John M Wentworth1, Kim M Dalziel2, Paul E O'Brien3, Paul Burton3, Frackson Shaba2, Philip M Clarke2, Neda Laiteerapong4, Wendy A Brown3. 1. Centre for Obesity Research and Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne University, Parkville, Australia; Royal Melbourne Hospital Department of Medicine, Parkville, Australia. Electronic address: wentworth@wehi.edu.au. 2. School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 3. Centre for Obesity Research and Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the cost-effectiveness of gastric band surgery in overweight but not obese people who receive standard diabetes care. METHOD: A microsimulation model (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model) was used to project diabetes outcomes and costs from a two-year Australian randomized trial of gastric band (GB) surgery in overweight but not obese people (BMI 25 to 30kg/m2) on to a comparable population of U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N=254). Estimates of cost-effectiveness were calculated based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for different treatment scenarios. Costs were inflated to 2015 U.S. dollar values and an ICER of less than $50,000 per QALY gained was considered cost-effective. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for GB surgery at two years exceeded $90,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained but decreased to $52,000, $29,000 and $22,000 when the health benefits of surgery were assumed to endure for 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. The cost-effectiveness of GB surgery was sensitive to utility gained from weight loss and, to a lesser degree, the costs of GB surgery. However, the cost-effectiveness of GB surgery was affected minimally by improvements in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: GB surgery for overweight but not obese people with T2D appears to be cost-effective in the U.S. setting if weight loss endures for more than five years. Health utility gained from weight loss is a critical input to cost-effectiveness estimates and therefore should be routinely measured in populations undergoing bariatric surgery.
AIM: To determine the cost-effectiveness of gastric band surgery in overweight but not obesepeople who receive standard diabetes care. METHOD: A microsimulation model (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model) was used to project diabetes outcomes and costs from a two-year Australian randomized trial of gastric band (GB) surgery in overweight but not obesepeople (BMI 25 to 30kg/m2) on to a comparable population of U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N=254). Estimates of cost-effectiveness were calculated based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for different treatment scenarios. Costs were inflated to 2015 U.S. dollar values and an ICER of less than $50,000 per QALY gained was considered cost-effective. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for GB surgery at two years exceeded $90,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained but decreased to $52,000, $29,000 and $22,000 when the health benefits of surgery were assumed to endure for 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. The cost-effectiveness of GB surgery was sensitive to utility gained from weight loss and, to a lesser degree, the costs of GB surgery. However, the cost-effectiveness of GB surgery was affected minimally by improvements in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS:GB surgery for overweight but not obesepeople with T2D appears to be cost-effective in the U.S. setting if weight loss endures for more than five years. Health utility gained from weight loss is a critical input to cost-effectiveness estimates and therefore should be routinely measured in populations undergoing bariatric surgery.
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David E Arterburn; Andy Bogart; Nancy E Sherwood; Stephen Sidney; Karen J Coleman; Sebastien Haneuse; Patrick J O'Connor; Mary Kay Theis; Guilherme M Campos; David McCulloch; Joe Selby Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Deepak L Bhatt; John P Kirwan; Kathy Wolski; Stacy A Brethauer; Sankar D Navaneethan; Ali Aminian; Claire E Pothier; Esther S H Kim; Steven E Nissen; Sangeeta R Kashyap Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P M Clarke; A M Gray; A Briggs; A J Farmer; P Fenn; R J Stevens; D R Matthews; I M Stratton; R R Holman Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2004-10-27 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sophia Zoungas; John Chalmers; Bruce Neal; Laurent Billot; Qiang Li; Yoichiro Hirakawa; Hisatomi Arima; Helen Monaghan; Rohina Joshi; Stephen Colagiuri; Mark E Cooper; Paul Glasziou; Diederick Grobbee; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Simon Heller; Liu Lisheng; Giuseppe Mancia; Michel Marre; David R Matthews; Carl E Mogensen; Vlado Perkovic; Neil Poulter; Anthony Rodgers; Bryan Williams; Stephen MacMahon; Anushka Patel; Mark Woodward Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John M Wentworth; Chloe Cheng; Cheryl Laurie; Stewart Skinner; Paul R Burton; Wendy A Brown; Paul E O'Brien Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Chiara Chadwick; Paul R Burton; Jennifer Reilly; Julie Playfair; Cheryl Laurie; Kalai Shaw; Wendy A Brown Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.479