The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with nicotine patches for smoking cessation--results from four European countries.

På svenska

Author

  • Kristian Bolin
  • Koo Wilson
  • Hicham Benhaddi
  • Enrico de Nigris
  • Sophie Marbaix
  • Ann-Christin Mork
  • Henri-Jean Aubin

Summary, in English

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation in four European countries (Belgium, France, Sweden and the UK). METHODS: Markov simulations, using the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model, were performed. We simulated the incidence of four smoking-related morbidities: lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease and stroke. The model computes quality-adjusted life-years gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, adopting a lifetime perspective. Efficacy data were obtained from a randomized open-label trial: Week 52 continuous abstinence rates were 26.1% for varenicline and 20.3% for NRT. RESULTS: The analyses imply that for countries analysed, smoking cessation using varenicline versus NRT was associated with reduced smoking-related morbidity and mortality. The number of morbidities avoided, per 1000 smokers attempting to quit, ranged from 9.7 in Belgium to 6.5 in the UK. The number of quality-adjusted life-years gained, per 1000 smokers, was 23 (Belgium); 19.5 (France); 29.9 (Sweden); and 23.7 (UK). In all base-case simulations (except France), varenicline dominated (more effective and cost saving) NRT regarding costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained; for France the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 2803. CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that since varenicline treatment was more effective, the result was increased healthcare cost savings in Belgium, Sweden and the UK. Our results suggest that funding varenicline as a smoking cessation aid is justifiable from a healthcare resource allocation perspective.

Publishing year

2009

Language

English

Pages

650-654

Publication/Series

European Journal of Public Health

Volume

19

Issue

6

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Topic

  • Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Keywords

  • nicotine replacement therapy
  • cost-effectiveness
  • smoking cessation
  • varenicline

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1101-1262