Re-treatment with varenicline is a cost-effective aid for smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE: One quit attempt with varenicline has been found to be a cost-effective smoking cessation intervention. The purpose of this study was to analyze varenicline's cost-effectiveness in patients who relapse during or after the first treatment. A comparison was made between re-treatment schema with varenicline and re-treatment schema with bupropion, NRT and unaided cessation, and treatment once with varenicline in a Finnish context. METHODS: The two-quit version of BENESCO Markov model was used to follow a cohort of smokers making up to two quit attempts over a lifetime. The abstinence rates of the interventions were derived from a Cochrane review. Gender- and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases were included in the model. Quality-adjusted life-years, total expected costs, and the lifetime cumulative incidence of smoking-related morbidities and mortality were the primary outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 116,533 smokers who were willing to make a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, re-treatment with varenicline yielded 6,150-20,250 extra quitters, depending on the comparator. Among these quitters it was possible to prevent 899-2,972 additional cases of smoking-related diseases, and 395-1,307 deaths attributable to smoking. Re-treatment with varenicline resulted in cost savings of up to 54.9 million Euros. Re-treatment with varenicline dominated all the other smoking cessation interventions used in the analysis. Sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the base case results. LIMITATIONS: The analysis did not consider adverse events, and included only five major smoking-related diseases, which is a conservative approach, and probably leads to under-estimation of cost-effectiveness of cessation interventions. Furthermore, assumptions of constant relative risks for smoking-related diseases for each smoking status and the proxy values used as efficacy estimates of second quit attempts for other interventions than varenicline are limitations. CONCLUSIONS: A second quitting effort with varenicline is economically justifiable.

Cross-country comparisons of health-care costs: the case of cancer treatment in the Nordic countries.

The objective of this study is to perform a cross-country comparison of cancer treatment costs in the Nordic countries, and to demonstrate the added value of decomposing documented costs in interpreting national differences. The study is based on individual-level data from national patient and prescription drug registers, and data on cancer prevalence from the NORDCAN database. Hospital costs were estimated on the basis of information on diagnosis-related groups (DRG) cost weights and national unit costs. Differences in per capita costs were decomposed into two stages: stage one separated the price and volume components, and stage two decomposed the volume component, relating the level of activity to service needs and availability. Differences in the per capita costs of cancer treatment between the Nordic countries may be as much as 30 per cent. National differences in the costs of treatment mirror observed differences in total health care costs. Differences in health care costs between countries may relate to different sources of variation with different policy implications. Comparisons of per capita spending alone can be misleading if the purpose is to evaluate, for example, differences in service provision and utilisation. The decomposition analysis helps to identify the relative influence of differences in the prevalence of cancer, service utilisation and productivity.