Commissioning guidance for weight assessment and management in adults and children with severe complex obesity.

The challenge of managing the epidemic of patients with severe and complex obesity disease in secondary care is largely unmet. In England, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the National Health Service England have published guidance on the provision of specialist (non-surgical) weight management services. We have undertaken a systematic review of 'what evidence exists for what should happen in/commissioning of: primary or secondary care weight assessment and management clinics in patients needing specialist care for severe and complex obesity?' using an accredited methodology to produce a model for organization of multidisciplinary team clinics that could be developed in every healthcare system, as an update to a previous review. Additions to the previous guidance were multidisciplinary team pathways for children/adolescent patients and their transition to adult care, anaesthetic assessment and recommendations for ongoing shared care with general practitioners, as a chronic disease management pathway.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of weight management in primary care.

BACKGROUND: As obesity prevalence and health-care costs increase, Health Care providers must prevent and manage obesity cost-effectively. METHODS: Using the 2006 NICE obesity health economic model, a primary care weight management programme (Counterweight) was analysed, evaluating costs and outcomes associated with weight gain for three obesity-related conditions (type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, colon cancer). Sensitivity analyses examined different scenarios of weight loss and background (untreated) weight gain. RESULTS: Mean weight changes in Counterweight attenders was -3 kg and -2.3 kg at 12 and 24 months, both 4 kg below the expected 1 kg/year background weight gain. Counterweight delivery cost was pound59.83 per patient entered. Even assuming drop-outs/non-attenders at 12 months (55%) lost no weight and gained at the background rate, Counterweight was 'dominant' (cost-saving) under 'base-case scenario', where 12-month achieved weight loss was entirely regained over the next 2 years, returning to the expected background weight gain of 1 kg/year. Quality-adjusted Life-Year cost was pound2017 where background weight gain was limited to 0.5 kg/year, and pound2651 at 0.3 kg/year. Under a 'best-case scenario', where weights of 12-month-attenders were assumed thereafter to rise at the background rate, 4 kg below non-intervention trajectory (very close to the observed weight change), Counterweight remained 'dominant' with background weight gains 1 kg, 0.5 kg or 0.3 kg/year. CONCLUSION: Weight management for obesity in primary care is highly cost-effective even considering only three clinical consequences. Reduced healthcare resources use could offset the total cost of providing the Counterweight Programme, as well as bringing multiple health and Quality of Life benefits.

PROCEED: Prospective Obesity Cohort of Economic Evaluation and Determinants: baseline health and healthcare utilization of the US sample.

AIM: To summarize baseline characteristics, health conditions, resource utilization and resource cost for the US population for the 90-day period preceding enrolment, stratified by body mass index (BMI) and the presence of abdominal obesity (AO). METHODS: PROCEED (Prospective Obesity Cohort of Economic Evaluation and Determinants) is a multinational, prospective cohort of control (BMI 20-24.0 kg/m(2)), overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2)) and obese (BMI >or= 30 kg/m(2)) subjects with AO and without AO [non-abdominal obesity (NAO)], defined by waist circumference (WC) >102 and 88 cm for males and females, respectively. Subjects were recruited from an Internet consumer panel. Outcomes were self-reported online. Self-reported anthropometric data were validated. Prevalence of conditions and utilization is presented by BMI class and AO within BMI class. Differences in prevalence and means were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1067 overweight [n = 474 (NAO: n = 254 and AO: n = 220)] and obese [n = 493 (NAO: n = 39 and AO: n = 454)] subjects and 100 controls were recruited. Self-reported weight (r = 0.92) and WC (r = 0.87) were correlated with measured assessments. Prevalence of symptoms was significantly higher in groups with higher BMI, as were hypertension (p < 0.0001), diabetes (p < 0.0001) and sleep apnoea (p < 0.0001). Metabolic risk factors increased with the BMI class. Among the overweight class, subjects with AO had significantly more reported respiratory, heart, nervous, skin and reproductive system symptoms. Overweight subjects with AO reported a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes (13%) compared with overweight subjects with NAO (7%, p = 0.04). Mean healthcare cost was significantly higher in the higher BMI classes [control ($456 +/- 937) vs. overweight ($1084 +/- 3531) and obese ($1186 +/- 2808) (p < 0.0001)]. CONCLUSION: An increasing gradient of symptoms, medical conditions, metabolic risk factors and healthcare utilization among those with a greater degree of obesity was observed. The independent effect of AO on health and healthcare utilization deserves further study with a larger sample size.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the application of nitric oxide versus oxygen gas for near-term newborns with respiratory failure: results from a Canadian randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of inhaled nitric oxide (NO) vs. oxygen administered to near-term (gestational age > or =34 wks) newborns with severe respiratory illness that were referred for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). DESIGN: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on outcome and utilization data from two multicentered randomized clinical trials conducted by the Canadian Inhaled Nitric Oxide Study group, one for patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) and one for patients without CDH. Data from the western Canadian ECMO center were used to establish costs. SETTING: Patients were cared for in Canadian regional neonatal intensive care units, including two ECMO centers. Air transport was used for transporting patients between centers. PATIENTS: Term and near-term newborns with severe respiratory illness who were receiving maximum conventional therapy and whose oxygenation index was >40. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomly received NO or oxygen. If their conditions deteriorated, they qualified for ECMO. Not all that qualified for ECMO received it because of individual parent/ physician preferences. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio was the ratio of net cost (including neonatal intensive care, ECMO, and transport) to net outcome (survival) for the two interventions. For non-CDH cases, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,613 (Canadian) per life saved; the confidence intervals were wide and the results were not statistically significant. For CDH patients, the death rate was lower for oxygen and the oxygen patients cost less; the results were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The small numbers of patients in the trials precluded significant results. Further, our results have a short-term time horizon (discharge to home or death). Thus, for non-CDH patients, the favorable ratio provides very qualified evidence in favor of NO.