Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of five face-to-face smoking cessation interventions (i.e., minimal counseling by a general practitioner (GP) with, or without nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), intensive counseling with NRT, or bupropion, and telephone counseling) in terms of costs per quitter, costs per life-year gained, and costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Methods: Scenarios on increased implementation of smoking cessation interventions were compared with current practice in The Netherlands. One of the five interventions was implemented for a period of 1, 10, or 75 years reaching 25% of the smokers each year. A dynamic population model, the RIVM chronic disease model, was used to project future gains in life-years and QALYs, and savings of health-care costs from a decrease in the incidence of 11 smoking-related diseases over a time horizon of 75 years. This model allows the repetitive application of increased cessation rates to a population with a changing demographic and risk factor mix. Sensitivity analyses were performed for variations in costs, effects, time horizon, program size, and discount rates. Results: Compared with current practice, minimal GP counseling was a dominant intervention, generating both gains in life-years and QALYs and savings that were higher than intervention costs. For the other interventions, incremental costs per QALY gained ranged from about 1100€ for telephone counseling to 4900€ for intensive counseling with nicotine patches or gum for implementation periods of 75 years. Conclusions: All five smoking cessation interventions were cost-effective compared with current practice, and minimal GP counseling was even cost-saving.

, , , , ,
doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04008.x, hdl.handle.net/1765/73109
Value in Health
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM)

Feenstra, T., Hamberg-Van Reenen, H., Hoogenveen, R., & Rutten-van Mölken, M. (2005). Cost-effectiveness of face-to-face smoking cessation interventions: A dynamic modeling study. Value in Health, 8(3), 178–190. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04008.x