Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation rates after stroke and transient ischemic attack are suboptimal, and smoking cessation interventions are underutilized. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions in this population.

METHODS: We constructed a decision tree and used Markov models that aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, any pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling, and monetary incentives, compared with brief counseling alone in the secondary stroke prevention setting. Payer and societal costs of interventions and outcomes were modeled. The outcomes were recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death using a lifetime horizon. Estimates and variance for the base case (35% cessation), costs and effectiveness of interventions, and outcome rates were imputed from the stroke literature. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or when the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. Probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations modeled the impact of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS: From the payer perspective, varenicline and pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling were associated with more QALYs (0.67 and 1.00, respectively) at less total lifetime costs compared with brief counseling alone. Monetary incentives were associated with 0.71 more QALYs at an additional cost of $120 compared with brief counseling alone, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168/QALY. From the societal perspective, all 3 interventions provided more QALYs at less total costs compared with brief counseling alone. In 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, all 3 smoking cessation interventions were cost-effective in >89% of runs.

CONCLUSIONS: For secondary stroke prevention, it is cost-effective and potentially cost-saving to deliver smoking cessation therapy beyond brief counseling alone.