Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures

Becky Pennington (), Alex Filby, Lesley Owen and Matthew Taylor
Additional contact information
Becky Pennington: University of Sheffield
Alex Filby: University of York
Lesley Owen: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Matthew Taylor: University of York

PharmacoEconomics, 2018, vol. 36, issue 9, No 7, 1112 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background Most economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions have used cohort state-transition models. Discrete event simulations (DESs) have been proposed as a superior approach. Objective We developed a state-transition model and a DES using the discretely integrated condition event (DICE) framework and compared the cost-effectiveness results. We performed scenario analysis using the DES to explore the impact of alternative assumptions. Methods The models estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the intervention and comparator from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. The models considered five comorbidities: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. The state-transition model used prevalence data, and the DES used incidence. The costs and utility inputs were the same between two models and consistent with those used in previous analyses for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results In the state-transition model, the intervention produced an additional 0.16 QALYs at a cost of £540, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3438. The comparable DES scenario produced an ICER of £5577. The ICER for the DES increased to £18,354 when long-term relapse was included. Conclusions The model structures themselves did not influence smoking cessation cost-effectiveness results, but long-term assumptions did. When there is variation in long-term predictions between interventions, economic models need a structure that can reflect this.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0657-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0657-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0657-y

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().