The cost-effectiveness of tailored smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental illness: a model-based economic evaluation.

Background: Tailored smoking cessation interventions, which combine behavioural and pharmaceutical support, are effective in populations with severe mental illness (SMI). We establish the cost-effectiveness of two tailored interventions in the UK: (i) a bespoke smoking cessation intervention (BSCI) versus usual care, and (ii) integrated tobacco cessation and mental health care (IC) versus standard smoking cessation clinic (SCC) referral. Methods: This economic evaluation was conducted between January 15th 2019 and August 4th 2022. We adapted a Markov model estimating smoking status, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) across the lifetime. Intervention effectiveness and costs were obtained from a systematic review and a meta-analysis. We obtained specific parameter values for populations with SMI for mortality, risk of smoking related comorbidities, and health utility. Uncertainty was analysed in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Findings: The BSCI was cost-effective versus usual care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3145 per QALY (incremental costs: £165; incremental QALYs: 0.05). Integrated care was cost-effective versus SCC with an ICER of £6875 per QALY (incremental costs: £292; incremental QALYs: 0.04). The BSCI and IC were cost-effective in 89% and 83% of PSA iterations respectively. The main area of uncertainty related to relapse rates. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that the tailored interventions were cost-effective and could increase QALYs and decrease expenditure on treating smoking related morbidities if offered to people with SMI. Funding: York Health Economics Consortium was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce economic evaluations to inform public health guidelines.

Spotlight on tobacco guidance: NICE public health guidance update.

The updated NICE guidelines on tobacco recommend cost-effective and evidence-based interventions to prevent smoking initiation and promote smoking cessation across the life course. E-cigarettes are a cost-effective adjunct to support smoking cessation in adults, but their long-term effects are yet to be fully understood. Concerted efforts from healthcare and public health providers are required to reach underserved groups and hence address stark and longstanding inequalities in smoking prevalence and associated ill health in England.

Indoor Air Quality at Home-An Economic Analysis.

Background: People with respiratory conditions are susceptible to health problems caused by exposure to indoor air pollutants. An economic framework was developed to inform a guideline developed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to estimate the required level of efficacy necessary for an intervention to be cost-saving in dwellings across England. Methods: An economic modelling framework was built to estimate the incremental costs pre- and post-implementation of interventions designed to reduce exposure to indoor air pollution within dwellings of varying building-related risk factors and profiles. The intervention cost was varied simultaneously with the relative reduction in symptomatic cases of each health condition to estimate the point at which an intervention may become cost-saving. Four health conditions were considered. Results: People living in dwellings with either an extreme risk profile or usable floor area <90m2 have the greatest capacity to benefit and save National Health Service (NHS) costs from interventions at any given level of effectiveness and upfront cost. Conclusions: At any effectiveness level, the threshold for the upfront intervention cost to remain cost-saving is equivalent across the different home characteristics. The flexible model can be used to guide decision-making under a range of scenarios.

How health inequalities accumulate and combine to affect treatment value: A distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Reduction of health inequality is a goal in health policy, but commissioners lack information on how policies change health inequality. This study illustrates how decision models can be readily extended to produce information on health inequality impacts as well as for population health, using the example of smoking cessation therapies. METHODS: We retrospectively adapt a model developed for public health guidance to undertake distributional cost effectiveness analysis. We identify and incorporate evidence on how inputs vary by area-level deprivation. Therapies are evaluated in terms of total population health, extent of inequality, and a summary measure of equally distributed equivalent health based on a societal value for inequality aversion. Last, we examine how accounting for social variation in different sets of parameters affects our results. RESULTS: All interventions increase population health and increase the slope index ofinequality. At estimated levels of health inequality aversion for England, our resultsindicate that the increases in inequality are compensated by the health gains. DISCUSSION: The inequality impacts are driven by higher benefits of quitting and higher intervention uptake amongst advantaged groups, despite the greater proportion of smokers in disadvantaged groups. Failure to account for differential effects between groups leadsto different conclusions about health inequality impact but does not alter conclusionsabout value for money.

NICE UpdateNICE public health guidance update.

This article covers recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and standards relevant to public health with a focus on behaviour change. The article summarizes recommendations for local commissioners and providers to help them tackle a range of behaviours including smoking, poor eating patterns, lack of physical activity and alcohol misuse.

NICE public health guidance update.

This article covers recent NICE guidance relevant to public health and has a focus on healthy ageing. The article contextualizes NICE guidance on increasing personal capacity, creating supportive environments and developing longer term strategies to reduce chronic disease and disability through primary prevention.

Access to health care for older people with intellectual disability: a modelling study to explore the cost-effectiveness of health checks.

BACKGROUND: Whilst people with intellectual disability grow older, evidence has emerged internationally about the largely unmet health needs of this specific ageing population. Health checks have been implemented in some countries to address those health inequalities. Evaluations have focused on measuring process outcomes due to challenges measuring quality of life outcomes. In addition, the cost-effectiveness is currently unknown. As part of a national guideline for this population we sought to explore the likely cost-effectiveness of annual health checks in England. METHODS: Decision-analytical Markov modelling was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy, in which health checks were provided for older people with intellectual disability, when compared with standard care. The approach we took was explorative. Individual models were developed for a selected range of health conditions, which had an expected high economic impact and for which sufficient evidence was available for the modelling. In each of the models, hypothetical cohorts were followed from 40 yrs. of age until death. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Costs were assessed from a health provider perspective and expressed in 2016 GBP. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. We carried out probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Data from published studies as well as expert opinion informed parameters. RESULTS: Health checks led to a mean QALY gain of 0.074 (95% CI 0.072 to 0.119); and mean incremental costs of £4787 (CI 95% 4773 to 5017). For a threshold of £30,000 per QALY, health checks were not cost-effective (mean ICER £85,632; 95% CI 82,762 to 131,944). Costs of intervention needed to reduce from £258 to under £100 per year in order for health checks to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Whilst findings need to be considered with caution as the model was exploratory in that it was based on assumptions to overcome evidence gaps, they suggest that the way health systems deliver care for vulnerable populations might need to be re-examined. The work was carried out as part of a national guideline and informed recommendations about system changes to achieve more equal health care provisions.

Evaluation of Intervention Impact on Health Inequality for Resource Allocation.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a simplified distributional cost-effectiveness analysis based on aggregate data to estimate the health inequality impact of public health interventions. METHODS: We extracted data on costs, health outcomes expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and target populations for interventions within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guidance published up to October 2016. Evidence on variation by age, gender, and index of multiple deprivation informed socioeconomic distributions of incremental QALYs, health opportunity costs, and the baseline distribution of health. Total population QALYs, summary measures of inequality, and a health equity impact plane show results by intervention and by guideline. A value for inequality aversion from a general population survey in England let us combine impacts on health inequality and total health into a single measure of intervention value. RESULTS: Our estimates suggest that of 134 interventions considered by NICE, 70 (52%) reduce inequality and increase health, 21 (16%) involve a tradeoff between improving health and improving health inequality, and 43 (32%) reduce health and increase health inequality. Fully implemented, the potential impact of all recommendations was 23,336,181 additional QALYs for the population of England and Wales and a reduction of the gap in quality-adjusted life expectancy between the healthiest and least healthy from 13.78 to 13.34 QALYs. The combined value of the additional health and reduction in inequality was 28,723,776 QALYs. DISCUSSION: Our analysis takes account of the fact that existing public health spending likely benefits the most disadvantaged. This simple method applied separately to economic evaluation produces evidence of intervention impacts on the distribution of health that is vital in determining value for money when health inequality reduction is a policy goal.

Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of seven behavioural interventions to prevent drug misuse in vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed a guideline on drug misuse prevention in vulnerable populations. Part of the guideline development process involved evaluating cost-effectiveness and determining which interventions represented good value for money. METHODS: Economic models were developed for seven interventions which aimed to prevent drug use in vulnerable populations. The models compared the costs (to the health and crime sectors) and health benefits (in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of each intervention and its comparator. Sensitivity analysis explored the uncertainty associated with the cost of each intervention and duration of its effect. RESULTS: The reduction in drug use for each intervention partly offset the costs of the intervention, and improved health outcomes (QALYs). However, with high intervention costs and low QALY gains, none of the interventions were estimated to be cost-effective in the base case. Sensitivity analysis found that some of the interventions could be cost-effective if they could be delivered at a lower cost, or if the effect could be sustained for more than two years. CONCLUSIONS: For drug misuse prevention to be prioritised by funders, the consequences of drug misuse need to be understood, and interventions need to be shown to be effective and cost-effective. Quantifying the wider harms of drug misuse and wider benefits of prevention interventions poses challenges in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of drug misuse prevention interventions. A greater understanding of the consequences of drug misuse and causal factors could facilitate development of cost-effective interventions to prevent drug misuse.

Understanding perceived availability and importance of tobacco control interventions to inform European adoption of a UK economic model: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the extent to which stakeholders in different European countries agree with availability and importance of tobacco-control interventions is limited. This study assessed and compared stakeholders' views from five European countries and compared the perceived ranking of interventions with evidence-based ranking using cost-effectiveness data. METHODS: An interview survey (face-to-face, by phone or Skype) was conducted between April and July 2014 with five categories of stakeholders - decision makers, service purchasers, service providers, evidence generators and health promotion advocates - from Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A list of potential stakeholders drawn from the research team's contacts and snowballing served as the sampling frame. An email invitation was sent to all stakeholders in this list and recruitment was based on positive replies. Respondents were asked to rate availability and importance of 30 tobacco control interventions. Kappa coefficients assessed agreement of stakeholders' views. A mean importance score for each intervention was used to rank the interventions. This ranking was compared with the ranking based on cost-effectiveness data from a published review. RESULTS: Ninety-three stakeholders (55.7% response rate) completed the survey: 18.3% were from Germany, 17.2% from Hungary, 30.1% from the Netherlands, 19.4% from Spain, and 15.1% from the UK. Of those, 31.2% were decision makers, 26.9% evidence generators, 19.4% service providers, 15.1% health-promotion advocates, and 7.5% purchasers of services/pharmaceutical products. Smoking restrictions in public areas were rated as the most important intervention (mean score = 1.89). The agreement on availability of interventions between the stakeholders was very low (kappa = 0.098; 95% CI = [0.085, 0.111] but the agreement on the importance of the interventions was fair (kappa = 0.239; 95% CI = [0.208, 0.253]). A correlation was found between availability and importance rankings for stage-based interventions. The importance ranking was not statistically concordant with the ranking based on published cost-effectiveness data (Kendall rank correlation coefficient = 0.40; p-value = 0.11; 95% CI = [- 0.09, 0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: The intrinsic differences in stakeholder views must be addressed while transferring economic evidence Europe-wide. Strong engagement with stakeholders, focussing on better communication, has a potential to mitigate this challenge.

Assessment of cost-effective changes to the current and potential provision of smoking cessation services: an analysis based on the EQUIPTMOD.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasing the reach of smoking cessation services and/or including new but effective medications to the current provision may provide significant health and economic benefits; the scale of such benefits is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness from a health-care perspective of viable national level changes in smoking cessation provision in the Netherlands and England. METHODS: A Markov-based state transition model [European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD)] was used to estimate costs and benefits [expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] of changing the current provision of smoking cessation programmes in the Netherlands and England. The changes included: (a) increasing the reach of top-level services to increase potential quitters (e.g. brief physician advice); (b) increasing the reach of behavioural support (group-based therapy and SMS text-messaging support) to increase the success rates; (c) including a new but effective medication (cytisine); and (d) all changes implemented together (combined change). The costs and QALYs generated by those changes over 2, 5, 10 years and a life-time were compared with that of the current practice in each country. Results were expressed as incremental net benefit (INB) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A sequential analysis from a life-time perspective was conducted to identify the optimal change. RESULTS: The combined change was dominant (cost-saving) over all alternative changes and over the current practice, in both countries. The combined change would generate an incremental net benefit of €11.47 (2 years) to €56.16 (life-time) per smoker in the Netherlands and €9.96 (2 years) to €60.72 (life-time) per smoker in England. The current practice was dominated by all alternative changes. CONCLUSION: Current provision of smoking cessation services in the Netherlands and England can benefit economically from the inclusion of cytisine and increasing the reach of brief physician advice, text-messaging support and group-based therapy.

Estimates of effectiveness and reach for 'return on investment' modelling of smoking cessation interventions using data from England.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Estimating 'return on investment' (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires reach and effectiveness parameters for interventions for use in economic models such as the EQUIPT ROI tool (http://roi.equipt.eu). This paper describes the derivation of these parameter estimates for England that can be adapted to create ROI models for use by other countries. METHODS: Estimates were derived for interventions in terms of their reach and effectiveness in: (1) promoting quit attempts and (2) improving the success of quit attempts (abstinence for at least 12 months). The sources were systematic reviews of efficacy supplemented by individual effectiveness evaluations and national surveys. FINDINGS: Quit attempt rates were estimated to be increased by the following percentages (with reach in parentheses): 20% by tax increases raising the cost of smoking 5% above the cost of living index (100%); 10% by enforced comprehensive indoor public smoking bans (100%); 3% by mass media campaigns achieving 400 gross rating points (100%); 40% by brief opportunistic physician advice (21%); and 110% by use of a licensed nicotine product to reduce cigarette consumption (12%). Quit success rates were estimated to be increased by the following ratios: 60% by single-form nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (5%); 114% by NRT patch plus a faster-acting NRT (2%);124% by prescribed varenicline (5%); 60% by bupropion (1%); 100% by nortriptyline (0%), 10) 298% by cytisine (0%); 40% by individual face-to-face behavioural support (2%); 37% by telephone support (0.5%); 88% by group behavioural support (1%); 63% by text messaging (0.5%); and 19% by printed self-help materials (1%). There was insufficient evidence to obtain reliable, country-specific estimates for interventions such as websites, smartphone applications and e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Tax increases, indoor smoking bans, brief opportunistic physician advice and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking reduction can all increase population quit attempt rates. Quit success rates can be increased by provision of NRT, varenicline, bupropion, nortriptyline, cytisine and behavioural support delivered through a variety of modalities. Parameter estimates for the effectiveness and reach of these interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions examined by NICE from 2011 to 2016.

Background: A review of economic evaluations of public health interventions assessed by NICE between 2005 and 2010 found 85% were cost-effective. Owen et al. (The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. J Public Health 2012;34(1):37-45). With significant pressure on budgets the role of economics in securing funding remains important. This study updates the earlier analysis. Methods: Economic evaluations carried out between 2011 and 2016 were categorized: cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-consequences analysis (CCA). Cost-effectiveness estimates were analysed and compared with Owen et al. (The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. J Public Health 2012;34(1):37-45). Results: Of 43 guidelines examined, 23 used CUA for specific interventions yielding 138 base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates, 11 used CUA for a threshold or 'what if' analysis, 1 used CEA, 3 used CCA, 1 used CBA and CUA and 1 used CEA and CUA, 5 did not require economic modelling. Compared with the earlier period, the median ICER for the 138 estimates was substantially higher (£7843 versus £1053) and there was greater variability (a higher proportion in the later period was cost-saving, but a higher proportion was also over £20 000 per quality adjusted life year). Conclusions: Nearly two-thirds (63%) of public health interventions assessed were cost-effective. However, increased variability in estimates highlights the importance of assessing cost-effectiveness to ensure good use of scarce resources.

EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco smoking claims 700,000 lives every year in Europe and the cost of tobacco smoking in the EU is estimated between €98 and €130 billion annually; direct medical care costs and indirect costs such as workday losses each represent half of this amount. Policymakers all across Europe are in need of bespoke information on the economic and wider returns of investing in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation agendas. EQUIPT is designed to test the transferability of one such economic evidence base-the English Tobacco Return on Investment (ROI) tool-to other EU member states. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EQUIPT is a multicentre, interdisciplinary comparative effectiveness research study in public health. The Tobacco ROI tool already developed in England by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will be adapted to meet the needs of European decision-makers, following transferability criteria. Stakeholders' needs and intention to use ROI tools in sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands) will be analysed through interviews and surveys and complemented by secondary analysis of the contextual and other factors. Informed by this contextual analysis, the next phase will develop country-specific ROI tools in sample countries using a mix of economic modelling and Visual Basic programming. The results from the country-specific ROI models will then be compared to derive policy proposals that are transferable to other EU states, from which a centralised web tool will be developed. This will then be made available to stakeholders to cater for different decision-making contexts across Europe. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Brunel University Ethics Committee and relevant authorities in each of the participating countries approved the protocol. EQUIPT has a dedicated work package on dissemination, focusing on stakeholders' communication needs. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, e-learning resources and policy briefs.