Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Value Health. 2021 Jun;24(6):780-788. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.012. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom.
An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information.
When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose.
Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.
吸烟是全球主要的死亡原因。戒烟辅助工具包括伐尼克兰、安非他酮、尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)和电子烟,剂量不同(低、中、高),单独使用或联合使用。以前的成本效益分析没有充分考虑不良反应,也没有比较所有的戒烟辅助工具。本研究旨在确定英国戒烟辅助工具的相对成本效益。
我们对已建立的马尔可夫队列模型进行了改编,纳入了与戒烟辅助工具相关的抑郁和自伤导致的健康结果和成本,以及其他健康事件。通过系统评价和网络荟萃分析,提供了关于戒烟辅助工具在戒烟方面的相对疗效和主要不良神经精神事件的信息。仅报告英国许可干预措施的基本情况结果。报告了两项敏感性分析,一项包括未许可干预措施,另一项比较了所有的戒烟辅助工具,但去除了抑郁和自伤的影响。通过计算部分完全信息的预期价值,评估了模型输入对结论的敏感性。
仅考虑英国许可的干预措施时,标准剂量伐尼克兰和 NRT 标准剂量最具成本效益。包括未许可的干预措施在内,电子烟低剂量似乎最具成本效益,其次是标准剂量伐尼克兰和安非他酮标准剂量联合使用。当排除抑郁和自伤的影响时,标准剂量伐尼克兰和 NRT 标准剂量联合使用最具成本效益,其次是标准剂量伐尼克兰和 NRT 标准剂量联合使用。
尽管联合治疗被发现最具成本效益,但目前在英国联合治疗是未许可的,电子烟的安全性仍不确定。信息价值分析表明,研究人员应该继续在有活性对照的研究中,调查电子烟的长期有效性和安全性结果。