaid enrollees' use of cessation medications found that about 10 percent of current smokers received cessation medications in 2013. Every state Medicaid program covers cessation benefits, but the use of these medications varies widely, with the rate in Minnesota being thirty times higher than that in Texas. Most states could increase their efforts to help smokers quit, working with public health agencies, managed care plans, and others. In 2013 Medicaid spent $103 million on cessation medications-less than 0.25 percent of the estimated cost to Medicaid of smoking-related diseases. Additionally, states that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility in the wake of the Affordable Care Act have higher smoking prevalence and lower utilization rates of cessation medication, compared to expansion states. Given these factors, nonexpansion states will have a greater public health burden related to smoking. Medicaid and public health agencies should work together to make smoking cessation a priority for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Sustained-release bupropion and nortriptyline have been shown to be efficacious in treating cigarette smoking. Psychological intervention is also recognized as efficacious. The cost and cost-effectiveness of the 2 drug therapies have not been estimated. It was hypothesized that nortriptyline would be more cost-effective than bupropion. Hypotheses were not originally proposed concerning the cost-effectiveness of psychological versus drug treatment, but the 2 were compared using exploratory analyses. This was a 3 (bupropion versus nortriptyline versus placebo) by 2 (medical management alone versus medical management plus psychological intervention) randomized trial. Participants were 220 cigarette smokers. Outcome measures were cost and cost-effectiveness computed at week 52. Nortriptyline cost less than bupropion. Nortriptyline was more cost-effective than bupropion; the difference was not statistically significant. Psychological intervention cost less than the 2 drug treatments, and was more cost-effective, but not significantly so. Prospective investigations of the cost and cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological intervention, using adequate sample sizes, are warranted.

ObjectivesThis study conducts a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Tobacco Treatment Programme (TTP) of Uruguay’s National Resource Fund (NRF), within the context of the country’s advanced implementation of tobacco control policies.DesignWe run a 10 000 Markov model simulation with three states (people who smoke, people who have quit smoking and death) to simulate the trajectories of a cohort. The model has been widely used in previous studies evaluating smoking cessation interventions.ParticipantsFor the simulations, we use information from the 2016 to 2017 NRF TTP cohort. Nearly half of the participants lived in the capital, one-fifth had tertiary education, and about one-third had public health coverage. Participants began smoking at an average age of 16 years and smoked about 20 cigarettes per day when entering the TTP.InterventionsThe process of tobacco cessation is simulated under different alternatives: no intervention, the current TTP (bupropion, nicotine gum and counselling), an expanded TTP that incorporates nicotine patches as a replacement therapy, and a potential future programme with cytisine and counselling (with and without mortality adjustments).SettingWe focus on Uruguay, which has been recognised as a global leader in tobacco control, including 100% smoke-free environments, a full advertising ban, plain packaging and steady tax increases.MeasurementsWe compare cost-effectiveness of policy alternatives using years of life lost (YLL) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing policy alternatives with no intervention and the current tobacco cessation programme in the country. The analysis considers the direct costs of treatments for smoking-related diseases (healthcare perspective) as well as social costs resulting from loss of productivity (societal perspective).ResultsThe results indicate that all policy interventions lead to a reduction in the YLL compared with no intervention. Among these options, the inclusion of cytisine emerges as the most cost-effective choice. In a scenario including the transition probabilities from the TTP cohort, this alternative would result in a 10.9% reduction in YLL, with a particularly positive impact among women (−16.5% vs −4.0% in men). In terms of cost-effectiveness, the costs per YLL averted would be on average US$3991 per YLL from a healthcare perspective, and US$3773 per YLL from a societal perspective.ConclusionsTobacco cessation programmes in Uruguay are highly cost-effective, and our results justify their expansion and optimisation. The incorporation of cytisine into the TTP and a focus on groups with more severe tobacco consumption are recommended.

In the Netherlands, pharmacologic Smoking Cessation Treatments (pSCTs) were reimbursed in 2011. In 2012 the reimbursement was discontinued. As of 2013, pSCTs were again reimbursed, provided they are accompanied by behavioral counseling. The aim of this article is to assess the impact of changes in reimbursement policy on use of-and adherence to-pSCTs. A retrospective dispensing database analysis was performed on real-world observational data (2010-2013) from the Netherlands. Data on use and adherence was collected, in patients who were dispensed bupropion or varenicline in community pharmacies for the first time. Using the InterActionDataBase (iadb.nl), adherence per patient that initiated varenicline or bupropion was calculated by adding up all dispenses between initiation of the therapy and the 120 days thereafter. Good adherence was defined as using minimal 80% of the recommended duration and intensity of use. The prevalence of patients initiating pSCTs was stable at 0.4 per 1000 inhabitants per quarter during 2010. In 2011, the prevalence was on average 0.7, with peaks in the first (0.8 per 1000) and fourth (1.0 per 1000) quarters of 2011. In 2012, the prevalence was stable again at 0.3. In 2013, prevalence was on average 0.4, with a small peak in the first quarter. Adherence was 15.4% in 2010 versus 20.1% in 2011 (P = .002). In 2012, adherence was 13.9%, compared with 18.9% in 2013 (P = .008). Not only the likelihood of initiating pSCTs, but also the extent of adherence to these treatments, although generally low, seems higher during reimbursement.

Cigarette smoking remains the largest preventable cause of premature death in developed countries. Until recently nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been the only recognised form of treatment for smoking cessation. Bupropion, the first non-nicotine based drug for smoking cessation was licensed in the United States of America (US) in 1997 and in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2000 for smoking cessation in people aged 18 years and over. Bupropion exerts its effect primarily through the inhibition of dopamine reuptake into neuronal synaptic vesicles. It is also a weak noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor and has no effect on the serotonin system. Bupropion has proven efficacy for smoking cessation in a number of clinical trials, helping approximately one in five smokers to stop smoking. Up to a half of patients taking bupropion experience side effects, mainly insomnia and a dry mouth, which are closely linked to the nicotine withdrawal syndrome. Bupropion is rarely associated with seizures however care must be taken when co-prescribing with drugs that can lower seizure threshold. Also, bupropion is a potent enzyme inhibitor and can raise plasma levels of some drugs including antidepressants, antiarrhythmics and antipsychotics. Bupropion has been shown to be a safe and cost effective smoking cessation agent. Despite this, NRT remains the dominant pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation.