Cost-effectiveness of real-world administration of tobacco pharmacotherapy in the United States Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cost-effectiveness studies in randomized clinical trials have shown that tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy is among the most cost-effective of health-care interventions. Clinical trial eligibility criteria and treatment protocols may not be followed in actual practice. This study aimed to determine whether tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy is cost-effective in real-world settings. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of costs and outcomes. SETTING: Hospitals and clinics of the US Veterans Health Administration, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 589 862 US veterans who screened positive for tobacco use in 2011. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Tobacco users who initiated smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in the 6 months after screening were compared with those who did not use pharmacotherapy in this period. Pharmacotherapy included nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion (if prescribed at 300 mg per day or specifically for tobacco cessation) or varenicline. MEASURES: Effectiveness was determined from responses to a subsequent tobacco screening conducted between 7 and 18 months after the treatment observation period. Cost of medications and prescribing health-care encounters was determined for the period between initial and follow-up tobacco use screening. Multivariate fixed-effects regression was used to assess the effect of initial treatment status on cost and outcome while controlling for differences in case-mix with propensity weighting to adjust for confounding by indication. FINDINGS: Thirteen per cent of participants received tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy within 6 months of initial screening. After an average of an additional 218.1 days' follow-up, those who initially received pharmacotherapy incurred $143.79 in additional treatment cost and had a 3.1% absolute increase in tobacco quit rates compared with those who were not initially treated. This represents an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4705 per quit. The upper limit of the 99.9% confidence region was $5600 per quit. Without propensity adjustment, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $7144 per quit, with the upper limit of the 99.9% confidence region $9500/quit. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy provided by the US Veterans Health Administration in 2011/12 was cost-effective in this real-world setting, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4705 per quit.

Tobacco Use Prevalence and Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Prescription Patterns Among Hospitalized Patients by Medical Specialty.

INTRODUCTION: Effective smoking cessation medications are readily available but may be underutilized in hospital settings. In our large, tertiary care hospital, we aimed to (1) characterize patient tobacco use prevalence across medical specialties, (2) determine smoking cessation pharmacotherapy prescription variation across specialties, and (3) identify opportunities for improvement in practice. METHODS: Using electronic health records at Barnes Jewish Hospital, we gathered demographic data, admitting service, admission route, length of stay, self-reported tobacco use, and smoking cessation prescriptions over a 6-year period, from 2010 to 2016. We then compared tobacco use prevalence and smoking cessation prescriptions across medical specialties using a cross-sectional, retrospective design. RESULTS: Past 12-month tobacco use was reported by patients in 27.9% of inpatient admissions; prescriptions for smoking cessation pharmacotherapy were provided during 21.5% of these hospitalizations. The proportion of patients reporting tobacco use was highest in psychiatry (55.3%) and lowest in orthopedic surgery (17.1%). Psychiatric patients who reported tobacco use were most likely to receive pharmacotherapy (71.8% of admissions), and plastic surgery patients were least likely (4.7% of admissions). Compared with Caucasian tobacco users, African American patients who used tobacco products were less likely to receive smoking cessation medications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized tobacco users, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapies are under-prescribed. We identified substantial variation in prescribing practices across different medical specialties and demographic groups, suggesting the need for an electronic medical record protocol that facilitates consistent tobacco use cessation pharmacotherapy treatment. IMPLICATIONS: Tobacco use cessation pharmacotherapy is underutilized during hospitalization, and prescription rates vary greatly across medical specialties and patient characteristics. Hospitals may benefit from implementing policies and practices that standardize and automate the offer of smoking pharmacotherapy for all hospitalized patients who use tobacco.

A quasi-experimental study examining New York State's tobacco-free regulation: effects on clinical practice behaviors.

BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2008, New York State (NYS) became the first state to require all state-funded or state-certified substance use disorder (SUD) treatment organizations to be 100% tobacco-free and offer tobacco cessation (TC) treatment. METHODS: The current study used a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design with a pretest and posttest to examine the effect of the NYS tobacco-free regulation on three clinical practice behaviors (use of TC-related intake procedures, use of guideline recommended counseling for TC, and pharmacotherapy availability) in a diverse sample of SUD treatment programs. Repeated cross-sectional data were collected from NYS counselors (experimental group) and non-NYS counselors (control group) approximately 4 months pre-regulation (N=282 and 659, respectively) and 10-12 months post-regulation (N=364 and 733, respectively). RESULTS: Using mixed-effects models, results at pre-regulation indicate no group differences in the three clinical practice behaviors. However, significant post-regulation effects were found such that the experimental group reports greater use of TC-related intake procedures, guideline recommended counseling, and availability of pharmacotherapy than the control group. Additionally, the experimental but not the control group shows increases in all three clinical practice behaviors from pre-regulation to post-regulation. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the NYS tobacco-free regulation had a significant and positive effect on promoting patient TC efforts among counselors.