ABSTRACT
Introduction Integrating smoking cessation support into lung cancer screening can improve abstinence rates. However, healthcare decision makers need evidence of cost effectiveness to understand the cost/benefit of adopting this approach.
Methods To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions, and service delivery, we used a Markov model, adapted from previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on smoking cessation. This uses long-term epidemiological data to capture the prevalence of the smoking-related illnesses, where prevalence is estimated based on age, sex, and smoking status. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to capture joint parameter uncertainty.
Results All smoking cessation interventions appeared cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year, compared to no intervention or behavioural support alone. Offering immediate smoking cessation as part of lung cancer screening appointments, compared with usual care (onward referral to stop smoking services) was also estimated to be cost-effective with a net monetary benefit of £2,198 per person, and a saving of between £34 and £79 per person in reduced workplace absenteeism among working age attendees. Estimated healthcare cost savings were more than four times greater in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived, alongside a fivefold increase in QALYs accrued.
Conclusions Smoking cessation interventions within lung cancer screening are cost-effective and should be integrated so that treatment is initiated during screening visits. This is likely to reduce overall costs to the health service, and wider integrated care systems, improve quality and length of life, and may lessen health inequalities.
What is already known on this topic?Smoking cessation interventions are known to be cost-effective in general. However, their cost-effectiveness specifically within lung cancer screening programmes, where they are not routinely commissioned, remains to be established.
What this study adds This health economic analysis estimates that offering smoking cessation immediately within a lung cancer screening visits is a cost-effective intervention, with a substantial return on investment for the healthcare service, alongside a reduction in health inequalities and an increase in productivity for the wider economy.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy This economic evaluation will provide those commissioning and planning healthcare services with evidence that supports the case for funding smoking cessation services integrated within lung cancer screening programmes as immediate, opt-out services.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) were funded by the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) to develop the economic model. Funding was provided from AstraZeneca, through a small grant application, to MFT to complete this study. AstraZeneca had no input into the design of the study, the evaluation, interpretation, writing or conclusions of this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to declare
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript