|Titre :||Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial (2020)|
|Auteurs :||J. LI ; P. HAJEK ; F. PESOLA ; Q. WU ; A. PHILLIPS-WALLER ; D. PRZULJ ; K. MYERS SMITH ; N. BISAL ; P. SASIENI ; L. DAWKINS ; L. ROSS ; M. L. GONIEWICZ ; H. McROBBIE ; S. PARROTT|
|Type de document :||Article : Périodique|
|Dans :||Addiction (Vol.115, n°3, March 2020)|
|Article en page(s) :||507-517|
|Discipline :||TRA (Traitement et prise en charge / Treatment and care)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASECIGARETTE ELECTRONIQUE ; SUBSTITUTS NICOTINIQUES ; ETUDE RANDOMISEE ; COUT ; EFFICACITE ; SEVRAGE ; ECONOMIE ; EVALUATION ; MODELE STATISTIQUE ; COMPARAISON
Thésaurus GéographiqueANGLETERRE ; ROYAUME-UNI
AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England.
DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
SETTING: Three stop-smoking service sites in England.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites.
INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively.
MEASUREMENTS: Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values.
FINDINGS: The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY).
CONCLUSION: Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.
|Domaine :||Tabac / Tobacco|
|Refs biblio. :||40|
|Affiliation :||Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK|