Funding a Smoking Cessation Program for Crohn's Disease: An Economic Evaluation. (March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Coward, Stephanie; Heitman, Steven J; Clement, Fiona; Negron, Maria; Panaccione, Remo; Ghosh, Subrata; Barkema, Herman W; Seow, Cynthia; Leung, Yvette P Y; Kaplan, Gilaad G
• Is Part Of: American journal of gastroenterology. Volume 110:Number 3(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-03
• Subjects: Stomach -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Intestines -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.300
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0002-9270

Abstract

Abstract : OBJECTIVES: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who smoke are at a higher risk of flaring and requiring surgery. Cost‐effectiveness studies of funding smoking cessation programs are lacking. Thus, we performed a cost–utility analysis of funding smoking cessation programs for CD. METHODS: A cost–utility analysis was performed comparing five smoking cessation strategies: No Program, Counseling, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), NRT+Counseling, and Varenicline. The time horizon for the Markov model was 5 years. The health states included medical remission (azathioprine or antitumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF), dose escalation of an anti‐TNF, second anti‐TNF, surgery, and death. Probabilities were taken from peer‐reviewed literature, and costs (CAN$) for surgery, medications, and smoking cessation programs were estimated locally. The primary outcome was the cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained associated with each smoking cessation strategy. Threshold, three‐way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and budget impact analysis (BIA) were carried out. RESULTS: All strategies dominated No Program. Strategies from most to least cost effective were as follows: Varenicline (cost: $55, 614, QALY: 3.70), NRT+Counseling (cost: $58, 878, QALY: 3.69), NRT (cost: $59, 540, QALY: 3.69), Counseling (cost: $61, 029, QALY: 3.68), and No Program (cost: $63, 601, QALY: 3.67). Three‐way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that No Program was only more cost effective when every strategy's cost exceeded approximately 10 times their estimated costs. The PSA showed that No Program was the most cost‐effective <1% of the time. The BIA showed that any strategy saved the health‐care system money over No Program. CONCLUSIONS: Health‐care systems should consider funding smoking cessation programs for CD, as they improve health outcomes and reduce costs.