Cost-Effective Drug Switch Options After Unsuccessful Treatment With an SSRI for Depression.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple treatment options are available for patients who do not respond to initial treatment for major depressive disorder. Previous results show that bupropion, sertraline, and venlafaxine are comparable in terms of therapeutic effectiveness following unsuccessful treatment with citalopram. In this study, we extended these results by incorporating costs of treatment to determine if one option was more cost-effective relative to others. METHODS: In the STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) trial, 727 patients were randomly assigned to a switch drug treatment during level 2; 239 (33%) were assigned to bupropion, 238 (33%) to sertraline, and 250 (34%) to venlafaxine. For each study medication, the total costs included the costs of the medication, other concomitant medication and antidepressants, and health care facility utilization. Effectiveness was measured as remission and response. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as net health benefits. Stochastic analysis was performed by using the bootstrapping method. RESULTS: During level 2, mean medication costs were significantly higher for venlafaxine than for bupropion and sertraline ($968, $607, and $703, respectively). There were no significant differences among the switch medications in costs for other medications and health care facility utilization. Although the total costs were significantly different for the three medications (p=.025), none of the pairwise differences between medications were significant. Also, after jointly estimating costs and effects, the analyses found that net health benefits were not significantly different among the three drugs. CONCLUSIONS: After unsuccessful treatment with citalopram, the switch options of bupropion, sertraline, and venlafaxine were not significantly different from each other in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Analysis of Driving Factors of Willingness to Use and Willingness to Pay for Existing Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Aids Among Young and Middle-Aged Adults in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation is a challenging task with a high risk of relapse. Depending on the choice of medication and duration of therapy, the costs of using a smoking cessation aid can be high. Additionally, these costs are not covered by health insurance in Germany. Information on willingness to use (WTU) and willingness to pay (WTP) for smoking cessation aids is valuable for developing different smoking cessation strategies. OBJECTIVES: The study analyses WTU and WTP for three pharmacological smoking cessation aids (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline) among young and middle-aged adults in Germany and attempts to determine their major driving factors. METHODS: Two cross-sectional internet-based surveys of smokers over 18 years of age were conducted in 2014 and 2015 in Germany. Respondents were asked about smoking-related issues and WTU and WTP for each therapy. The contingent valuation method with payment cards was used to measure WTP. Descriptive statistics, logistical regression and accelerated failure-time regression models were performed. RESULTS: The total sample size is 505. Half of the respondents are willing to use NRT and one-third are willing to use bupropion and/or varenicline. WTU induces positive WTP; however, the magnitude of WTP is beneath the market price. WTU significantly increases with a higher addiction level and if smokers have previously heard about the therapy. CONCLUSION: This study indicates different points to be considered for policy development. Promotion information and improving awareness about medication aids might increase WTU, and development of monetary incentives for young smokers could create a better chance for successful smoking cessation.

Comparison of prescription drug costs in the United States and the United Kingdom, part 3: methylphenidate.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the annual cost of methylphenidate in the United States and the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Matched-cohort cost analysis. DATA SOURCES: The U.K. General Practice Research Database (GPRD) and MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, a large, U.S. self-insured medical claims database. STUDY POPULATION: We initially identified 1.6 million people in the GPRD who were younger than 65 years of age in 2005. These people were then matched by year of birth and sex with 1.6 million people in the U.S. database. From this matched pool, we estimated that 98,000 boys aged 5-14 years from each country in 2005 were prescribed at least one drug. Of these, 6485 (6.6%) in the U.S. were prescribed methylphenidate compared with 1405 (1.4%) in the U.K. After excluding those who did not receive methylphenidate continuously, there remained 2298 boys in the U.S. and 939 in the U.K. who were prescribed methylphenidate continuously during 2005 (annual methylphenidate users). We estimated and compared drug costs (presented in 2005 U.S. dollars) for continuous users separately in the two countries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Estimated drug costs were determined by random sampling. Estimated annual costs/patient in the U.S. ranged from $402 for doses of 5-10 mg to $821 for doses greater than 20 mg. In the U.K., costs ranged from $146 for doses of 5-10 mg to $661 for doses greater than 20 mg. The total annual cost of the continuous receipt of methylphenidate in the U.S. was $170,199 compared with $39,393 in the U.K. CONCLUSION: The cost of methylphenidate for boys aged 5-14 years paid by private insurance companies in the U.S. was more than 4 times higher than comparable costs paid by the government in the U.K.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of varenicline versus existing smoking cessation strategies in Central America and the Caribbean using the BENESCO model.

OBJECTIVES: In Central American countries, the economic burden of tobacco has not been assessed. In Costa Rica, a study demonstrated that tobacco-related diseases represent high costs for the health care system. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with other existing strategies for smoking cessation within a 10-year time horizon in an adult population cohort from Central American and Caribbean countries using the health care payer's perspective. METHODS: The Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes simulation model was used for an adult cohort in Costa Rica (n = 2 474 029), Panama (n = 2 249 676), Nicaragua (n = 3 639 948), El Salvador (n = 4 537 803), and the Dominican Republic (n = 6 528 125) (N = 19 429 581). Smoking cessation therapies compared were varenicline (0.5-2 mg/day) versus bupropion (300 mg/day), nicotine replacement therapy (5-15 mg/day), and unaided cessation. Effectiveness measures were: life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Resource use and cost data were obtained from a country's Ministry of Health and/or Social Security Institutions (2008-2010). The model used a 5% discount rate for costs (expressed in 2010 US$) and health outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted and acceptability curves were constructed. RESULTS: Varenicline reduced smoking-related morbidity, mortality, and health care costs in each country included in the study. Accumulatively, mortality in the varenicline arm was reduced by 1190, 1538, and 2902 smoking-related deaths compared with bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and unaided cessation, respectively. The net average cost per additional quitter showed that varenicline was cost-saving when compared with competing alternatives. Regarding LYs and QALYs gained in 10 years, varenicline obtained the greatest number of QALYs and LYs in each country, while unaided cessation obtained the fewest. Cost-effectiveness analyses in all 5 countries showed that varenicline was the dominant strategy. Acceptability curves showed that, independent of the willingness to pay, the probability that varenicline is cost-effective was 99% for this region. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses support the robustness of the findings. CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation therapy with varenicline is cost-saving for the Central American and Caribbean countries included. These results could help to reduce the tobacco-related disease burden and align cost-containment policies.

Cost analysis of varenicline versus bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and unaided cessation in Nicaragua.

OBJECTIVES: In Nicaragua, 30% of current morbidities are associated with tobacco smoking. Tobacco control policy measures have been initiated in this Central American country; however, the population does not have a complete understanding of the long-term consequences of tobacco use. The aim of this study was to compare the direct medical costs of smoking cessation therapies with varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and unaided cessation in Nicaragua over 5 time horizons: 2, 5, 10, and 20 years, and lifetime. METHODS: The current annual costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke were estimated based on the current annual incidence for each disease using 1 public hospital database (Hospital Lenin Fonseca, 2010). The Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes simulation model was used to obtain the projected direct costs for each strategy. An adult cohort (N = 3 639 948) from Nicaragua was used and the assessment was conducted using the health care payer's perspective. Costs were discounted at 5% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using a Monte Carlo second-order approach. RESULTS: Varenicline is associated with the highest health care cost-savings compared with the other 3 alternatives at 5, 10, and 20 years, and lifetime. At lifetime, varenicline would result in savings of US$4 545 008, US$5 859 300, and US$11 033 221 when compared with bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and unaided cessation, respectively. Varenicline also avoided the highest number of smoking-related deaths in comparison with the alternatives. At year 10, varenicline avoided 96, 124, and 234 more deaths than bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and unaided cessation, respectively. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses support these findings. CONCLUSION: The use of a smoking cessation therapy with varenicline would generate long-term savings to Nicaragua's health care institutions of > US$11 million in the lifetime time horizon.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of varenicline vs. bupropion for smoking cessation.

The purpose of this systematic review was to review the cost-effectiveness of first-line non-nicotine therapies (varenicline and bupropion SR) for smoking cessation, identify differences in the models used and their conclusions of cost-effectiveness, and to determine which variables, if any, impact conclusions of cost-effectiveness. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Health Technology Database and the Tufts Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry from the earliest possible date through May 2011. To be included, studies had to compare cost-effectiveness of varenicline to bupropion using either a Markov model or discrete event simulation and be published as a full text manuscript in English or Spanish. Study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate with disagreement resolved through discussion. Data regarding the model characteristics, results and conclusions were extracted as were details to assess the quality of the study. Model characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were compared across studies and summarised qualitatively. Ten unique studies were included, all of which were Markov models. Eight studies used the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model and all found varenicline to dominate bupropion. The two non-BENESCO models found varenicline to be cost-effective. Conclusions regarding the cost-effectives were changed upon sensitivity analysis with the following variables: time horizon, cost of bupropion, efficacy of either drug, age and the incidence of smoking related disease. Varenicline dominated bupropion in most cost-effectiveness models. However, applicability of models to clinical practice and variables which changed conclusion of cost-effectiveness should be considered in the interpretation of results.

Economic evaluation of duloxetine as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of duloxetine, pregabalin, and both branded and generic gabapentin for managing pain in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) in Mexico. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The analysis was conducted using a 3-month decision model, which compares duloxetine 60 mg once daily (DUL), pregabalin 150 mg twice daily (PGB), and gabapentin 600 mg three-times daily (GBP) for PDPN patients with moderate-to-severe pain. A systematic review was performed and placebo-adjusted risk ratios for achieving good pain relief (GPR), adverse events (AE), and withdrawal owing to intolerable AE were calculated. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and additional visits due to lack of efficacy (poor pain relief) or intolerable AE. Unit costs were taken from local sources. Adherence rates were used to estimate the expected drug costs. All costs are expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos (MXN). Utility values drawn from published literature were applied to health states. The proportion of patients with GPR and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed. RESULTS: Branded-GBP was dominated by all the other options. PGB was more costly and less effective than DUL. Compared with branded-GBP and PGB, DUL led to savings of 1.01 and 1.74 million MXN (per 1000 patients). The incremental cost per QALY gained with DUL used instead of generic-GBP was $102 433 MXN. This amount is slightly lower than the estimated gross domestic product per capita in Mexico for 2010. During a second-order Monte Carlo simulation, DUL had the highest probability of being cost-effective (61%), followed by generic-GBP (25%) and PGB (14%). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include a short timeframe and using data from different dosage schemes for GBP and PGB. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that DUL provides overall savings and better health outcomes compared with branded-GBP and PGB. Administering DUL rather than generic-GBP is a cost-effective intervention to manage PDPN in Mexico.

Cost effectiveness of interventions to reduce relapse to smoking following smoking cessation.

AIMS: To determine the incremental cost effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline for preventing relapse to smoking when used by abstinent smokers DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort simulation and sensitivity analyses combining cost and health service data with systematic review estimates for the effectiveness of NRT, bupropion and varenicline when used by abstinent quitters to prevent their relapse to smoking. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental health gain in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) generated by each drug compared to 'no intervention'. FINDINGS: Bupropion resulted in an incremental QALY increase of 0.07 with a concurrent cost saving of £68; NRT and varenicline both caused incremental QALYs increases of 0.04 at costs of £12 and £90 respectively, although varenicline findings were based on data from a single clinical trial and require cautious interpretation. Even after extensive sensitivity analyses with substantial varying of key model parameters, cost effectiveness of all drugs remained. Cost effectiveness ratios only exceeded the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark of £20 000 per QALY when drug treatment effects were postulated to last for no longer than 1 year; or, for NRT and varenicline, efficacy was reduced to 10% of that observed in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline appear cost effective at preventing relapse to smoking by smokers who are in quit attempts and have recently become abstinent; they have comparable cost effectiveness to smoking cessation interventions. Widespread use of these effective relapse prevention treatments could promote substantial health gain at an acceptable cost to health providers.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: current advances and research topics.

Promoting smoking cessation is among the key medical interventions aimed at reducing worldwide morbidity and mortality in this century. Both behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy have been shown to significantly increase long-term abstinence rates, and combining the two treatment modalities is recommended. This article provides an update on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in the general population. Current first-line agents used to support quit attempts are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline. Research suggests that abstinence rates can be increased by combining different forms of NRT or simultaneously administering NRT and non-nicotine medications. New treatments targeting the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor as well as other pathophysiological pathways involved in nicotine addiction are being developed, with nicotine vaccines now being tested in phase III clinical trials. Among the numerous research topics currently addressed, pharmacogenetics and tailoring therapy to specific groups of smokers look most promising. However, substantial progress is unlikely to be made unless social gradients impeding effective treatment of all smokers are overcome. In addition, public smoking bans and reimbursement of medication costs are crucial in reducing the future burden of disease caused by smoking on a global level.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. METHODS: A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

State medicaid coverage for tobacco-dependence treatments --- United States, 2009.

Medicaid enrollees have nearly twice the smoking rates (37%) of the general adult population (21%), and smoking-related medical costs are responsible for 11% of Medicaid expenditures. In 2008, the Public Health Service released clinical practice guidelines recommending comprehensive coverage of effective tobacco-dependence medications and counseling by health insurers. Healthy People 2010 established a clear objective for Medicaid programs to cover all Food and Drug Administration--approved medications and counseling for tobacco cessation. To monitor progress toward that objective, the Center for Health and Public Policy Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, in collaboration with CDC, surveyed Medicaid programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC) to document their 2009 tobacco-dependence treatment coverage and found that 47 programs offered coverage. Only eight state programs offered coverage of all recommended pharmacotherapy and counseling for all Medicaid enrollees, and 16 programs reported coverage for fee-for-service enrollees that differed from that provided for Medicaid managed-care enrollees. Among the 33 programs that covered at least one combination therapy, the nicotine patch plus bupropion slow release (SR) was the one combination covered by all. The Affordable Care Act mandates Medicaid coverage of tobacco-dependence treatments for pregnant women, beginning October 1, 2010. Coverage of pharmacotherapy for all Medicaid enrollees will be enhanced by January 2014, when states no longer may exclude tobacco-dependence cessation drugs from covered benefits. Monitoring the extent to which Medicaid programs place limitations on these treatments can help in evaluating accessibility of tobacco-dependence treatments to Medicaid enrollees.

If you try to stop smoking, should we pay for it? The cost-utility of reimbursing smoking cessation support in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation can be encouraged by reimbursing the costs of smoking cessation support (SCS). The short-term efficiency of reimbursement has been evaluated previously. However, a thorough estimate of the long-term cost-utility is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term effects of reimbursement of SCS. METHODS: Results from a randomized controlled trial were extrapolated to long-term outcomes in terms of health care costs and (quality adjusted) life years (QALY) gained, using the Chronic Disease Model. Our first scenario was no reimbursement. In a second scenario, the short-term cessation rates from the trial were extrapolated directly. Sensitivity analyses were based on the trial's confidence intervals. In the third scenario the additional use of SCS as found in the trial was combined with cessation rates from international meta-analyses. RESULTS: Intervention costs per QALY gained compared to the reference scenario were approximately euro1200 extrapolating the trial effects directly, and euro4200 when combining the trial's use of SCS with the cessation rates from the literature. Taking all health care effects into account, even costs in life years gained, resulted in an estimated incremental cost-utility of euro4500 and euro7400, respectively. In both scenarios costs per QALY remained below euro16 000 in sensitivity analyses using a life-time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Extrapolating the higher use of SCS due to reimbursement led to more successful quitters and a gain in life years and QALYs. Accounting for overheads, administration costs and the costs of SCS, these health gains could be obtained at relatively low cost, even when including costs in life years gained. Hence, reimbursement of SCS seems to be cost-effective from a health care perspective.

Cost effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion and unaided cessation for smoking cessation in a cohort of Finnish adult smokers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion or unaided cessation for smoking cessation in Finnish adult smokers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The BENESCO (BENEfits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes) Markov model was used to follow a hypothetical cohort of smokers making a single quit attempt over a lifetime. Gender and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], lung cancer, coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke and asthma exacerbations) were included in the model. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total treatment costs and the lifetime cumulative incidence of these parameters were the primary outcomes evaluated, and they were compared for varenicline versus bupropion and varenicline versus unaided cessation. The primary data were derived from Finnish publications and databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model. RESULTS: The treatment cohort comprised 229 301 smokers making a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, use of varenicline prevented 1965 and 5057 additional cases of smoking-related disease, and 1184 and 3047 deaths attributable to smoking, when compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Compared with bupropion and unaided cessation varenicline treatment yielded 4392 and 11 303 additional LYs (4851 and 12 485 QALYs), respectively. Varenicline resulted in cost savings of 15 million and 43 million euros (euro) compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. In the 20-year time horizon analysis, varenicline yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro8791/QALY and euro7791/QALY gained in comparison to bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results for varenicline. CONCLUSION: Varenicline dominated over its comparators, i.e. it was more effective and resulted in cost saving compared with bupropion and unaided cessation.

The use of bupropion SR in cigarette smoking cessation.

Cigarette smoking remains the largest preventable cause of premature death in developed countries. Until recently nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been the only recognised form of treatment for smoking cessation. Bupropion, the first non-nicotine based drug for smoking cessation was licensed in the United States of America (US) in 1997 and in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2000 for smoking cessation in people aged 18 years and over. Bupropion exerts its effect primarily through the inhibition of dopamine reuptake into neuronal synaptic vesicles. It is also a weak noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor and has no effect on the serotonin system. Bupropion has proven efficacy for smoking cessation in a number of clinical trials, helping approximately one in five smokers to stop smoking. Up to a half of patients taking bupropion experience side effects, mainly insomnia and a dry mouth, which are closely linked to the nicotine withdrawal syndrome. Bupropion is rarely associated with seizures however care must be taken when co-prescribing with drugs that can lower seizure threshold. Also, bupropion is a potent enzyme inhibitor and can raise plasma levels of some drugs including antidepressants, antiarrhythmics and antipsychotics. Bupropion has been shown to be a safe and cost effective smoking cessation agent. Despite this, NRT remains the dominant pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation.

Australian smokers' use of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapies and their relation to reimbursement, Australia 2001-05.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the usage of bupropion hydrochloride and nicotine replacement in Australia between 2001 and 2005. DESIGN AND SETTING: We analysed aggregate data on the utilisation of: (1) bupropion under the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) between 2001 and 2005; (2) bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (RPBS) between 1995 and 2005; and (3) NRT aggregate sales data from GlaxoSmithKline for 2001 - 05. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) 2004 was used to estimate the proportion of smokers who received a bupropion prescription in each year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of annual prescriptions for bupropion on the PBS and buproprion and NRT on the RPBS; annual sales figures on NRT patches (2001 - 05); and the estimated proportion of Australian smokers who used bupropion in 2003. RESULTS: The number of bupropion prescriptions on the PBS peaked at 351 772 in 2001 (costing the PBS $83 million). This declined by 72% to 97 173 in 2005 (a cost of $12 million). The estimated percentage of smokers in Australia who used bupropion in a year fell from 11% in 2001 to 3.6% in 2005. The annual number of bupropion prescriptions on the RPBS fell from 3786 in 2001 to 1173 in 2005, while there was no change in the number of NRT prescriptions (3793 in 2001 and 3886 in 2005). Sales data from the leading market supplier of NRT also indicated that NRT use continued to grow in Australia while bupropion use declined. Conclusions. Bupropion usage has fallen by 72% since a peak in the year of first listing on the PBS, while the utilisation of NRTs appears to have increased, despite the price differential in favour of bupropion. IMPLICATIONS: Given the greater interest among smokers in NRT than bupropion (and evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of NRT), the Australian government should reconsider its decision not to list NRT on the PBS.

Varenicline as compared to bupropion in smoking-cessation therapy--cost-utility results for Sweden 2003.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (cost per QALY gained) for varenicline (Champix; Pfizer), as compared to bupropion, in smoking-cessation programmes for a lifetime follow-up period. DESIGN: The Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) simulation model was used for a male and female cohort, respectively, as a point of departure but further extended in order to include the indirect effects of smoking-cessation on production and consumption in the economy. All calculations were performed in 2003 Swedish prices. SETTING: Sweden in 2003. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Model cohort consisting of 25% of all smokers among men and women (168,844 males and 208,737 females), distributed by age, 18 and older, as in the Swedish population of 2003. INTERVENTIONS: Varenicline as compared to bupropion, in smoking-cessation programmes for 20-year, 50-year, and lifetime follow-up periods. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: When the indirect effects on production and consumption were included, the incremental costs per QALY gained were euro2056 (euro14,743) for men and euro1193 (euro14,214) for women, in comparison to bupropion and computed for a time horizon of 20 and 50 years (1euro approximately euroSEK9.12). Excluding the indirect effects on production and consumption, varenicline was cost-saving in comparison to bupropion. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results are robust. Variation of treatment efficiency and intervention costs, respectively, had a larger effect on cost per QALY gained than other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated costs per QALY gained rated smoking-cessation intervention using varenicline among the most cost-effective life-saving medical treatments.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of genetic testing of the DRD2 Taq1A polymorphism to aid treatment choice for smoking cessation.

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetic testing for smoking cessation, based on data available from the published pharmacogenetic studies of nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion, and a previous cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation treatments. We use multiparameter evidence synthesis methods to combine evidence on cessation by genotype with evidence on cessation irrespective of genotype (which can be written as a function of genotype-specific parameters). Our intention was to explore the most cost-effective approach to prescribing smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, given the hypothetical availability of a test based on a single-gene variant that has been reported to predict treatment response. We considered four types of treatment: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) pharmacotherapy, bupropion SR pharmacotherapy, combination NRT and bupropion, and standard care as the control. Two scenarios were investigated, one in which the control represented brief advice and the other in which the control represented individual counseling. Strategies that either do not test for dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) genotype (each individual receives the same treatment), or do test for DRD2 genotype (treatment allocated according to genotype), were evaluated. Our results indicated that the most cost-effective strategy in our hypothetical example of a single-gene test to aid prescription of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is to prescribe both NRT and bupropion regardless of genotype, as a first-line treatment for smoking cessation. We conclude that it should not be assumed that genetic tailoring will necessarily be more cost-effective than applying the current "one-size-fits-all" model of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. In addition, single-gene tests are unlikely to be cost-effective, partly because the predictive value of these tests is likely to be modest.

Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation.

Promoting cessation is a cornerstone of tobacco control efforts by public-health agencies. Economic information to support cessation programs has generally emphasized cost-effectiveness or the impact of cigarette pricing and smoking restrictions on quit rates. In contrast, this study provides empirical estimates of smoker preferences for increased efficacy and other attributes of smoking cessation therapies (SCTs). Choice data were collected through a national survey of Canadian smokers. We find systematic preference heterogeneity for therapy types and SCT attributes between light and heavy smokers, as well as random heterogeneity using random parameters logit models. Preference heterogeneity is greatest between length of use and types of SCTs. We estimate that light smokers would be willing to pay nearly $500 ($CAN) to increase success rates to 40% with the comparable figure for heavy smokers being near $300 ($CAN). Results from this study can be used to inform research and development for smoking cessation products and programs and suggest important areas of future inquiry regarding heterogeneity of smoker preferences and preferences for other health programs.