...
首页> 外文期刊>Health technology assessment: HTA >'Cut down to quit' with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic analysis.
【24h】

'Cut down to quit' with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic analysis.

机译:戒烟中的尼古丁替代疗法“戒烟”:对有效性和经济分析的系统回顾。

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 'cut down to quit' (CDTQ) smoking. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched up to July 2006. REVIEW METHODS: Data from studies meeting the criteria were reviewed and analysed. A decision analytical model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CDTQ from the NHS perspective. RESULTS: No systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CDTQ and no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) specifically addressing CDTQ were identified. Seven randomised placebo-controlled trials satisfied the inclusion criteria; six of these were industry sponsored. However, sustained smoking cessation was only reported as a secondary outcome in these trials and required commencement of cessation within the first 6 weeks of treatment. Meta-analyses of the study level results demonstrated statistically significant superiority of NRT compared with placebo. Individual patient data from unpublished reports of five RCTs were used to calculate sustained abstinence of at least 6 months starting at any time during the treatment period (generally 12 months). From this the meta-analysis indicated statistically significant superiority of NRT versus placebo [relative risk 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 3.15]. The proportions achieving this outcome across all five RCTs were 6.75% of participants in receipt of NRT and 3.29% of those receiving placebo. The number-needed-to-treat was 29. This measure of sustained abstinence was used for economic modelling. No existing economic analyses of CDTQ were identified. A de novo decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of making CDTQ with NRT available for smokers unwilling or unable to attempt an abrupt quit. The outcome measure was expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model results suggest that CDTQ with NRT delivers incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from around 1500 pounds/QALY to 7700 pounds/QALY depending on the age at which smoking cessation was achieved and the modes of CDTQ delivery. Assuming applicability to a single population, CDTQ was not cost-effective compared with abrupt quitting. If CDTQ with NRT were to be offered on the NHS as a matter of policy, the base-case results suggest that it would only be effective and cost-effective if a substantial majority of the people attempting CDTQ with NRT were those who would otherwise make no attempt to quit. This result is robust to considerable variation in the forms of CDTQ with NRT offered, and to the assumptions about QALY gained per quit success. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of RCT evidence of quit rates in NRT-supported smoking reduction studies indicates that NRT is an effective intervention in achieving sustained smoking abstinence for smokers who declare unwillingness or inability to attempt an abrupt quit. The 12-month sustained abstinence success rate in this population (approximately 5.3% with NRT versus approximately 2.6% with placebo) is considerably less than that documented for an abrupt quit NRT regime in smokers willing to attempt an abrupt quit with NRT (which according to other systematic reviews is around 16% with NRT versus 10% with placebo). Most of the evidence of effectiveness of CDTQ came from trials that required considerable patient-investigator contact. Therefore, for CDTQ with NRT to generate similar abstinence rates for this recalcitrant population in a real-world setting would probably require a similar mode of delivery. The modelling undertaken, which was based on reasonable assumptions about costs, benefits and success rates, suggests that CDTQ is highly cost-effective compared with no quit attempt. CDTQ remains cost-effective if dilution from abrupt quitting forms a small proportion of CDTQ attempts. In an alternative analysis in which smokers who switch from an abrupt quit to CDTQ retain the success rate of abrupt quitters, all forms of C
机译:目的:研究尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)对“减少戒烟”(CDTQ)吸烟的有效性和成本效益。数据来源:检索到2006年7月的主要电子数据库。审查方法:审查和分析来自符合标准的研究数据。构建了决策分析模型,以从NHS的角度估计CDTQ的成本效益。结果:未对CDTQ的有效性进行系统评价,也未发现专门针对CDTQ的随机对照试验(RCT)。七项随机安慰剂对照试验均符合纳入标准。其中有六个是行业赞助的。但是,在这些试验中,持续戒烟仅是次要结果,需要在治疗的前6周内开始戒烟。研究水平结果的荟萃分析显示,与安慰剂相比,NRT具有统计学上的显着优势。在治疗期间的任何时间(通常为12个月)开始,使用来自未发表的5个RCT报告的患者数据来计算至少6个月的持续戒断。由此,荟萃分析表明NRT与安慰剂相比具有统计学上的显着优势[相对风险2.06,95%置信区间(CI)1.34至3.15]。在所有五个RCT中达到此结果的比例分别为接受NRT的参与者的6.75%和接受安慰剂的参与者的3.29%。需要治疗的人数为29。这种持续禁欲的量度用于经济建模。没有发现CDTQ的现有经济分析。构建了从头决策分析模型,以评估使不愿意或无法尝试突然戒烟的吸烟者可以使用带有NRT的CDTQ的成本效益。结果度量是预期的质量调整生命年(QALYs)。模型结果表明,带有NRT的CDTQ可以实现的成本效益比(ICER)从1500磅/ QALY到7700磅/ QALY,这取决于实现戒烟的年龄和CDTQ的交付方式。假设适用于单个人群,与突然退出相比,CDTQ的成本效益不高。如果作为政策问题,如果要在NHS上提供带有NRT的CDTQ,则基本结果表明,只有绝大多数尝试使用NRT的CDTQ的人愿意这样做,它才是有效且具有成本效益的。没有尝试退出。该结果对于CDTQ形式与NRT形式的显着变化以及每次退出成功获得QALY的假设具有鲁棒性。结论:在NRT支持的吸烟减少研究中,RCT证据表明戒烟率的荟萃分析表明,NRT是宣布不愿或无法尝试突然戒烟的吸烟者实现持续戒烟的有效干预措施。该人群的12个月持续禁欲成功率(NRT约为5.3%,而安慰剂约为2.6%)比愿意尝试NRT突然戒烟的吸烟者突然戒烟NRT方案所记录的要低得多。 NRT的其他系统评价约为16%,而安慰剂为10%)。 CDTQ有效性的大多数证据来自需要大量患者与研究人员联系的试验。因此,对于带有NRT的CDTQ,要在现实环境中为该顽强人群产生类似的戒断率,可能需要类似的递送方式。所进行的建模基于对成本,收益和成功率的合理假设,表明CDTQ与没有退出尝试相比具有很高的成本效益。如果突然退出的稀释只占CDTQ尝试的一小部分,则CDTQ仍然具有成本效益。在另一种分析中,从突然戒烟转向CDTQ的吸烟者保留了突然戒烟的成功率,所有形式的C

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号