User login
, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.
Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.
“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.
“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”
The study was published in Gut.
Cost Concerns
One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.
Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.
Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.
On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.
“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.
The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m2), class II (35-29.9 kg/m2), and class III (>40kg/m2) obesity.
Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments
When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.
In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).
“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.
The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.
But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.
“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.
“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”
Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.
At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.
One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.
One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.
, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.
Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.
“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.
“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”
The study was published in Gut.
Cost Concerns
One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.
Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.
Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.
On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.
“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.
The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m2), class II (35-29.9 kg/m2), and class III (>40kg/m2) obesity.
Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments
When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.
In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).
“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.
The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.
But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.
“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.
“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”
Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.
At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.
One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.
One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.
, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.
Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.
“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.
“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”
The study was published in Gut.
Cost Concerns
One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.
Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.
Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.
On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.
“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.
The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m2), class II (35-29.9 kg/m2), and class III (>40kg/m2) obesity.
Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments
When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.
In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).
“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.
The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.
But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.
“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.
“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”
Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.
At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.
One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.
One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.
FROM GUT