Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 15;9(8):e030934. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030934

Table 4.

Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of the two smoking cessation treatments, HIT and LIT, for 6-month continuous abstinence at 1 year (CEA short term), sustained abstinence at 5–8 years of follow-up (CEA long term), and sensitivity analyses for CEA long term. Societal perspective, in Euro 2018

Intervention costs CEA* short CEA* long CEA* long, sensitivity CEA* long, population level, per person
Men Women
HIT† 117 011 117 011 117 011 801 801
LIT‡ 27 927 27 927 27 927 189 189
Difference in intervention costs 89 085 89 085 89 085 612 612
Difference in societal costs avoided 82 253 67 466 32 469 779 502
Incremental costs 6832 21 619 56 616 −167 110
Incremental QALYs§ 7.44 5.71 4.82 0.0664 0.0462
Incremental cost per QALY§ (ICER¶) 918 3786 11 746 <0 2391

*Cost-effectiveness analysis.

†High-intensity smoking cessation treatment, the HIT programme.

‡Low-intensity smoking cessation treatment, the LIT programme.

§Quality-adjusted life-years.

¶Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is calculated as incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).