Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

AimTo evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of e‐cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England.DesignCost‐effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12‐month periods and life‐time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health‐care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ‐5D‐5L and measured in quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), for the 12‐month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life‐time analysis was model‐based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost‐effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER).SettingThree stop‐smoking service sites in England.ParticipantsAdult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites.Intervention and comparatorAn e‐cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1‐year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively.MeasurementsCost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health‐care services and EQ‐5D‐5 L were collected at baseline, 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values.FindingsThe ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life‐time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY).ConclusionUsing e‐cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop‐smoking services in England is likely to be more cost‐effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.