Cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment initiated during psychiatric hospitalization: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment for psychiatric inpatients. METHOD: Smokers, regardless of intention to quit, were recruited during psychiatric hospitalization and randomized to receive stage-based smoking cessation services or usual aftercare. Smoking cessation services, quality of life, and biochemically verified abstinence from cigarettes were assessed during 18 months of follow-up. A Markov model of cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon was constructed using trial findings and parameters obtained in a review of the literature on quit and relapse rates and the effect of smoking on health care cost, quality of life, and mortality. RESULTS: Among 223 smokers randomized between 2006 and 2008, the mean cost of smoking cessation services was $189 in the experimental treatment group and $37 in the usual care condition (P < .001). At the end of follow-up, 18.75% of the experimental group was abstinent from cigarettes, compared to 6.80% abstinence in the usual care group (P < .05). The model projected that the intervention added $43 in lifetime cost and generated 0.101 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $428 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found the experimental intervention was cost-effective against the acceptance criteria of $50,000/QALY in 99.0% of the replicates. CONCLUSIONS: A cessation intervention for smokers identified in psychiatric hospitalization did not result in higher mental health care costs in the short-run and was highly cost-effective over the long-term. The stage-based intervention was a feasible and cost-effective way of addressing the high smoking prevalence in persons with serious mental illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00136812.

Cost-effectiveness of extended cessation treatment for older smokers.

AIMS: We examined the cost-effectiveness of extended smoking cessation treatment in older smokers. DESIGN: Participants who completed a 12-week smoking cessation program were factorial randomized to extended cognitive behavioral treatment and extended nicotine replacement therapy. SETTING: A free-standing smoking cessation clinic. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 402 smokers aged 50 years and older were recruited from the community. MEASUREMENTS: The trial measured biochemically verified abstinence from cigarettes after 2 years and the quantity of smoking cessation services utilized. Trial findings were combined with literature on changes in smoking status and the age- and gender-adjusted effect of smoking on health-care cost, mortality and quality of life over the long term in a Markov model of cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon. FINDINGS: The addition of extended cognitive behavioral therapy added $83 in smoking cessation services cost [P = 0.012, confidence interval (CI) = $22-212]. At the end of follow-up, cigarette abstinence rates were 50.0% with extended cognitive behavioral therapy and 37.2% without this therapy (P < 0.05, odds ratio 1.69, CI 1.18-2.54). The model-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $6324 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that the additional $947 in lifetime cost of the intervention had a 95% confidence interval of -$331 to 2081; the 0.15 additional QALYs had a confidence interval of 0.035-0.280, and that the intervention was cost-effective against a $50 000/QALY acceptance criterion in 99.6% of the replicates. Extended nicotine replacement therapy was not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adding extended cognitive behavior therapy to standard cessation treatment was cost-effective. Further intensification of treatment may be warranted.

Characteristics of Asian and Pacific Islanders admitted to U.S. drug treatment programs in 2005.

OBJECTIVE: We determined how Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs) differ from clients from other ethnic groups in regard to drug use and admissions to drug treatment programs. METHODS: We used national survey and treatment admissions data to characterize drug problems and first-time adult admissions to publicly funded drug treatment programs in the U.S. in 2005. RESULTS: APIs accounted for 1.9% of illicit drug use in U.S. adults and for 1.3% of adult clients entering drug treatment for the first time. Compared with other ethnic groups, APIs were significantly more likely to be entering treatment for the first time. Stimulants were the primary drug problem for 57.3% of API first-time treatment clients, a significantly greater proportion than other ethnic groups. This figure had increased from 45.3% in 2001, significantly greater than the increase among Caucasian or African American clients. API first-time admissions had used drugs less frequently (13.6 days in the prior 30 days), began drug use at a slightly older age (mean = 20.7 years), and had a shorter period between start of use and first admission (mean = 9.4 years) than other racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Stimulant use was the predominant problem of API clients entering treatment for the first time. APIs were underrepresented in the treatment system relative to their share of the population with drug problems. Diverse groups were aggregated to form the API category. Information on APIs needs to be disaggregated to develop more culturally appropriate and effective treatment.

Effect of incentives for medication adherence on health care use and costs in methadone patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefits of anti-retroviral therapy for HIV is not fully realized because of difficulties in adherence with demanding treatment regimens, especially among injection drug users. METHODS: HIV-positive methadone patients who were less than 80% adherent with their primary anti-retroviral therapy were randomized to a trial of incentives for on-time adherence. Adherence was rewarded with an escalating scale of vouchers redeemable for goods. Both intervention and control group visited a medication coach twice a month. The cost of the intervention was determined by micro-costing. Other costs were obtained from administrative data and patient report of out-of-system care. RESULTS: During the 12-week intervention period, the incremental direct cost of the intervention, including treatment vouchers, was $942. The voucher group incurred $2572 in anti-retroviral drug cost, significantly more than the $1973 incurred by the comparison group (p<.01). Adherence, as measured by on-time openings of an electronically monitored vial, was 78% in the intervention group and 56% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental direct cost of voucher incentives was $292 per month. If the observed increase in adherence from voucher incentives can be sustained in the long-term, the literature suggests that disease progression will be slowed. Further research is needed to evaluate if the improvement can be sustained or achieved at lower cost. Mitigation of treatment resistance and reduction in HIV transmission are additional benefits that favor adoption.

The cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program for out-patients in treatment for depression.

AIMS: Smoking cessation programs are highly cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of programs for psychiatric patients may be affected by differences in cost, efficacy, survival and quality of life. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of a program for smokers being treated for depression. DESIGN: A randomized trial compared brief contact to a stepped smoking cessation program in 322 cigarette smoking mental health out-patients. We determined the intervention's direct cost. Because smoking cessation may affect short-term use of mental health care, we used administrative databases and self-report to find mental health-care cost. FINDINGS: The 163 individuals randomized to stepped care received an average of $346 of smoking cessation services, including $221 for computer-mediated assessments of readiness to quit, and $124 for counseling, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion. The cessation program was used by 53 participants. Total cost of smoking cessation and mental health services was $4805 in the stepped care group and $4173 in the brief-contact care group (not significantly different). After 18 months of follow-up, the stepped care group had 5.5% greater abstinence from smoking. Smoking cessation services cost $6204 per successful quit. Cessation services and mental health care cost was $11 496 per successful quit. CONCLUSION: If smoking cessation yields 1.2 years additional life, the cessation services cost $5170 per life-year, and cessation services and mental health care cost $9580 per life-year. Even if quitting does not increase survival of depressed individuals as well as in other smokers, the stepped care intervention is likely to be regarded as cost-effective.

Linking opioid-dependent hospital patients to drug treatment: Health care use and costs 6 months after randomization.

AIMS: To conduct an economic evaluation of the first 6 months' trial of treatment vouchers and case management for opioid-dependent hospital patients. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial and evaluation of administrative data. SETTING: Emergency department, wound clinic, in-patient units and methadone clinic in a large urban public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study randomized 126 opioid-dependent drug users seeking medical care. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized among four groups. These received vouchers for 6 months of methadone treatment, 6 months of case management, both these interventions, or usual care. FINDINGS: During the first 6 months of this study, 90% of those randomized to vouchers alone enrolled in methadone maintenance, significantly more than the 44% enrollment in those randomized to case management without vouchers (P < 0.001). The direct costs of substance abuse treatment, including case management, was 4040 dollars for those who received vouchers, 4177 dollars for those assigned to case management and 5277 dollars for those who received the combination of both interventions. After 3 months, the vouchers alone group used less heroin than the case management alone group. The difference was not significant at 6 months. There were no significant differences in other health care costs in the 6 months following randomization. CONCLUSION: Vouchers were slightly more effective but no more costly than case management during the initial 6 months of the study. Vouchers were as effective and less costly than the combination of case management and vouchers. The finding that vouchers dominate is tempered by the possibility that case management may lower medical care costs.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of standard methadone maintenance treatment compared to enriched 180-day methadone detoxification.

AIMS: To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment and 180-day methadone detoxification enriched with psychosocial services. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study conducted from May 1995 to April 1999. SETTING: Research clinic in an established drug treatment program. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seventy-nine adults with diagnosed opioid dependence. Intervention Patients were randomized to methadone maintenance (n = 91), which required monthly 1 hour/week of psychosocial therapy during the first 6 months or 180-day detoxification (n = 88), which required 3 hours/week of psychosocial therapy and 14 education sessions during the first 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Total health-care costs and self-reported injection drug use. A two-state Markov model was used to estimate quality-adjusted years of survival. Findings Methadone maintenance produced significantly greater reductions in illicit opioid use than 180-day detoxification during the last 6 months of treatment. Total health-care costs were greater for maintenance than detoxification treatment ($7564 versus $6687; P < 0.001). Although study costs were significantly higher for methadone maintenance than detoxification patients ($4739 versus $2855, P < 0.001), detoxification patients incurred significantly higher costs for substance abuse and mental health care received outside the study. Methadone maintenance may provide a modest survival advantage compared with detoxification. The cost per life-year gained is $16 967. Sensitivity analysis revealed a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year over a wide range of modeling assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enriched detoxification services, methadone maintenance is more effective than enriched detoxification services with a cost-effectiveness ratio within the range of many accepted medical interventions and may provide a survival advantage. Results provide additional support for the use of sustained methadone therapy as opposed to detoxification for treating opioid addiction.