Kari Linden

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

Abstract 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 (€) compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. In the 20-year time horizon analysis, varenicline yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8791/QALY and €7791/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.

Cardiovascular disease risk factors in relation to smoking behaviour and history: a population-based cohort study

Objective To investigate how individual risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) (blood pressure, lipid levels, body mass index, waist and hip circumference, use of antihypertensive or hypolipidemic medication, and diagnosed diabetes) differ in people aged 46 years with different smoking behaviour and history. Methods This population-based cohort study is based on longitudinal data from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 project. Data were collected at the 31-year and 46-year follow-ups, when a total of 5038 and 5974 individuals participated in clinical examinations and questionnaires. Data from both follow-ups were available for 3548 participants. In addition to individual CVD risk factors, Framingham and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) algorithms were used to assess the absolute risk of a CVD event within the next decade. Results The differences in individual risk factors for CVD reached statistical significance for some groups, but the differences were not consistent or clinically significant. There were no clinically significant differences in CVD risk as measured by Framingham or SCORE algorithms between never smokers, recent quitters and former smokers (7.5%, 7.4%, 8.1% for men; 3.3%, 3.0%, 3.2% for women; p<0.001). Conclusions The effect of past or present smoking on individual CVD risk parameters such as blood pressure and cholesterol seems to be of clinically minor significance in people aged 46 years. In other words, smoking seems to be above all an independent risk factor for CVD in the working-age population. Quitting smoking in working age may thus reduce calculated CVD risk nearly to the same level with people who have never smoked.

Is nicotine replacement therapy overvalued in smoking cessation? Analysis of smokers' and quitters' communication in social media.

Internet discussion forums provide new, albeit less used data sources for exploring personal experiences of illness and treatment strategies.

Re-treatment with varenicline is a cost-effective aid for smoking cessation

Abstract Objective: One quit attempt with varenicline has been found to be a cost-effective smoking cessation intervention. The purpose of this study was to analyze varenicline’s cost-effectiveness in patients who relapse during or after the first treatment. A comparison was made between re-treatment schema with varenicline and re-treatment schema with bupropion, NRT and unaided cessation, and treatment once with varenicline in a Finnish context. Methods: The two-quit version of BENESCO Markov model was used to follow a cohort of smokers making up to two quit attempts over a lifetime. The abstinence rates of the interventions were derived from a Cochrane review. Gender- and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases were included in the model. Quality-adjusted life-years, total expected costs, and the lifetime cumulative incidence of smoking-related morbidities and mortality were the primary outcomes evaluated. Results: The study cohort comprised 116,533 smokers who were willing to make a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, re-treatment with varenicline yielded 6,150–20,250 extra quitters, depending on the comparator. Among these quitters it was possible to prevent 899–2,972 additional cases of smoking-related diseases, and 395–1,307 deaths attributable to smoking. Re-treatment with varenicline resulted in cost savings of up to 54.9 million Euros. Re-treatment with varenicline dominated all the other smoking cessation interventions used in the analysis. Sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the base case results. Limitations: The analysis did not consider adverse events, and included only five major smoking-related diseases, which is a conservative approach, and probably leads to under-estimation of cost-effectiveness of cessation interventions. Furthermore, assumptions of constant relative risks for smoking-related diseases for each smoking status and the proxy values used as efficacy estimates of second quit attempts for other interventions than varenicline are limitations. Conclusions: A second quitting effort with varenicline is economically justifiable.