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.

Efficacy and tolerability of orlistat in the treatment of obesity: a 6-month dose-ranging study. Orlistat Dose-Ranging Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the weight-reducing efficacy of orlistat, a novel gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor, and to define the optimal dosage regimen and establish the tolerability of the drug when used for a 6-month treatment period. METHODS: The study was a multicentre randomised, double-blind, parallel group in design and involved 676 obese male and female subjects aged at least 18 years with a body mass index between 28 and 43 kg x m(-2) Following a 5-week placebo run-in period, subjects were randomised to receive orlistat 30 mg, 60 mg, 120 mg, 240 mg or matching placebo three times a day (tid) for 24 weeks during meals. Patients were maintained on a mildly hypocaloric diet throughout the study period. The primary efficacy parameter was body weight change over time. RESULTS: Orlistat resulted in a significantly greater mean loss of body weight than observed in the placebo group. In absolute terms, mean weight loss was greatest in the 120 mg group (9.8%). More orlistat- than placebo-treated patients lost > 10% of initial body weight (37% of the 120 mg group vs 19% of the placebo group). Orlistat was well tolerated. Predictably, in view of its known pharmacological effects, more orlistat-treated patients experienced gastrointestinal events. Mean levels of vitamins A, D and E, and beta-carotene remained within the clinical reference ranges in all treatment groups and rarely required supplementation. After 24 weeks, plasma concentrations of orlistat were either non-measurable or detected at the assay's limit of quantitation. CONCLUSION: Orlistat treatment results in a dose-dependent reduction in body weight in obese subjects and is well tolerated. Orlistat 120 mg tid represents the optimal dosage regimen.