Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29243347›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2018

Cost-effectiveness of increasing the reach of smoking cessation interventions in Germany: results from the EQUIPTMOD.

Manuel B Huber, Maximilian Präger, Kathryn Coyle, Doug Coyle, Adam Lester-George, Marta Trapero-Bertran, Bertalan Nemeth, Kei Long Cheung, Renee Stark, Matthias Vogl and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Manuel B HuberHelmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH) - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany.
Maximilian PrägerHelmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH) - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany.
Kathryn CoyleHealth Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, London, UK.
Doug CoyleHealth Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, London, UK.
Adam Lester-GeorgeLeLan (Ltd) Solutions, Bristol, UK.
Marta Trapero-BertranCentre for Research on Economics an Health (CRES) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Bertalan NemethSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Kei Long CheungCaphri School of Public Health and Primary Care, Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Renee StarkHelmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH) - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany.
Matthias VoglHelmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH) - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany.
Subhash PokhrelHealth Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, London, UK.
Reiner LeidlHelmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH) - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany.

designA Markov-based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A health-care perspective (extended to include out-of-pocket payments) with life-time horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty concerning predicted estimates.

settingGermany.

participantsCohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany.

interventionsInterventions included group-based behavioural support, financial incentive programmes and varenicline. For prospective scenario 1 the reach of group-based behavioral support, financial incentive programme and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (= 57 915 quit attempts), while prospective scenario 2 represented a higher reach, mirroring the levels observed in England. MEASUREMENTS: EQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, quality-of-life years (QALYs) gained, cost-effectiveness and return on investment.

findingsThe highest returns through reduction in smoking-related health-care costs were seen for the financial incentive programme (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group-based behavioural support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, prospective scenario 1 led to 15 034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost-savings, compared with current investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return-on-investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of only €5000, the probability of being cost-effective is approximately 75% for prospective scenario 1.

conclusionsIncreasing the reach of group-based behavioural support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policymakers that improves the population's health outcomes and that may be considered cost-effective.

Indexed as

AdultCost-Benefit AnalysisGermanyHumansSmokingSmoking CessationBehavioural supportcost-effectivenessEQUIPTMODGermanypharmacotherapypolicysmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID29243347
PMCPMC6033002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.