BMJ open · 2026
Markov-model cost-effectiveness evaluation of a cessation programme when tobacco policies are comprehensive.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mussio Irene, Triunfo Patricia, Gerstenblüth Mariana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study conducts a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Tobacco Treatment Programme (TTP) of Uruguay's National Resource Fund (NRF), within the context of the country's advanced implementation of tobacco control policies.
DESIGN: We run a 10 000 Markov model simulation with three states (people who smoke, people who have quit smoking and death) to simulate the trajectories of a cohort. The model has been widely used in previous studies evaluating smoking cessation interventions.
PARTICIPANTS: For the simulations, we use information from the 2016 to 2017 NRF TTP cohort. Nearly half of the participants lived in the capital, one-fifth had tertiary education, and about one-third had public health coverage. Participants began smoking at an average age of 16 years and smoked about 20 cigarettes per day when entering the TTP.
INTERVENTIONS: The process of tobacco cessation is simulated under different alternatives: no intervention, the current TTP (bupropion, nicotine gum and counselling), an expanded TTP that incorporates nicotine patches as a replacement therapy, and a potential future programme with cytisine and counselling (with and without mortality adjustments).
SETTING: We focus on Uruguay, which has been recognised as a global leader in tobacco control, including 100% smoke-free environments, a full advertising ban, plain packaging and steady tax increases.
MEASUREMENTS: We compare cost-effectiveness of policy alternatives using years of life lost (YLL) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing policy alternatives with no intervention and the current tobacco cessation programme in the country. The analysis considers the direct costs of treatments for smoking-related diseases (healthcare perspective) as well as social costs resulting from loss of productivity (societal perspective).
RESULTS: The results indicate that all policy interventions lead to a reduction in the YLL compared with no intervention. Among these options, the inclusion of cytisine emerges as the most cost-effective choice. In a scenario including the transition probabilities from the TTP cohort, this alternative would result in a 10.9% reduction in YLL, with a particularly positive impact among women (-16.5% vs -4.0% in men). In terms of cost-effectiveness, the costs per YLL averted would be on average US$3991 per YLL from a healthcare perspective, and US$3773 per YLL from a societal perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco cessation programmes in Uruguay are highly cost-effective, and our results justify their expansion and optimisation. The incorporation of cytisine into the TTP and a focus on groups with more severe tobacco consumption are recommended.
DESIGN: We run a 10 000 Markov model simulation with three states (people who smoke, people who have quit smoking and death) to simulate the trajectories of a cohort. The model has been widely used in previous studies evaluating smoking cessation interventions.
PARTICIPANTS: For the simulations, we use information from the 2016 to 2017 NRF TTP cohort. Nearly half of the participants lived in the capital, one-fifth had tertiary education, and about one-third had public health coverage. Participants began smoking at an average age of 16 years and smoked about 20 cigarettes per day when entering the TTP.
INTERVENTIONS: The process of tobacco cessation is simulated under different alternatives: no intervention, the current TTP (bupropion, nicotine gum and counselling), an expanded TTP that incorporates nicotine patches as a replacement therapy, and a potential future programme with cytisine and counselling (with and without mortality adjustments).
SETTING: We focus on Uruguay, which has been recognised as a global leader in tobacco control, including 100% smoke-free environments, a full advertising ban, plain packaging and steady tax increases.
MEASUREMENTS: We compare cost-effectiveness of policy alternatives using years of life lost (YLL) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing policy alternatives with no intervention and the current tobacco cessation programme in the country. The analysis considers the direct costs of treatments for smoking-related diseases (healthcare perspective) as well as social costs resulting from loss of productivity (societal perspective).
RESULTS: The results indicate that all policy interventions lead to a reduction in the YLL compared with no intervention. Among these options, the inclusion of cytisine emerges as the most cost-effective choice. In a scenario including the transition probabilities from the TTP cohort, this alternative would result in a 10.9% reduction in YLL, with a particularly positive impact among women (-16.5% vs -4.0% in men). In terms of cost-effectiveness, the costs per YLL averted would be on average US$3991 per YLL from a healthcare perspective, and US$3773 per YLL from a societal perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco cessation programmes in Uruguay are highly cost-effective, and our results justify their expansion and optimisation. The incorporation of cytisine into the TTP and a focus on groups with more severe tobacco consumption are recommended.