Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up.
Design and outcome measures: Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5-8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (€) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Setting: The study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.
Participants: 294 smokers aged 19-71 years were included in the study.
Interventions: Behaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).
Results: The more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5-8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to €918 and €3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.
Conclusion: CEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.
Keywords: cost-effectivenes; long-term sustainability; smoking cessation.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.