Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation Among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals (ie, those with low socioeconomic status [SES]) have difficulty quitting smoking and may benefit from incentive-based cessation interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of incentivizing smoking abstinence on smoking cessation among adults with low SES. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used a 2-group randomized clinical trial design. Data collection occurred between January 30, 2017, and February 7, 2022. Participants included adults with low SES who were willing to undergo smoking cessation treatment. Data were analyzed from April 18, 2023, to April 19, 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomized to usual care (UC) for smoking cessation (counseling plus pharmacotherapy) or UC plus abstinence-contingent financial incentives (UC plus FI). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 26 weeks after the quit date. Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 7-day PPA at earlier follow-ups, 30-day PPA at 12 and 26 weeks, repeated 7-day PPA, and continuous abstinence. Multiple approaches were employed to handle missing outcomes at follow-up, including categorizing missing data as smoking (primary), complete case analysis, and multiple imputation. Results: The 320 participants had a mean (SD) age of 48.9 (11.6) and were predominantly female (202 [63.1%]); 82 (25.6%) were Black, 15 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 200 (62.5%) were White; and 146 (45.6%) participated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 161 were randomized to UC and 159 were randomized to UC plus FI. After covariate adjustment with missing data treated as smoking, assignment to UC plus FI was associated with a greater likelihood of 7-day PPA at the 4-week (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.11 [95% CI, 1.81-5.34]), 8-week (AOR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.62-5.31]), and 12-week (AOR, 3.18 [95% CI, 1.70-5.95]) follow-ups, but not at the 26-week follow-up (22 [13.8%] vs 14 [8.7%] abstinent; AOR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.85-3.80]). However, the association of group assignment with smoking cessation reached statistical significance at all follow-ups, including 26 weeks, with multiple imputation (37.37 [23.5%] in the UC plus FI group vs 19.48 [12.1%] in the UC group were abstinent; AOR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.14-4.63]). Repeated-measures analyses indicated that participants in the UC plus FI group were significantly more likely to achieve PPA across assessments through 26 weeks with all missing data estimation methods. Other secondary cessation outcomes also showed comparable patterns across estimation methods. Participants earned a mean (SD) of $72 ($90) (of $250 possible) in abstinence-contingent incentives. Participation during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the likelihood of cessation across assessments. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, incentivizing smoking cessation did not increase cessation at 26 weeks when missing data were treated as smoking; however, the UC plus FI group had greater odds of quitting at follow-ups through 12 weeks. Cessation rates were higher for the UC plus FI group at all follow-ups through 26 weeks when multiple imputation was used to estimate missing outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737566.

[Application of the cigarette purchase tasks in achieving China' s tobacco control goals].

OBJECTIVE: To assess cigarette demand among Chinese smokers through a cigarette purchase task (CPT) and to evaluate cigarette prices under different hypothetical scenarios in order to meet the goals of smoking prevalence reduction in China. METHODS: In the study, 447 participants completed a hypothetical CPT at baseline assessments of a trial, thus, cigarette demand curves were individually fitted for each participant using an exponentiated version of the exponential demand model. Typically, five demand indices were derived, intensity (consumption when free), breakpoint (first price at which consumption is suppressed to 0), maximum output (Omax), maximum price (Pmax, price at which Omax occurred), and elasticity (the ratio of the change in quantity demanded to the change in price). A one-way analysis of variance was used to explore the correlations between the cigarette purchase task indices and socio-demographic and smoking characteristics. The one-way decay model was employed to simulate the smoking cessation rates and determine optimal cigarette prices in a series of scenarios for achieving 20% smoking prevalence. RESULTS: The price elasticity drawn from CPT was 0.54, indicating that a 10% price increase could reduce smoking by 5.4% in the participated smokers. Smokers with higher income were less sensitive to cigarette prices (elasticity=-2.31, P=0.028). Cigarette purchase task indices varied significantly among the smokers with different prices of commonly used cigarettes, tobacco dependence, and smoking volume. The smokers who consumed cigarettes of higher prices reported higher breakpoint, Omax and Pmax, but lower intensity (P=0.001). The smokers who were moderately or highly nicotine dependent reported higher intensity, breakpoint, Omax and Pmax, and they had lower intensity (P=0.001). The smokers who had a higher volume of cigarettes reported higher intensity and Omax, and lower intensity (P < 0.001). To achieve the goal of reducing smoking prevalence to 20% in mainland China, we estimated the desired increase on smoking cessation rate and prices accordingly in a series of scenarios, considering the gender variance and reduced smoking initiation. In scenario (a), to achieve a smoking prevalence goal of 20%, it would be necessary for 24.81% of the current smokers to quit smoking when there were no new smokers. Our fitting model yielded a corresponding value of 59.64 yuan (95%CI 53.13-67.24). Given the assumption in scenario (b) that only males quitted smoking, the desired cessation rates would be 25.82%, with a higher corresponding price of 62.15 yuan (95%CI 55.40-70.06) to induce desired cessation rates. In the proposed scenario (c) where 40 percent of the reduction in smoking prevalence came from reduced smoking initiation, and females and males equally quitted smoking due to increased cigarette prices, the price of a pack of cigarettes would be at least 37.36 yuan (95%CI 32.32-42.69) (equals to $ 5.20) per pack to achieve the cessation rate of 14.89 percent. In scenario (d) where only males quitted smoking due to increased cigarette prices considering the reduced smoking initiation, the respective smoking cessation rates should be 15.49% with the desired prices of 38.60 yuan (95%CI 33.53-44.02). After adjusting for education levels and income levels in scenario (c), the price of cigarettes would be at least 37.37 yuan/pack (equals to $ 5.20) (95%CI 30.73-44.94) and 37.84 yuan/pack (equals to $ 5.26) (95%CI 31.94-44.53), respectively. CONCLUSION: Cigarette purchase task indices are significantly associated with income levels and prices of commonly used cigarettes, levels of tobacco dependence, and smoking volume, which is inspiring in studying price factors that influence smoking behavior. It is suggested that higher cigarette prices, surpassing the current actual market level, is imperative in mainland China. Stronger policy stra-tegies should be taken to increase tobacco taxes and retail cigarette prices to achieve the Healthy China 2030 goal of reducing smoking prevalence to 20%.

Interpreting results, impacts and implications from WHO FCTC tobacco control investment cases in 21 low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control investment cases analyse the health and socioeconomic costs of tobacco use and the benefits that can be achieved from implementing measures outlined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). They are intended to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders with country-level evidence that is relevant, useful and responsive to national priorities and policy context. METHODS: This paper synthesises findings from investment cases conducted in Armenia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia and Zambia. We examine annual socioeconomic costs associated with tobacco use, focusing on smoking-related healthcare expenditures, the value of lives lost due to tobacco-related mortality and workplace productivity losses due to smoking. We explore potential benefits associated with WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures. RESULTS: Tobacco use results in average annual socioeconomic losses of US$95 million, US$610 million and US$1.6 billion among the low-income (n=3), lower-middle-income (n=12) and upper-middle-income countries (n=6) included in this analysis, respectively. These losses are equal to 1.1%, 1.8% and 2.9% of average annual national gross domestic product, respectively. Implementation and enforcement of WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures would lead to reduced tobacco use, fewer tobacco-related deaths and reduced socioeconomic losses. CONCLUSIONS: WHO FCTC tobacco control measures would provide a positive return on investment in every country analysed.

Economic Evaluation of Enhanced vs Standard Varenicline Treatment for Tobacco Cessation.

Importance: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and illness in the US. Identifying cost-effective smoking cessation treatment may increase the likelihood that health systems deliver such treatment to their patients who smoke. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard vs enhanced varenicline use (extended varenicline treatment or varenicline in combination with nicotine replacement therapy) among individuals trying to quit smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation assesses the Quitting Using Intensive Treatments Study (QUITS), which randomized 1251 study participants who smoked into 4 conditions: (1) 12-week varenicline monotherapy (n = 315); (2) 24-week varenicline monotherapy (n = 311); (3) 12-week varenicline combination treatment with nicotine replacement therapy patch (n = 314); or (4) 24-week varenicline combination treatment with nicotine replacement therapy patch (n = 311). Study enrollment occurred in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, between November 11, 2017, and July 2, 2020. Statistical analysis took place from May to October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence (biochemically confirmed with exhaled carbon monoxide level ≤5 ppm) at 52 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), or cost per additional person who quit smoking, was calculated using decision tree analysis based on abstinence and cost for each arm of the trial. Results: Of the 1251 participants, mean (SD) age was 49.1 (11.9) years, 675 (54.0%) were women, and 881 (70.4%) completed the 52-week follow-up. Tobacco cessation at 52 weeks was 25.1% (79 of 315) for 12-week monotherapy, 24.4% (76 of 311) for 24-week monotherapy, 23.6% (74 of 314) for 12-week combination therapy, and 25.1% (78 of 311) for 24-week combination therapy, respectively. The total mean (SD) cost was $1175 ($365) for 12-week monotherapy, $1374 ($412) for 12-week combination therapy, $2022 ($813) for 24-week monotherapy, and $2118 ($1058) for 24-week combination therapy. The ICER for 12-week varenicline monotherapy was $4681 per individual who quit smoking and $4579 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) added. The ICER for 24-week varenicline combination therapy relative to 12-week monotherapy was $92 000 000 per additional individual who quit smoking and $90 000 000 (95% CI, $15 703 to dominated or more costly and less efficacious) per additional QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation of standard vs enhanced varenicline treatment for smoking cessation suggests that 12-week varenicline monotherapy was the most cost-effective treatment option at the commonly cited threshold of $100 000/QALY. This study provides patients, health care professionals, and other stakeholders with increased understanding of the health and economic impact of more intensive varenicline treatment options.

Electronic Decision-Making Tool for Smoking Cessation (Pare de Fumar Conosco) Versus Standard of Care: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Pare de Fumar Conosco software compared with the standard of care adopted in Brazil for the treatment of smoking cessation. METHODS: In the cohort of smokers with multiple chronic conditions, we developed an decision tree model for the benefit measures of smoking cessation. We adopted the perspectives of the Brazilian Unified Health System and the service provider. Resources and costs were measured by primary and secondary sources and effectiveness by a randomized clinical trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. No willingness to pay threshold was adopted. RESULTS: The software had a lower cost and greater effectiveness than its comparator. The ICER was dominant in all of the benefits examined (-R$2 585 178.29 to -R$325 001.20). The cost of the standard of care followed by that of the electronic tool affected the ICER of the benefit measures. In all probabilistic analyses, the software was superior to the standard of care (53.6%-82.5%). CONCLUSION: The Pare de Fumar Conosco software is a technology that results in cost savings in treating smoking cessation.

Effect of 3 months and 12 months of financial incentives on 12-month postpartum smoking cessation maintenance: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Offering financial incentives is effective for smoking cessation during pregnancy. We tested the effectiveness of financial incentives for maintaining postpartum cessation, comparing 12-month and 3-month incentives with each other and with usual care (UC). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm randomized controlled trial involving four English, National Health Service, stop smoking services. A total of 462 postpartum women (aged ≥ 16 years) took part, who stopped smoking during pregnancy with financial incentives, validated as abstinent from smoking at end of pregnancy or early postpartum. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions comprised (i) UC; (ii) UC plus up to £60 of financial voucher incentives offered to participants and £60 offered to an optional significant-other supporter, over 3 months postpartum, contingent upon validated abstinence ('3-month incentives'); or (iii) UC plus '3-month incentives' plus £180 of vouchers offered to participants over 9 months postpartum, contingent upon abstinence ('12-month incentives'). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: biochemically validated abstinence at 1 year postpartum. To adjust for testing all comparisons between groups with equal precision, P < 0.017 was necessary for significance. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: self-reported and validated abstinence at 3 months postpartum; self-reported abstinence at 1 year postpartum. FINDINGS: Primary outcome ascertainment: abstinence was 39.6% (63/159) 12 months incentives, 21.4% (33/154) 3 months incentives and 28.2% (42/149) UC. Adjusted odds ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 12-month versus 3-month incentives OR = 2.41 (95% CI = 1.46-3.96), P = 0.001; 12 months versus UC 1.67 (1.04-2.70), P = 0.035; 3 months versus UC 0.69 (0.41-1.17), P = 0.174. Bayes factors indicated that for 12-month versus 3-month incentives and 12 months versus UC there was good evidence for the alternative hypothesis, and for 3 months versus UC there was good evidence for the null hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial provides weak evidence that up to £300 of voucher incentives over 12 months is effective for maintaining smoking abstinence postpartum compared with usual care. There was good evidence that 12-month incentives are superior to those over only 3 months, for which there was no evidence of effectiveness relative to usual care.

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit. METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

The association between excise taxes and smoking and vaping transitions-Findings from the 2016-2020 ITC United States surveys.

BACKGROUND: While a growing number of studies examined the effect of e-cigarette (EC) excise taxes on tobacco use behaviors using cross-sectional surveys or sales data, there are currently no studies that evaluate the impact of EC taxes on smoking and vaping transitions. METHODS: Using data from the US arm of the 2016-2020 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV), we employed a multinomial logit model with two-way fixed effects to simultaneously estimate the impacts of cigarette/EC taxes on the change in smoking and vaping frequencies. RESULTS: Our benchmark model suggests that a 10 % increase in cigarette taxes led to an 11 % reduction in smoking frequencies (p < 0.01), while EC taxes did not have a significant effect on smoking frequencies. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that increasing cigarette taxes may serve as an effective means of encouraging people who smoke to cut back on smoking or quit smoking. The impact of increasing EC taxes on smoking transitions is less certain at this time.

The impact of cigarette prices on smoking participation and tobacco expenditure in Vietnam.

Vietnam is one of countries with the highest number of smokers in the world and the high smoking prevalence among men in the region. Although the real cigarette prices increased by around 4% during the 2010-2015 period, the prevalence of daily cigarette smoking among men decreased slightly from 31.3% to 30.7% during this period. This raises the question of whether cigarette consumption is sensitive to price. In this study, we estimated the effect of cigarette prices on smoking participation and tobacco expenditure in Vietnam. We found that a one-percent increase in the real cigarette price reduced the probability of cigarette smoking among males by 0.08 percentage points (95% CI from -0.06 to -0.10), equivalent to the price elasticity of the smoking prevalence at -0.26 (95% CI from -0.16% to -0.33%). Using this estimate, we predict that if the cigarette price is increased by 10%, the daily cigarette smoking prevalence among men would decrease from 30.7% to 29.9% and the number of male smokers would decline by around 270 thousand. Higher cigarette prices also reduced per capita tobacco expenditure of households. A one-percent increase in the cigarette price decreased per capita expenditure on tobacco consumption expenditure of households by 0.43 percent (the 95% CI from -0.029 to 0.822). This finding suggests that raising tobacco taxes and prices can be an effective measure to reduce tobacco use.

Genetic predispositions moderate the effectiveness of tobacco excise taxes.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco consumption is one of the leading causes of preventable death. In this study, we analyze whether someone's genetic predisposition to smoking moderates the response to tobacco excise taxes. METHODS: We interact polygenic scores for smoking behavior with state-level tobacco excise taxes in longitudinal data (1992-2016) from the US Health and Retirement Study (N = 12,058). RESULTS: Someone's genetic propensity to smoking moderates the effect of tobacco excise taxes on smoking behavior along the extensive margin (smoking vs. not smoking) and the intensive margin (the amount of tobacco consumed). In our analysis sample, we do not find a significant gene-environment interaction effect on smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: When tobacco excise taxes are relatively high, those with a high genetic predisposition to smoking are less likely (i) to smoke, and (ii) to smoke heavily. While tobacco excise taxes have been effective in reducing smoking, the gene-environment interaction effects we observe in our sample suggest that policy makers could benefit from taking into account the moderating role of genes in the design of future tobacco control policies.

Addressing Smoking in Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.

➤: Physicians who advise patients to quit smoking substantially improve cessation rates, but cessation counseling is currently underperformed. ➤: Counseling, pharmacotherapy, and additional interventions can improve the chance of successful smoking cessation. Most patients require multiple attempts at quitting to be successful. ➤: A list of referral contacts and resources should be developed and routinely offered to these patients. The national Quitline (1-800-QUIT-NOW) provides free access to trained counselors and "quit coaches" for each state program in the United States. ➤: Government and private insurance plans in the United States are required (in most cases) to cover the cost of 2 quitting attempts per year including counseling referrals and medications. ➤: Several biopsychosocial factors that affect orthopaedic outcomes (weight, anxiety, depression, etc.) are also relevant to smoking cessation; management of these factors is thus potentially aggregately advantageous.

The evaluation of the smoking cessation behaviors of coal miners according to the health belief model: A cross-sectional study.

The aim of this descriptive and cross-sectional study was to evaluate smoking characteristics and smoking cessation behaviors among smoking coal miners according to the Health Belief Model (HBM). The population of this cross sectional study consisted of 582 coal miners, while the sample consisted of 473 miners who agreed to participate in the study. The miners working above ground obtained significantly higher scores compared to those who worked underground (p = 0.027). There was a significant positive correlation between smoking costs and perceived susceptibility (p < 0.001; r = 0.249) sub dimension scores, while smoking costs also had a weak positive correlation with perceived severity (p < 0.050; r = 0.179). In addition, many sub dimensions of the HBM-SCS were found to be correlated (p < 0.001). This finding shows that workers who have smoking costs may have made smoking cessation a strategic goal. Smoking habits are widespread among coal miners, and it was thought that further efforts should be made to explain to those coal miners the health hazards of smoking.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of a Smoking Cessation Intervention for Parents in Pediatric Primary Care.

Importance: Parental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020. Exposures: The trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs. Results: The study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

Behavioral Smoking Cessation Counseling During Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost effectiveness of using behavioral smoking cessation counseling during pregnancy. METHODS: We designed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge Pro 2020 software to compare the cost effectiveness and outcomes among women who received behavioral smoking cessation counseling compared with women who received usual care during pregnancy. We used a theoretical cohort of 285,000 women, the approximate number of pregnant women who smoke each year in the United States. Outcomes included maternal abstinence from smoking, fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, preterm delivery, neonatal death, and cerebral palsy, in addition to cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both the woman and the neonate. All model inputs were derived from the literature, and a willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of baseline assumptions. RESULTS: In our theoretical cohort, behavioral smoking cessation counseling compared with usual care was associated with 9,019 additional women stopping smoking during pregnancy (34,604 vs 25,585). Smoking cessation counseling also resulted in 911 fewer cases of fetal growth restriction, 20 fewer stillbirths, 250 fewer preterm deliveries, 11 fewer neonatal deaths, and one less case of cerebral palsy. Using behavioral smoking cessation counseling interventions during pregnancy led to better outcomes despite higher costs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,658 per QALY, which was below our willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, making the intervention cost effective. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the counseling intervention was cost effective at probabilities of smoking cessation greater than 11.6% (baseline input: 12.1%) or the cost of the behavioral intervention was less than $475.21 (baseline input: $368.78). CONCLUSION: Behavioral smoking cessation counseling during pregnancy was associated with fewer adverse neonatal outcomes and was cost effective. Increasing utilization of such interventions and increasing insurance coverage of this care are important initiatives to improve outcomes in this at-risk population.

Receipt of and Spending on Cessation Medication Among US Adults With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance, 2010 and 2017.

OBJECTIVE: Studies examining the use of smoking cessation treatment and related spending among enrollees with employer-sponsored health insurance are dated and limited in scope. We assessed changes in annual receipt of and spending on cessation medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) among tobacco users with employer-sponsored health insurance from 2010 to 2017. METHODS: We analyzed data on 439 865 adult tobacco users in 2010 and 344 567 adult tobacco users in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. We used a negative binomial regression to estimate changes in receipt of cessation medication (number of fills and refills and days of supply). We used a generalized linear model to estimate spending (total, employers', and out of pocket). In both models, covariates included year, age, sex, residence, and type of health insurance plan. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2017, the percentage of adult tobacco users with employer-sponsored health insurance who received any cessation medication increased by 2.4%, from 15.7% to 16.1% (P < .001). Annual average number of fills and refills per user increased by 15.1%, from 2.5 to 2.9 (P < .001) and days of supply increased by 26.4%, from 81.9 to 103.5 (P < .001). The total annual average spending per user increased by 53.6%, from $286.40 to $440.00 (P < .001). Annual average out-of-pocket spending per user decreased by 70.9%, from $70.80 to $20.60 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of smoking cessation medications is low among smokers covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. Opportunities exist to further increase the use of cessation medications by promoting the use of evidence-based cessation treatments and reducing barriers to coverage, including out-of-pocket costs.