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.

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic, surgical and pharmacological obesity therapies: a microsimulation and threshold analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Weight loss interventions to treat obesity include sleeve gastrectomy (SG), lifestyle intervention (LI), endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and semaglutide. We aimed to identify which treatments are cost-effective and identify requirements for semaglutide to be cost-effective. DESIGN: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of SG, ESG, semaglutide and LI for weight loss in 40 years old with class I/II/III obesity. Extensive one-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost of treatment strategies and semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: When strategies were compared with each other, ESG was cost-effective in class I obesity (US$4105/QALY). SG was cost-effective in class II obesity (US$5883/QALY) and class III obesity (US$7821/QALY). In class I/II/III, obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. However, semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I/II/III obesity (ICER US$508 414/QALY, US$420 483/QALY and US$350 637/QALY). For semaglutide to be cost-effective compared with LI, it would have to cost less than US$7462 (class III), US$5847 (class II) or US$5149 (class I) annually. For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US$1879 (class III), US$1204 (class II) or US$297 (class I) annually. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effective strategies were: ESG for class I obesity and SG for class II/III obesity. Semaglutide may be cost-effective with substantial cost reduction. Given potentially higher utilisation rates with pharmacotherapy, semaglutide may provide the largest reduction in obesity-related mortality.

National Health Burden of Aspiration Pneumonia on Clinical and Operational Outcomes in Patients With Small Bowel Obstruction Requiring Nasogastric Decompression.

BACKGROUND: Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are used for decompression in patients with acute small bowel obstruction (SBO); however, their role remains controversial. There is evidence that NGT use is still associated with high incidence of aspiration pneumonia. The aims of this study were to define the prevalence of aspiration pneumonia in patients with SBO managed with an NGT and estimate the association of aspiration pneumonia with 30-day mortality rates, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was done using Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files from 2016 to 2018. Patients hospitalized with SBO and managed with NGT were identified using an algorithm of ICD-10-CM codes. The key exposure was aspiration pneumonia. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality rates, LOS, and hospital costs. RESULTS: 53 715 patients hospitalized with SBO and managed with an NGT were identified and included in the analysis. We observed a prevalence of aspiration pneumonia of 7.3%. The 30-day mortality rate was 31% for those who developed aspiration pneumonia vs. 10% for those without pneumonia (P < .001). Those with aspiration pneumonia, on average, were hospitalized 7.0 days longer (P < .001) and accrued $20,543 greater hospitalization costs (P < .001) than those without pneumonia. Controlling for hospital size and hospital teaching status, we noted a significant association between aspiration pneumonia and increased mortality (P < .001), longer length of stay (P < .001), and higher hospital costs (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Among patients hospitalized for SBO who required an NGT, aspiration pneumonia was associated with a higher mortality rate, longer hospital LOS, and higher total hospital costs. vv.

Cost Effectiveness of Gastric Cancer Screening According to Race and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are marked racial and ethnic differences in non-cardia gastric cancer prevalence within the United States. Although gastric cancer screening is recommended in some regions of high prevalence, screening is not routinely performed in the United States. Our objective was to determine whether selected non-cardia gastric cancer screening for high-risk races and ethnicities within the United States is cost effective. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic Markov model with the base case of a 50-year-old person of non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, or Asian race or ethnicity. The cost effectiveness of a no-screening strategy (current standard) for non-cardia gastric cancer was compared with that of 2 endoscopic screening modalities initiated at the time of screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer: upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy examinations and continued surveillance only if intestinal metaplasia or more severe pathology is identified or esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy examinations continued every 2 years even in the absence of identified pathology. We used prevalence rates, transition probabilities, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from publications and public data sources. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. RESULTS: Compared with biennial and no screening, screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy with continued surveillance only when indicated was cost effective for non-Hispanic blacks ($80,278/QALY), Hispanics ($76,070/QALY), and Asians ($71,451/QALY), but not for non-Hispanic whites ($122,428/QALY). The model was sensitive to intestinal metaplasia prevalence, transition rates from intestinal metaplasia to dysplasia to local and regional cancer, cost of endoscopy, and cost of resection (endoscopic or surgical). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a decision analytic Markov model, endoscopic non-cardia gastric cancer screening for high-risk races and ethnicities could be cost effective in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention with proton pump inhibitors in Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may reduce the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus. PPIs are prescribed for virtually all patients with Barrett's esophagus, irrespective of the presence of reflux symptoms, and represent a de facto chemopreventive agent in this population. However, long-term PPI use has been associated with several adverse effects, and the cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention with PPIs has not been evaluated. AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PPIs for the prevention of EAC in Barrett's esophagus without reflux. METHODS: We designed a state-transition Markov microsimulation model of a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old white men with Barrett's esophagus. We modeled chemoprevention with PPIs or no chemoprevention, with endoscopic surveillance for all treatment arms. Outcome measures were life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incident EAC cases and deaths, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Assuming 50% reduction in EAC, chemoprevention with PPIs was a cost-effective strategy compared to no chemoprevention. In our model, administration of PPIs cost $23,000 per patient and resulted in a gain of 0.32 QALYs for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, PPIs would be cost-effective at $50,000/QALY if they reduce EAC risk by at least 19%. CONCLUSIONS: Chemoprevention with PPIs in patients with Barrett's esophagus without reflux is cost-effective if PPIs reduce EAC by a minimum of 19%. The identification of subgroups of Barrett's esophagus patients at increased risk for progression would lead to more cost-effective strategies for the prevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma.