Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Modelling return on investment (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires estimates of their costs and benefits. This paper describes a standardized method developed to source both economic costs of tobacco smoking and costs of implementing cessation interventions for a Europe-wide ROI model [European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD)]. DESIGN: Focused search of administrative and published data. A standardized checklist was developed in order to ensure consistency in methods of data collection. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult population (15+ years) in Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. For passive smoking-related costs, child population (0-15 years) was also included. MEASUREMENTS: Costs of treating smoking-attributable diseases; productivity losses due to smoking-attributable absenteeism; and costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions. FINDINGS: Annual costs (per case) of treating smoking attributable lung cancer were between €5074 (Hungary) and €52 106 (Germany); coronary heart disease between €1521 (Spain) and €3955 (Netherlands); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between €1280 (England) and €4199 (Spain); stroke between €1829 (Hungary) and €14 880 (Netherlands). Costs (per recipient) of smoking cessation medications were estimated to be: for standard duration of varenicline between €225 (England) and €465 (Hungary); for bupropion between €25 (Hungary) and €220 (Germany). Costs (per recipient) of providing behavioural support were also wide-ranging: one-to-one behavioural support between €34 (Hungary) and €474 (Netherlands); and group-based behavioural support between €12 (Hungary) and €257 (Germany). The costs (per recipient) of delivering brief physician advice were: €24 (England); €9 (Germany); €4 (Hungary); €33 (Netherlands); and €27 (Spain). CONCLUSIONS: Costs of treating smoking-attributable diseases as well as the costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions vary substantially across Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. Estimates for the costs of these diseases and interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

Understanding perceived availability and importance of tobacco control interventions to inform European adoption of a UK economic model: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the extent to which stakeholders in different European countries agree with availability and importance of tobacco-control interventions is limited. This study assessed and compared stakeholders' views from five European countries and compared the perceived ranking of interventions with evidence-based ranking using cost-effectiveness data. METHODS: An interview survey (face-to-face, by phone or Skype) was conducted between April and July 2014 with five categories of stakeholders - decision makers, service purchasers, service providers, evidence generators and health promotion advocates - from Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A list of potential stakeholders drawn from the research team's contacts and snowballing served as the sampling frame. An email invitation was sent to all stakeholders in this list and recruitment was based on positive replies. Respondents were asked to rate availability and importance of 30 tobacco control interventions. Kappa coefficients assessed agreement of stakeholders' views. A mean importance score for each intervention was used to rank the interventions. This ranking was compared with the ranking based on cost-effectiveness data from a published review. RESULTS: Ninety-three stakeholders (55.7% response rate) completed the survey: 18.3% were from Germany, 17.2% from Hungary, 30.1% from the Netherlands, 19.4% from Spain, and 15.1% from the UK. Of those, 31.2% were decision makers, 26.9% evidence generators, 19.4% service providers, 15.1% health-promotion advocates, and 7.5% purchasers of services/pharmaceutical products. Smoking restrictions in public areas were rated as the most important intervention (mean score = 1.89). The agreement on availability of interventions between the stakeholders was very low (kappa = 0.098; 95% CI = [0.085, 0.111] but the agreement on the importance of the interventions was fair (kappa = 0.239; 95% CI = [0.208, 0.253]). A correlation was found between availability and importance rankings for stage-based interventions. The importance ranking was not statistically concordant with the ranking based on published cost-effectiveness data (Kendall rank correlation coefficient = 0.40; p-value = 0.11; 95% CI = [- 0.09, 0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: The intrinsic differences in stakeholder views must be addressed while transferring economic evidence Europe-wide. Strong engagement with stakeholders, focussing on better communication, has a potential to mitigate this challenge.

A utility of model input uncertainty analysis in transferring tobacco control-related economic evidence to countries with scarce resources: results from the EQUIPT study.

AIMS: To inform the transferability of tobacco control-related economic evidence to resource-poor countries. METHODS: We ran a univariate sensitivity analysis on a return on investment (ROI) model, the European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD), to identify key input values to which the ROI estimates were sensitive. The EQUIPTMOD used a Markov-based state transition model to estimate the ROI of several tobacco control interventions in five European countries (England, Germany, Spain, Hungary and the Netherlands). Base case ROI estimates were obtained through average values of model inputs (throughout the five countries), which were then replaced one at a time with country-specific values. Tornado diagrams were used to evaluate the significance of sensitivity, defined as a ≥ 10% difference in ROI estimates from the base case estimates. RESULTS: The ROI estimates were sensitive to 18 (of 46) input values. Examples of model inputs to which ROI estimates were sensitive included: smoking rate, costs of smoking-related diseases (e.g. lung cancer) and general population attributes. CONCLUSION: Countries that have limited research time and other resources can adapt EQUIPTMOD to their own settings by choosing to collect data on a small number of model inputs. EQUIPTMOD can therefore facilitate transfer of tobacco control related economic evidence to new jurisdictions.

Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review.

AIMS: To identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist-based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model-based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high-income country were excluded. FINDINGS: Among the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state-transition Markov model was the most frequently used method (n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life-time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35-0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method. CONCLUSION: All existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.