Cost-Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery Compared With Nonsurgical Treatment in People With Obesity and Comorbidity in Colombia

Observational cohort investigating health outcomes and healthcare costs after metabolic and bariatric surgery: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

As the rate of obesity increases, so does the incidence of obesity-related comorbidities. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective treatment for obesity, yet this treatment is severely underused. MBS can improve, resolve, and prevent the development of obesity-related comorbidities; this improvement in health also results in lower healthcare costs. The studies that have examined these outcomes are often limited by small sample sizes, reliance on outdated data, inconsistent definitions of outcomes, and the use of simulated data. Using recent real-world data, we will identify characteristics of individuals who qualify for MBS but have not had MBS and address the gaps in knowledge around the impact of MBS on health outcomes and healthcare costs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a large US employer-based retrospective claims database (Merative), we will identify all obese adults (21+) who have had a primary MBS from 2016 to 2021 and compare their characteristics and outcomes with obese adults who did not have an MBS from 2016 to 2021. Baseline demographics, health outcomes, and costs will be examined in the year before the index date, remission and new-onset comorbidities, and healthcare costs will be examined at 1 and 3 years after the index date.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this was an observational study of deidentified patients in the Merative database, Institutional Review Board approval and consent were exempt (in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule). An IRB exemption was approved by the wcg IRB (#13931684). Knowledge dissemination will include presenting results at national and international conferences, sharing findings with specialty societies, and publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. All data management and analytic code will be made available publicly to enable others to leverage our methods to verify and extend our findings.

Cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review of economic evaluations

AIM

To systematically identify and appraise the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of comorbid type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 20 January 2021. Economic evaluations in a T2D population or a subpopulation with T2D were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, critical appraisal of methodological quality (Consensus Health Economic Criteria list) and assessment of transferability (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research questionnaire) were undertaken in duplicate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome. Costs were reported in 2020 Irish Euro. Cost-effectiveness was interpreted using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €20,000 and €45,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Due to heterogeneity arising from various sources, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty studies across seventeen jurisdictions met the inclusion criteria; 16 specifically in a T2D population and 14 in a subpopulation with T2D. Overall, metabolic surgery was found to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Where undertaken, the results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. Of the 30 studies included, 15 were considered high quality. Identified limitations included limited long-term follow-up data and uncertainty regarding the utility associated with T2D remission.

CONCLUSION

Published high-quality studies suggest metabolic surgery is a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention. As the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases increases worldwide, significant investment and careful consideration of the resource requirements needed for metabolic surgery programmes will be necessary to ensure that service provision is adequate to meet demand.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery in Tunisia

PURPOSE

Obesity is a growing global issue with evidence linking it to an increase in loss of disease-free years, reduced quality of life, increased mortality, and additional economic burden. This study sought to establish the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, compared to conventional therapy in patients with obesity, from a Tunisian healthcare payor perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Markov model compared lifetime costs and outcomes of bariatric surgery with conventional treatment among patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m², BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² with obesity-related co-morbidities (Group 1), or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (Group 2). Inputs were sourced from the Tunisian Health Examination Survey, local clinician data and literature sources. Health states were associated with different cost and utility decrements. Changes in body mass index, systolic blood pressure, lipid ratio and diabetes remission rates were modelled on a yearly basis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were key outcomes. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the model's robustness.

RESULTS

The model showed that the benefits of bariatric surgery were favorable compared to conventional treatment, with an ICER of 1844 TND/QALY in Group 1 patients and 2413 TND/QALY in Group 2 patients. Bariatric surgery resulted in a QALY gain of 3.26 per patient in Group 1 and a gain of 1.77 per patient in Group 2. At a willingness to pay threshold of 31,379 TND/QALY, the incremental NMB was 96,251 TND and 51,123 TND for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

From the Tunisian healthcare payor perspective, bariatric surgery is cost-effective for patients with obesity and those with T2DM and obesity-related comorbidities. These findings may have impact on future decision-making on funding and reimbursement of bariatric surgery in Tunisia.

Cost Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis in Colombia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of tofacitinib versus other treatment options currently available in Colombia in naïve to biologics (first-line) and exposed to biologics (second-line) patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed with 8-week cycles, simulating a cohort of patients in a 5-year time horizon. The health states included remission, treatment response, active UC, and colectomy. The transition probabilities for the induction and maintenance phase were obtained from a network meta-analysis, and effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Unit costs were derived from official national sources.

RESULTS

For first line, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was $883 for tofacitinib and $3619 for infliximab, compared with adalimumab. Sensitivity analysis showed that tofacitinib is cost effective in 45% of the iterations, adalimumab in 5%, and infliximab in 50%. Meanwhile, the ICER of adalimumab was $14,927 compared with tofacitinib in second-line treatment. In the sensitivity analysis, tofacitinib was cost effective in 64% of the iterations, followed by adalimumab in 36%. Infliximab and golimumab were not included due to data limitations in the network meta-analysis of second-line treatment.

CONCLUSION

The analysis suggests that in Colombia, treatment with tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe UC is a cost-effective option in both lines compared with other treatment options.

Economic Evaluation of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The primary aim of this study is to assess the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) interventions with a focus on diabetes education, lifestyle modifications, surgical intervention, and pharmacological therapy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of T2DM interventions published in LMICs for the period 2009-2019. A total of 25 studies were identified, with more than half of the studies being decision analytic models. Critical appraisal of the identified studies showed they were of good quality. Overall, the reported interventions in this review were very heterogeneous, which made them difficult to compare. However, there was strong evidence suggesting that diabetes education was a very cost-effective strategy in LMICs. Further evidence on affordability and budget impact of bariatric surgery is required before adopting the intervention. Metformin-based therapy showed promising evidence on cost-effectiveness and thus should be offered to T2DM patients in LMICs. On the contrary, the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modifications remains understudied in LMICs. The findings in this review can inform policy guidance toward the inclusion of T2DM interventions in the benefit packages for Universal Health Coverage in LMICs.

Can responsive deep brain stimulation be a cost-effective treatment for severe obesity?

OBJECTIVE

A first-in-human responsive deep brain stimulation (rDBS) trial (NCT03868670) for obesity is under way, which is based on promising preclinical evidence. Given the upfront costs of rDBS, it is prudent to examine the success threshold for cost-effectiveness compared with laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

METHODS

Efficacy and safety data on LRYGB and safety data on rDBS were collected for established indications through a literature search. The success threshold was defined as minimum BMI reduction. Treatment costs were calculated via Medicare national reimbursement data.

RESULTS

LRYGB had a mean BMI reduction of 13.75 kg/m² . Based on adverse events, LRYGB was a less-preferred health state (overall adverse event utility of 0.96 [0.02]) than rDBS (0.98 [0.01]), but LRYGB ($14,366 [$6,410]) had a significantly lower treatment cost than rDBS ($29,951 [$4,490]; p < 0.0001). Therefore, for rDBS to be cost-effective compared with LRYGB, the multiple models yielded a success threshold range of 13.7 to 15.2 kg/m² .

CONCLUSIONS

This study established a preliminary efficacy success threshold for rDBS to be cost-effective for severe obesity, and results from randomized controlled trials are needed. This analysis allows for interpretation of the economic impact of advancing rDBS for obesity in light of ongoing trial results and suggests an attainable threshold is needed for cost-effectiveness.

Incremental Net Monetary Benefit of Bariatric Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Evidences

This systematic review aimed to comprehensively synthesize cost-effectiveness evidences of bariatric surgery by pooling incremental net monetary benefits (INB). Twenty-eight full economic evaluation studies comparing bariatric surgery with usual care were identified from five databases. In high-income countries (HICs), bariatric surgery was cost-effective among mixed obesity group (i.e., obesity with/without diabetes) over a 10-year time horizon (pooled INB = $53,063.69; 95% CI $42,647.96, $63,479.43) and lifetime horizon (pooled INB = $101,897.96; 95% CI $79,390.93, $124,404.99). All studies conducted among obese with diabetes reported that bariatric surgery was cost-effective. Also, the pooled INB for obesity with diabetes group over lifetime horizon in HICs was $80,826.28 (95% CI $32,500.75, $129,151.81). Nevertheless, no evidence is available in low- and middle-income countries.