A systematic review of the modelling and economic evaluation studies assessing regulatory options for e-cigarette use.

cost-utility analysis e-cigarettes electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) nicotine simulation modelling uncertainty analyses

Journal

The International journal on drug policy
ISSN: 1873-4758
Titre abrégé: Int J Drug Policy
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9014759

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 21 02 2024
revised: 30 05 2024
accepted: 02 06 2024
medline: 9 6 2024
pubmed: 9 6 2024
entrez: 8 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Governments around the world are considering regulating access to nicotine e-cigarettes to prevent uptake among youth however people that smoke tobacco may use them to assist with smoking cessation. The health and cost implications of regulating e-cigarette use among populations are unknown but have been explored in modelling studies. We reviewed health economic evaluation and simulation modelling studies that assessed long-term consequences and interpret their potential usefulness for decision-makers. A systematic review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Six databases were searched for modelling studies evaluating population-level e-cigarette control policies or interventions restricting e-cigarette use versus more liberalized use. Studies were required to report the outcomes of life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and/or healthcare costs. The quality of the studies was assessed using two quality assessment tools. In total, 15 studies were included with nine for the United States and one each for the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and New Zealand. Three studies included cost-utility analyses. Most studies involved health state transition (or Markov) closed cohort models. Many studies had limitations with their model structures, data input quality and transparency, and insufficient analyses handling model uncertainty. Findings were mixed with 11 studies concluding that policies permitting e-cigarette use lead to net benefits and 4 studies concluding net losses in life-years or QALYs and/or healthcare costs.Five studies had industry conflicts of interest. While authors did conclude net benefit than net harm in more of the studies so far conducted, the significant limitations that we identified with many of the studies in this review, make it uncertain whether or not countries can expect net population harms or benefits of restrictive versus unrestrictive e-cigarette policies. The generalizability of the findings is limited for decision-makers. In light of the deep uncertainty around the health and economic outcomes of e-cigarettes, simulation modelling methods and uncertainty analyses should be strengthened.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Governments around the world are considering regulating access to nicotine e-cigarettes to prevent uptake among youth however people that smoke tobacco may use them to assist with smoking cessation. The health and cost implications of regulating e-cigarette use among populations are unknown but have been explored in modelling studies. We reviewed health economic evaluation and simulation modelling studies that assessed long-term consequences and interpret their potential usefulness for decision-makers.
METHODS METHODS
A systematic review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Six databases were searched for modelling studies evaluating population-level e-cigarette control policies or interventions restricting e-cigarette use versus more liberalized use. Studies were required to report the outcomes of life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and/or healthcare costs. The quality of the studies was assessed using two quality assessment tools.
RESULTS RESULTS
In total, 15 studies were included with nine for the United States and one each for the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and New Zealand. Three studies included cost-utility analyses. Most studies involved health state transition (or Markov) closed cohort models. Many studies had limitations with their model structures, data input quality and transparency, and insufficient analyses handling model uncertainty. Findings were mixed with 11 studies concluding that policies permitting e-cigarette use lead to net benefits and 4 studies concluding net losses in life-years or QALYs and/or healthcare costs.Five studies had industry conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
While authors did conclude net benefit than net harm in more of the studies so far conducted, the significant limitations that we identified with many of the studies in this review, make it uncertain whether or not countries can expect net population harms or benefits of restrictive versus unrestrictive e-cigarette policies. The generalizability of the findings is limited for decision-makers. In light of the deep uncertainty around the health and economic outcomes of e-cigarettes, simulation modelling methods and uncertainty analyses should be strengthened.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38851141
pii: S0955-3959(24)00161-0
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104476
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

104476

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest AL receives an Early Career Fellowship from the Victorian Cancer Agency paid through her institution. MJ is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1194713). The other authors have no interests to declare.

Auteurs

Louisa G Collins (LG)

QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Population Health Program, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Queensland University of Technology (QUT), School of Nursing, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Public Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: louisa.collins@qimrberghofer.edu.au.

Daniel Lindsay (D)

QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Population Health Program, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Anita Lal (A)

Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University.

Tan Doan (T)

Queensland Ambulance Service, Department of Health, Brisbane, Australia.

Joachim Schüz (J)

International Agency for Research in Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.

Michelle Jongenelis (M)

The University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, Melbourne, Victoria.

Michelle Scollo (M)

Cancer Council Victoria, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Classifications MeSH