Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit. METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

Assessment of the real-world impact of the Thai smoking cessation programme on clinical outcomes: protocol for a multicentre prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the most common preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. In an effort to counteract the harmful consequences of smoking, various tobacco control measures have been implemented, including the use of smoking cessation programmes to reduce the number of new smokers as well as helping current smokers to quit smoking. In Thailand, the SMART Quit Clinic Program (FAH-SAI Clinics) was launched in 2010 to provide smoking cessation services by a multidisciplinary team. There are currently 552 FAH-SAI Clinics established across all 77 provinces of Thailand. AIM: This protocol describes a study aiming to evaluate the SMART Quit Clinic Program (FAH-SAI Clinics) in terms of programme performance and clinical outcomes. We hope that the results of the study could be used to improve the current service model and the programme's success. METHOD: A multicentre prospective observational study will be conducted. The study will focus on 24 FAH-SAI Clinics across 21 provinces of Thailand. The primary outcomes are seven-day point prevalence abstinence rate and continuous abstinence rate at three and six months. The outcomes will be measured using a self-reported questionnaire and biochemical validated by exhaled carbon monoxide. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first real-world study that reports the effectiveness of the well-established smoking cessation programme in Thailand. Findings from this study can help improve the quality of smoking cessation services provided by multidisciplinary teams and other smoking cessation services, especially those implemented in low- and middle-income countries.

The impact of Thai multidisciplinary smoking cessation program on clinical outcomes: A multicentre prospective observational study.

Introduction: Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Since 2010, Thailand has implemented a multidisciplinary smoking cessation clinic, which provides smoking cessation services, but the effectiveness of the clinics was not formally evaluated. This study was conducted to assess the real-world effectiveness of this multidisciplinary smoking cessation program. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, observational study on Thai participants aged 13 years and older in 24 smoking cessation clinics across Thailand's 13 health regions. Each clinic offered smoking cessation interventions according to the well-established 5As model for smoking cessation (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange). Outcomes of interest were continuous abstinence rates (CAR) at 3 and 6 months. Biochemical confirmation and self-reporting were used to assess the outcomes. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, median, IQR, and percentage) were used to analyze the smoking cessation outcomes in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis approaches. Results: Smokers receiving services from the Thai multidisciplinary smoking cessation clinics had CAR of 17.49 and 8.33% at 3 and 6 months, respectively. For those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease, CAR was found to be 26.36% at 3 months and 13.81% at 6 months. While participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) had CAR ranging from 32.69% at 3 months to 17.31% at 6 months. Conclusion: The multidisciplinary team smoking cessation clinic was effective in assisting smokers in quitting smoking. The effectiveness of the clinic was more pronounced for smokers with CVD, cerebrovascular disease, or COPD. Findings from this study support a decision to include multidisciplinary smoking cessation clinics in the universal health care benefits package.

Global Economic Burden of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common mental disorders affecting children and adults. Previous systematic reviews have provided estimates of ADHD-associated costs but were limited to the USA and Europe. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically summarise all global evidence on the economic burden of ADHD. METHODS: A systematic search for published studies on costs of ADHD was conducted in EconLit, EMBASE, PubMed, ERIC, and PsycINFO. Additional literature was identified by searching the reference lists of eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Larg and Moss checklist. RESULTS: This review included 44 studies. All studies were conducted in high-income countries and were limited to North America and Europe except for four studies: two in Asia and two in Australia. Most studies were retrospective and undertook a prevalence-based study design. Analysis revealed a substantial economic impact associated with ADHD. Estimates based on total costs ranged from $US831.38 to 20,538 for per person estimates and from $US356 million to 20.27 billion for national estimates. Estimates based on marginal costs ranged from $US244.15 to 18,751.00 for per person estimates and from $US12.18 million to 141.33 billion for national estimates. Studies that calculated economic burden across multiple domains of direct, indirect, and education and justice system costs for both children and adults with ADHD reported higher costs and translated gross domestic product than did studies that captured only a single domain or age group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the wide variation in methodologies in studies reviewed, the literature suggests that ADHD imposes a substantial economic burden on society. There is a dire need for cost-of-illness research in low- and middle-income countries to better inform the treatment and management of ADHD in these countries. In addition, guidelines on the conduct and reporting of economic burden studies are needed as they may improve standardisation of cost-of-illness studies.

A Clinical Risk Prediction Tool for Peritonitis-Associated Treatment Failure in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

A tool to predict peritonitis-associated treatment failure among peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not yet been established. We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study among 1,025 PD patients between 2006 and 2016 in Thailand to develop and internally validate such a tool. Treatment failure was defined as either a requirement for catheter removal, a switch to haemodialysis, or peritonitis-associated mortality. Prediction model performances were analysed using discrimination (C-statistics) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) tests. Predictors were weighted to calculate a risk score. In total, 435 patients with 855 episodes of peritonitis were identified; 215 (25.2%) episodes resulted in treatment failure. A total risk score of 11.5 was developed including, diabetes, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, and dialysate leukocyte count >1,000/mm3 and >100/mm3 on days 3-4 and day 5, respectively. The discrimination (C-statistic = 0.92; 95%CI, 0.89-0.94) and calibration (P > 0.05) indicated an excellent performance. No significant difference was observed in the internal validation cohort. The rate of treatment failure in the different groups was 3.0% (low-risk, <1.5 points), 54.4% (moderate-risk, 1.5-9 points), and 89.5% (high-risk, >9 points). A simplified risk-scoring scheme to predict treatment failure may be useful for clinical decision making regarding PD patients with peritonitis. External validation studies are needed.

The association between proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Existing epidemiological studies illustrate that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be related to adverse kidney outcomes. To date, no comprehensive meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and quantify this association. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to assess the association between PPI use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and grey literature with no language restrictions (through 31 October 2016). Adverse kidney outcomes were acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random effects model. The strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Results: Of 2037 identified studies, four cohort and five case-control studies with ∼2.6 million patients were included. Of these, 534 003 (20.2%) were PPI users. Compared with non-PPI users, PPI users experienced a significantly higher risk of AKI [RR 1.44 (95% CI 1.08-1.91); P = 0.013; SOE, low] and CKD [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.07-1.72); P = 0.012; SOE, low]. Moreover, PPIs increased the risk of AIN [RR 3.61 (95% CI 2.37-5.51); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient] and ESRD [RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.28-1.58); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient]. Conclusion: PPI usage was associated with adverse kidney outcomes; however, these findings were based on observational studies and low-quality evidence. Additional rigorous studies are needed for further clarification.