Type 2 Diabetes Remission After Bariatric Surgery and Its Impact on Healthcare Costs.

PURPOSE: Bariatric surgery is the most effective and durable treatment of obesity and can put type 2 diabetes (T2D) into remission. We aimed to examine remission rates after bariatric surgery and the impacts of post-surgical healthcare costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Obese adults with T2D were identified in Merative™ (US employer-based retrospective claims database). Individuals who had bariatric surgery were matched 1:1 with those who did not with baseline demographic and health characteristics. Rates of remission and total healthcare costs were compared at 6-12 and 6-36 months after the index date. RESULTS: Remission rates varied substantially by baseline T2D complexity; differences in rates at 1 year ranged from 41% for those with high-complexity T2D to 66% for those with low- to mid-complexity T2D. At 3 years, those who had bariatric surgery had 56% higher remission rates than those who did not have bariatric surgery, with differences of 73%, 59%, and 35% for those with low-, mid-, and high-complexity T2D at baseline. Healthcare costs were $3401 and $20,378 lower among those who had bariatric surgery in the 6 to 12 months and 6 to 36 months after the index date, respectively, than their matched controls. The biggest cost differences were seen among those with high-complexity T2D; those who had bariatric surgery had $26,879 lower healthcare costs in the 6 to 36 months after the index date than those who did not. CONCLUSION: Individuals with T2D undergoing bariatric surgery have substantially higher rates of T2D remission and lower healthcare costs.

Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review.

AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, but the burden of disease is not distributed evenly. GC screening routinely occurs in some high-incidence regions/countries and is generally cost-effective, which is attributed largely to the associated GC mortality reduction. In regions of low-intermediate incidence, less is known about the outcomes of GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance, including cost-effectiveness, since there are no comparative clinical studies. Decision analytic studies are informative in such instances where logistical limitations preclude "gold standard" study designs. We therefore aimed to conduct a systematic review of decision model analyses focused on endoscopic GC screening or precancer surveillance. METHODS: We identified decision model analyses, including cost effectiveness and cost utility studies, of GC screening or preneoplasia surveillance. At minimum, articles were evaluated for: study country; analytic design; population and health states; time horizon; model assumptions; outcomes; threshold value(s) for "cost-effective" determination; and sensitivity analyses. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Drummond's analytic scoring system. Data sources were PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: We identified 17 studies (8 screening, 4 surveillance, and 5 screening and surveillance) that met full inclusion criteria. Endoscopic screening in countries of high GC incidence was cost-effective across all studies; targeted screening of high-risk populations within otherwise low-intermediate incidence countries was also generally cost-effective. Surveillance of gastric precancer, including atrophic gastritis or gastric intestinal metaplasia, was generally cost-effective. Most studies had high appraisal scores, with 4 (24%) studies achieving perfect scores on the Drummond scale. CONCLUSION: Decision model analyses offer a unique mechanism with which to efficiently explore the cost benefit of various prevention and early detection strategies. Based on this comprehensive systematic review, upper endoscopy for GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance might be cost-effective depending on the population and protocol. Focused efforts are especially needed not only to define the optimal approach, but also to define the populations within otherwise low-intermediate regions/countries who might benefit most.

Endoscopy for Gastric Cancer Screening Is Cost Effective for Asian Americans in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer is routine in some countries with high incidence and is associated with reduced gastric cancer-related mortality. Immigrants from countries of high incidence to low incidence of gastric cancer retain their elevated risk, but no screening recommendations have been made for these groups in the United States. We aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of different endoscopic screening strategies for noncardia gastric cancer, compared with no screening, among Chinese, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese Americans. METHODS: We generated a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate a cohort of asymptomatic 50-year-old Asian Americans. The cost effectiveness of 2 distinct strategies for endoscopic gastric cancer screening was compared with no screening for each group, stratified by sex. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with performing no endoscopic gastric cancer screening, performing a 1-time upper endoscopy with biopsies, with continued endoscopic surveillance if gastric intestinal metaplasia was identified, was cost effective, whereas performing ongoing biennial endoscopies, even for patients with normal findings from endoscopy and histopathology, was not. The lowest ICERs were observed for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans (all <$73,748/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer with ongoing surveillance of gastric preneoplasia is cost effective for Asian Americans ages 50 years or older in the United States. The lowest ICERs were for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans (all <$73,748/QALY).

Negative payoffs of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients admitted under observation status.

BACKGROUND: More than 70 million Americans (23% of the USA population) have non-cardiac chest pain at least once in their lifetime with gastroesophageal reflux disease being the leading cause (37-66%). Current guidelines support the use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prior to invasive or noninvasive testing as a diagnostic, therapeutic and cost-effective method as a part of High Value Care recommendations. METHODS: We performed a chart review of 126 patients admitted to the hospital under observation status who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopies in the hospital at 3 different urban community hospitals. This was compared with 260 patients admitted who did not have this procedure done. We calculated the healthcare burden including length of stay, reimbursement and complications from the procedures/extra stay in the hospital. RESULTS: The direct cost per case was almost two times in the group that underwent the procedure as compared to the group that did not. The mean length of stay was higher in the group that underwent the endoscopies. There were no complications and there was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with atypical chest pain of gastrointestinal origin as an initial step is a significant healthcare burden and contradicts the currently recommended High Value Care recommendations. Our study delineates this large negative financial impact when performing upper endoscopies under observation status. Such patients should be started on an empirical trial of PPI, and endoscopy should be reserved for patients whose symptoms are unresponsive to PPIs or have alarm features.