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.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Primary Care Smoking Treatment Program.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness from a healthcare system perspective of a comprehensive primary care intervention to reduce smoking rates. METHODS: This pragmatic trial implemented electronic health record prompts during primary care visits and employed certified tobacco cessation specialists to offer proactive outreach and smoking cessation treatment to patients who smoke. The data, analyzed in 2022, included 10,683 patients in the smoking registry from 2017 to 2020. Pre-post analyses compared intervention costs to treatment engagement, successful self-reported smoking cessation, and acute health care utilization (urgent care, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalization). Cost per quality-adjusted life year was determined by applying conversion factors obtained from the tobacco research literature to the cost per patient who quit smoking. RESULTS: Tobacco cessation outreach, medication, and counseling costs increased from $2.64 to $6.44 per patient per month, for a total post-implementation intervention cost of $500,216. Smoking cessation rates increased from 1.3% pre-implementation to 8.7% post-implementation, for an incremental effectiveness of 7.4%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $628 (95% CI: $568, $695) per person who quit smoking, and $905 (95% CI: $822, $1,001) per quality-adjusted life year gained. Acute health care costs decreased by an average of $42 (95% CI: -$59, $145) per patient per month for patients in the smoking registry. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a comprehensive and proactive smoking cessation outreach and treatment program for adult primary care patients who smoke meets typical cost-effectiveness thresholds for healthcare.

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506528 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).

Underutilization of guideline-concordant smoking cessation treatments in surgical patients: Lessons from a learning health system.

While smoking is a well-established risk factor for surgical complications, it is unclear how frequently guideline-concordant tobacco treatments are prescribed to surgical patients. In this cross-sectional study including 164673 unique patients evaluated in outpatient surgery clinics at a single institution in 2020, despite a relatively high smoking prevalence (14.7%), guideline-concordant treatment rates were very low, with only 12.7% of patients receiving pharmacotherapy and 31.7% receiving any treatment. Addressing disparities in smoking cessation treatments are critical given the disproportionate impact of smoking on surgical outcomes.

Assessment of formal tobacco treatment and smoking cessation in dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: The utility of electronic cigarettes ('e-cigarettes') as a smoking cessation adjunct remains unclear. Similarly, it is unclear if formal tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) augments smoking cessation in individuals who use both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal cohort study of adult outpatients evaluated in our tertiary care medical centre (6/2018-6/2020). E-cigarette use, smoking status and formal tobacco treatment (deterrent pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) were assessed in 6-month blocks (eg, cohort 1 (C1)=6/2018-12/2018, C2=1/2019-6/2019 and so on) using our electronic health record. We assessed the relationship between e-cigarette use (either with or without formal tobacco treatment) and point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: 111 823 unique patients were included in the study. The prevalence of dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes increased significantly over the study period (C1=0.8%; C2=1.1%; C3=1.8%; C4=2.3%; p<0.001). The prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among e-cigarette users (20.8%) compared with non-users (16.8%) (risk difference, 4.0% (95% CI 2.5% to 5.5%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.354, 95% CI 1.252 to 1.464, p<0.0001). Further, among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among individuals who received tobacco treatment (29.1%) compared with individuals who did not receive tobacco treatment (19.6%) (risk difference, 9.5% (95% CI, 4.6% to 14.4%); aRR 1.238, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.432, p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes benefit from formal tobacco treatment. Clinicians should consider offering formal tobacco treatment to such patients, though future trials are needed.

A comprehensive electronic health record-enabled smoking treatment program: Evaluating reach and effectiveness in primary care in a multiple baseline design.

Effective treatments for smoking cessation exist but are underused. Proactive chronic care approaches may enhance the reach of cessation treatment and reduce the prevalence of smoking in healthcare systems. This pragmatic study evaluated a population-based Comprehensive Tobacco Intervention Program (CTIP) implemented in all (6) adult primary care clinics in a Madison, Wisconsin, USA healthcare cooperative, assessing treatment reach, reach equity, and effectiveness in promoting smoking cessation. CTIP launched in 3 waves of 2 clinics each in a multiple baseline design. Electronic health record (EHR) tools facilitated clinician-delivered pharmacotherapy and counseling; guiding tobacco care managers in phone outreach to all patients who smoke; and prompting multimethod bulk outreach to all patients on a smoking registry using an opt-out approach. EHR data were analyzed to assess CTIP reach and effectiveness among 6894 adult patients between January 2018 and February 2020. Cessation treatment reach increased significantly after CTIP launch in 5 of 6 clinics and was significantly higher when clinics were active vs. inactive in CTIP [Odds Ratio (OR) range = 2.0-3.0]. Rates of converting from current to former smoking status were also higher in active vs. inactive clinics (OR range = 2.2-10.5). Telephone treatment reach was particularly high in historically underserved groups, including African-American, Hispanic, and Medicaid-eligible patients. Implementation of a comprehensive, opt-out, chronic-care program aimed at all patients who smoke was associated with increases in the rates of pharmacotherapy and counseling delivery and quitting smoking. Proactive outreach may help reduce disparities in treatment access.

Understanding contexts of smoking and vaping among dual users: analysis of ecological momentary assessment data.

AIMS: To understand dual users' cigarette and e-cigarette use patterns, including the contexts in which they vape versus smoke and to understand how environmental and internal contexts and smoking patterns differ between dual users and exclusive smokers. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational trial. SETTING: Research center in Wisconsin, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Adult dual users (n = 162) and adults who exclusively smoked (n = 143), with no plans to quit smoking or vaping in the next 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: Participants carried smartphones for 2 weeks at baseline to record each use event for the two products and report on the context of their product use. The percentage of mornings where participants vaped first versus smoked were used to compute e-cigarette dependence. FINDINGS: Hierarchical linear regression models with random slopes and intercepts examined the within- and between-subject effects of context on the likelihood of vaping (versus smoking); significant fixed effects were tested for moderation by e-cigarette dependence. Dual users reported significantly more puffs/cigarette [mean = 13.1, standard deviation (SD) = 10.2] than puffs/vape event (mean = 11.7, SD = 11.5; P = 0.01). E-cigarette dependence moderated the influence of social cues (t-ratio = 2.4, P = 0.02) and smoking restrictions (t-ratio = 3.1, P = 0.003) on the likelihood of vaping versus smoking [odds ratio (OR) = 2.30, P = 0.02]. Context was more related to which product was used in those of low versus higher e-cigarette dependence. Reports of strong cravings to smoke and positive expectancies for cigarettes were associated with a reduced likelihood of vaping, whereas strong cravings to vape and positive vaping expectancies were related to increased likelihood of vaping. CONCLUSIONS: Among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes with no motivation to quit, vaping appears to be related to internal cues and more highly linked with social contexts and smoking restrictions (i.e. under stronger external stimulus control) among those with low to moderate e-cigarette dependence compared with high e-cigarette dependence. These findings illustrate the importance of contextual factors in tobacco product use among dual users with the influence of context being reduced at high levels of e-cigarette dependence.

Can inpatient pharmacists move the needle on smoking cessation? Evaluating reach and representativeness of a pharmacist-led opt-out smoking cessation intervention protocol for hospital settings.

PURPOSE: Hospitalization affords an opportunity to reduce smoking, but fewer than half of patients who smoke receive evidence-based cessation treatment during inpatient stays. This study evaluated a pharmacist-led, electronic health record (EHR)-facilitated opt-out smoking cessation intervention designed to address this need. METHODS: Analyses of EHR records for adult patients who smoked in the past 30 days admitted to an academic medical center in the upper Midwest were conducted using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. The reach of a pharmacist-led, EHR-facilitated protocol for smoking cessation treatment was assessed by comparing patients' receipt of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and tobacco quitline referral before and after implementation. χ2 tests, t tests, and multiple logistic regression models were used to compare reach across patient demographic groups to assess treatment disparities and the representativeness of reach. Adoption of the program by hospital services was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 70 hospital services invited to implement the program, 88.6% adopted it and 78.6% had eligible admissions. Treatment reach increased as rates of delivering NRT rose from 43.6% of eligible patients before implementation to 50.4% after implementation (P < 0.0001) and quitline referral rates rose from 0.9% to 11.9% (P < 0.0001). Representativeness of reach by sex and ethnicity improved after implementation, although disparities by race and age persisted after adjustment for demographics, insurance, and primary diagnosis. Pharmacists addressed tobacco use for eligible patients in 62.5% of cases after protocol implementation. CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation treatment reach and representativeness of reach improved after implementation of a proactive, pharmacist-led, EHR-facilitated opt-out smoking cessation treatment protocol in adult inpatient services.

Cost-effectiveness of stop smoking incentives for medicaid-enrolled pregnant women.

Maternal smoking increases mortality and morbidity risks for both mother and infant. The First Breath Wisconsin study examined the cost-effectiveness of providing incentives to pregnant women who smoked to engage in stop smoking treatment. Participants (N = 1014) were Medicaid-enrolled pregnant women recruited from September 2012 to April 2015 through public health departments, private, and community health clinics in Wisconsin. The incentive group (n = 505) could receive $460 for completing pre-birth visits ($25 each), post-birth home visits ($40, $25, $25, $40 for 1-week, 2-month, 4-month and 6-month visits), monthly smoking cessation phone calls post-birth ($20 each), and biochemically-verified tobacco abstinence at 1-week ($40) and 6-months ($40) post-birth. The control group (n = 509) received up to $80 for 1-week ($40) and 6-month ($40) post-birth assessments. Intervention costs included incentive payments to participants, counselor and administrative staff time, and smoking cessation medications. Cost-effectiveness analysis calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per one additional smoker who quit. The incentive group had higher 6-month post-birth biochemically-confirmed tobacco abstinence than the control group (14.7% vs. 9.2%). Incremental costs averaged $184 per participant for the incentive group compared to controls ($317 vs $133). The ICER of financial incentives was $3399 (95% CI $2228 to $8509) per additional woman who was tobacco abstinent at 6 months post-birth. The ICER was lower ($2518 vs $4760) for women who did not live with another smoker. This study shows use of financial incentives for stop smoking treatment is a cost-effective option for low-income pregnant women who smoke.

Achieving Equity in the Reach of Smoking Cessation Services Within the NCI Cancer Moonshot-Funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Background: Ensuring equitable access to smoking cessation services for cancer patients is necessary to avoid increasing disparities in tobacco use and cancer outcomes. In 2017, the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) funded National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers to integrate evidence-based smoking cessation programs into cancer care. We describe the progress of C3I Cancer Centers in expanding the reach of cessation services across cancer populations. Methods: Cancer centers (n=17) reported on program characteristics and reach (the proportion of smokers receiving evidence-based cessation treatment) for two 6-month periods. Reach was calculated overall and by patient gender, race, ethnicity, and age. Results: Average reach increased from 18.5% to 25.6% over 1 year. Reach increased for all racial/ethnic groups, and in particular for American Indian/Alaska Native (6.6-24.7%), Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (7.3-19.4%), and black (18.8-25.9%) smokers. Smaller gains in reach were observed among Hispanic smokers (19.0-22.8%), but these were similar to gains among non-Hispanic smokers (18.9-23.9%). By age group, smokers aged 18-24 years (6.6-14.5%) and >65 years (16.1-24.5%) saw the greatest increases in reach. Conclusion: C3I Cancer Centers achieved gains in providing smoking cessation services to cancer patients who smoke, thereby reducing disparities that had existed across important subgroups. Taking a population-based approach to integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care has potential to increase reach equity. Implementation strategies including targeted and proactive outreach to patients and interventions to increase providers' adoption of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may advance reach even further.

Racial disparities in intensity of smoke exposure and nicotine intake among low-dependence smokers.

BACKGROUND: Compared to white smokers, Black smokers are at disproportionately higher risk for smoking-related disease, despite consuming fewer cigarettes per day (CPD). To examine racial disparities in biobehavioral influences on smoking and disease risk, we analyzed the relationship between self-reported tobacco dependence and intensity of tobacco smoke exposure per cigarette, on the one hand, and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette, on the other. METHODS: In 270 Black and 516 white smokers, smoke exposure was measured by expired carbon monoxide (CO), and nicotine intake was measured by plasma cotinine (COT) and cotinine+3'-hydroxycotinine ([COT + 3HC]). Using linear regression analyses, we analyzed how the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) predicted intensity of smoke exposure per cigarette (CO/CPD) and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette (COT/CPD; [COT + 3HC]/CPD), and how race moderated these relations. RESULTS: Overall, Black smokers consumed fewer CPD than white smokers and had higher levels of CO/CPD, COT/CPD, and [COT + 3HC]/CPD. These elevations were most pronounced at lower levels of dependence: amongst Black smokers, FTCD negatively predicted intensity of smoke exposure as measured by CO/CPD (B = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.18, -0.05, p = 0.0003) and intensity of nicotine intake as measured by [COT + 3HC]/CPD (B = -1.31, 95% CI = -2.15, -0.46, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dependence Black smokers had higher intensities of both smoke exposure and nicotine intake per cigarette compared to similarly dependent white smokers, suggesting that measures of dependence, exposure, and intake underestimate incremental risk of each cigarette to Black smokers.

Closed-Loop Electronic Referral From Primary Care Clinics to a State Tobacco Cessation Quitline: Effects Using Real-World Implementation Training.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who use tobacco are too rarely connected with tobacco use treatment during healthcare visits. Electronic health record enhancements may increase such referrals in primary care settings. This project used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework to assess the implementation of a healthcare system change carried out in an externally valid manner (executed by the healthcare system). METHODS: The healthcare system used their standard, computer-based training approach to implement the electronic health record and clinic workflow changes for electronic referral in 30 primary care clinics that previously used faxed quitline referral. Electronic health record data captured rates of assessment of readiness to quit and quitline referral 4 months before implementation and 8 months (May-December 2017) after implementation. Data, analyzed from October 2018 to June 2019, also reflected intervention reach, adoption, and maintenance. RESULTS: For reach and effectiveness, from before to after implementation for electronic referral, among adult patients who smoked, assessment of readiness to quit increased from 24.8% (2,126 of 8,569) to 93.2% (11,163 of 11,977), quitline referrals increased from 1.7% (143 of 8,569) to 11.3% (1,351 of 11,977), and 3.6% were connected with the quitline after implementation. For representativeness of reach, electronic referral rates were especially high for women, African Americans, and Medicaid patients. For adoption, 52.6% of staff who roomed at least 1 patient who smoked referred to the quitline. For maintenance, electronic referral rates fell by approximately 60% over 8 months but remained higher than pre-implementation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world implementation of an electronic health record-based electronic referral system markedly increased readiness to quit assessment and quitline referral rates in primary care patients. Future research should focus on implementation methods that produce more consistent implementation and better maintenance of electronic referral.

Understanding how e-health interventions meet psychosocial needs of breast cancer patients: The pathways of influence on quality of life and cancer concerns.

OBJECTIVE: This investigation explores how using different e-health interventions facilitates positive psychosocial changes and how these changes reduce cancer concerns and improve quality of life in breast cancer patients over time. METHODS: A total of 326 breast cancer patients were randomly assigned to one of three e-health interventions: (a) Internet only, (b) the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System information and support services (CHESS-IS), or (c) CHESS with mentor. Proximal health outcomes such as information overload, emotional functioning, and social support were measured alongside distal outcomes like cancer concerns and quality of life. Participants completed surveys at four time points: pretest as a baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: Both interventions were effective in improving patient health beyond Internet only but they differed in type of change mechanism and clinical benefit. The CHESS-IS enhanced proximal outcomes at 3 months through improved information competence. The CHESS with mentor intervention reduced breast cancer concerns at 6 months, mediated mainly by emotional-social competence and emotional functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Using e-health interventions like CHESS can help patients improve cancer information management skills and emotional functioning, contributing to better short-term health outcomes. Adding a human mentor can enhance the benefits of CHESS use, extending the experience among breast cancer patients. Theoretical, practical, and clinical implications of the study results are discussed.

Low Burden Strategies Are Needed to Reduce Smoking in Rural Healthcare Settings: A Lesson from Cancer Clinics.

Rural populations face significant smoking-related health disparities, such as a higher prevalence of lung cancer and cancer mortality, higher prevalence of smoking, and lower likelihood of receiving cessation treatment than urban counterparts. A significant proportion of health disparities in rural populations could be eliminated with low-barrier, easy-access treatment delivery methods for smoking cessation. In this study, we assessed treatment engagement among patients in rural and urban settings. Then, we examined the effect of an electronic health record-based smoking cessation module on patient receipt of evidence-based cessation care. As part of a quality improvement project, we retrospectively observed 479,798 unique patients accounting for 1,426,089 outpatient clinical encounters from June 2018-March 2019 across 766 clinics in the greater St. Louis, southern Illinois, and mid-Missouri regions. Smoking prevalence was higher in rural versus urban clinics (20.7% vs. 13.9%, 6.7% [6.3, 7.1], odds ratio = 1.6 [1.6, 1.6], p < 0.0001), and yet rural smokers were nearly three times less likely than their urban counterparts to receive any smoking cessation treatment after adjusting for patients clustering within clinics (9.6% vs. 25.8%, -16.2% [-16.9, -15.5], odds ratio = 0.304 [0.28, 0.33], p < 0.0001). Although not yet scaled up in the rural setting, we examined the effects of a low-burden, point-of-care smoking module currently implemented in cancer clinics. After adjusting for patient clustering within clinics, patients were more likely to receive smoking treatment in clinics that implemented the module versus clinics that did not implement the module (31.2% vs. 17.5%, 13.7% [10.8, 16.6], odds ratio = 2.1 [1.8, 2.6], p < 0.0001). The point-of-care treatment approach offers a promising solution for rural settings, both in and outside the context of cancer care.

Financial incentives to Medicaid smokers for engaging tobacco quit line treatment: maximising return on investment.

BACKGROUND: Low-income smokers experience greater difficulty in quitting smoking than do other smokers. Providing financial incentives for treatment engagement increases smoking cessation success. This study models the cost-effectiveness of varying levels of financial incentives to maximise return on investment (ROI) for engaging low-income Medicaid recipients who smoke to take calls from a tobacco quit line. METHODS: Participants (N=1900) were recruited from May 2013 to June 2015 through quit line-based (n=980), clinic-based (n=444) or community-based referrals (n=476) into the Wisconsin Medicaid Quit Line Incentive project. Incentive (n=948) and control group participants (n=952) received $30 versus $0 per call, respectively, for taking up to five Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (WTQL) calls. Cost-effectiveness analyses estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for alternative financial incentives for engagement with WTQL calls. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to determine an optimal strategy for financial incentives to minimise the cost per individual who quit smoking. RESULTS: Using fixed payments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2316 per smoker who quit in the randomised trial decreased to $2150 per smoker who quit when the incentives were modelled at $20 per each of five WTQL calls taken. Using variable payments, the minimal cost per additional smoker who quit was $2125 when incentives for the first four WTQL calls were set at $20, and the financial payment for the fifth WTQL call was set at $70. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling suggests that financial incentives in the amount of $20 per call for taking the first four quit line calls and $70 for taking a fifth quit line call maximise ROI to engage low-income smokers with evidence-based smoking cessation treatment.

Paying Low-Income Smokers to Quit? The Cost-Effectiveness of Incentivizing Tobacco Quit Line Engagement for Medicaid Recipients Who Smoke.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of an incentive-based stop-smoking intervention that paid Medicaid recipients who smoke to take calls from a tobacco quit line. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. The analysis was conducted from a health care systems perspective on the basis of costs and effectiveness over a 6-month follow-up. Participants (n = 1900) were recruited from May 2013 to June 2015 through quit line (n = 980), clinic-based (n = 444), or community-based (n = 476) referrals. Incentive group participants (n = 948) received $30 a call for taking up to five tobacco quit line calls and $40 for biochemically verified tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Control group participants (n = 952) did not receive financial incentives for taking quit line calls. Intervention resource costs included incentive payments to participants, counselor and administrative staff time, and smoking cessation medications. Smoking status at baseline and 6 months was determined for all study participants via carbon monoxide (CO) breath tests (abstinence: CO < 7 ppm). Cost-effectiveness analysis calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Incentive treatment produced higher 6-month CO-confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence than did the control treatment (21.6 vs. 13.8%; P < 0.001). The ICER of the financial incentives intervention was $2316 (95% confidence interval $1582-$4270) per additional person who quit. The study ICER compares favorably with other smoking treatments, such as varenicline combined with proactive telephone counseling, whose ICER has been estimated at $2600 per additional smoker who quits. CONCLUSIONS: Use of financial incentives to engage with tobacco quit line treatment is a cost-effective option to enhance smoking cessation rates for low-income smokers.

Dual Users Compared to Smokers: Demographics, Dependence, and Biomarkers.

INTRODUCTION: The availability of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has profoundly changed the tobacco product landscape. In the United States, almost 6 million adults use both combustible and e-cigarettes (ie, dual users). The goal of this study was to understand how smokers and dual users differ in terms of demographics, cigarette dependence, and exposure to carcinogens. METHODS: An observational cohort (smokers, n = 166, ≥5 cigarettes/day for 6 months and no e-cigarette use in 3 months; dual users, n = 256, smoked daily for 3 months and used e-cigarettes at least once/week for the past 3 months) completed baseline assessments of demographics, tobacco use, and dependence. They also provided breath samples for carbon monoxide (CO) assay and urine samples for cotinine, 3-hydroxycotinine, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) assays. RESULTS: Compared to smokers, dual users (mean e-cigarette use = 5.5 days/week [SD = 1.9]) were significantly younger and more likely to be white, have more education, report a history of psychiatric co-morbidity, and smoke fewer cigarettes per day. There were no differences in CO, cotinine, or 3-hydroxycotinine levels; however, dual users had significantly lower levels of NNAL than did smokers. Most smokers and dual users had no plans to quit smoking within the next year; 91% of dual users planned to continue using e-cigarettes for at least the next year. CONCLUSIONS: In this community sample, dual users are supplementing their smoking with e-cigarette use. Dual users, versus smokers, smoked fewer cigarettes per day and delayed their first cigarette of the day, but did not differ in quitting intentions. IMPLICATIONS: This comparison of a community sample of established dual users and exclusive smokers addresses key questions of dependence and health risks of dual use in real-world settings. Dual users were more likely to be white, younger, have more than a high school education and have a psychiatric history. Dual users also smoked significantly fewer cigarettes and had lower levels of NNAL (a carcinogen), but they did not differ from exclusive smokers in CO or cotinine levels, suggesting that they supplemented their nicotine intake via e-cigarettes.

A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives to low income pregnant women to engage in smoking cessation treatment: Effects on post-birth abstinence.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of monetary incentives for increasing engagement in smoking cessation treatment and improving 6-month abstinence in low-income pregnant smokers. METHOD: Two-group randomized clinical trial recruiting low-income (Medicaid-registered) pregnant smokers receiving assistance through a perinatal support program. Participants were randomized to either an incentive (n = 505) or control condition (n = 509). All participants were offered identical smoking cessation counseling at contacts. Incentive condition participants received incentives for attending pre- and postbirth treatment contacts: $25 for each of 6 prebirth provider visits, $25-40 for each of 4 postbirth home visits at Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6 (total = $130), $20 for each of 5 postbirth counseling calls and $40 for biochemically verified abstinence at the Week 1 and 6-month visits. Control condition participants received only $40 for attendance at the Week 1 and 6-month postbirth visits ($40 each). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6-month postbirth follow-up. Secondary outcomes included number of home visits and phone calls taken over the first 6 months postbirth; biochemically confirmed abstinence at postbirth Week 1 visit; and self-reported smoking status at 2- and 4-month visits. RESULTS: Incentive condition participants had a higher biochemically confirmed abstinence rate at 6-month postbirth than controls (14.7% vs. 9.2%, respectively: p < .01). This effect was mediated by incentive condition participants' greater acceptance of postbirth home visits and counseling calls. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate incentive payments for smoking treatment engagement (a mean of ≈$214 paid) increased low-income pregnant smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record

A Randomized Trial of Incentives for Smoking Treatment in Medicaid Members.

INTRODUCTION: Low-income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence among Medicaid recipients who smoke. STUDY DESIGN: Two-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (n=980). INTERVENTION: Participants were offered five quitline cessation calls and were encouraged to obtain cessation medication (covered by Medicaid). All participants received payment for completing a baseline assessment and a 6-month smoking test. Only Incentive condition participants received compensation for taking counseling calls ($30 per call) and for biochemically verified abstinence at the 6-month visit ($40). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6-months post study entry and cost/quit. RESULTS: Incentive condition participants had significantly higher biochemically determined 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence rates 6 months after study induction than did Controls (21.6% vs 13.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). A positive treatment effect of incentives was present across other abstinence indices, but the size of effects and levels of abstinence varied considerably across indices. Incentive condition participants were also significantly more likely than non-incentivized Control participants to accept Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line treatment calls and their acceptance of calls mediated their attainment of higher abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up. The cost/quit/participant averaged $4,268.26 for the Control participants and $3,601.37 for the Incentive participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that fairly moderate levels of incentive payments for treatment engagement and abstinence (a total possible payment of $190) increased very low-income smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713594.

Enhancing tobacco quitline effectiveness: identifying a superior pharmacotherapy adjuvant.

INTRODUCTION: Telephone tobacco quitlines are effective and are widely used, with more than 500,000 U.S. callers in 2010. This study investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 3 different quitline enhancements: combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), longer duration of NRT, and counseling to increase NRT adherence. METHODS: In this study, 987 quitline callers were randomized to a combination of quitline treatments in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design: NRT duration (2 vs. 6 weeks), NRT type (nicotine patch only vs. patch plus nicotine gum), and standard 4-call counseling (SC) versus SC plus medication adherence counseling (MAC). The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 6 months postquit in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. RESULTS: Combination NRT for 6 weeks yielded the highest 6-month PPA rate (51.6%) compared with 2 weeks of nicotine patch (38.4%), odds ratios [OR] = 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]:1.20-2.45). A similar result was found for 2 weeks of combination NRT (48.2%), OR = 1.49 (95% CI: 1.04-2.14) but not for 6 weeks of nicotine patch alone (46.2%), OR = 1.38 (95% CI: 0.96-1.97). The MAC intervention effect was nonsignificant. Cost analyses showed that the 2-week combination NRT group had the lowest cost per quit ($442 vs. $464 for 2-week patch only, $505 for 6-week patch only, and $675 for 6-week combination NRT). CONCLUSIONS: Combination NRT for 2 or 6 weeks increased 6-month abstinence rates by 10% and 13%, respectively, over rates produced by 2 weeks of nicotine patch when offered with quitline counseling. A 10% improvement would potentially yield an additional 50,000 quitters annually, assuming 500,000 callers to U.S. quitlines per year.