Assessing economic investment required to scale up bariatric surgery capacity in England: a health economic modelling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the economic investment required to increase bariatric surgery (BaS) capacity in National Health Service (NHS) England considering the growing obesity prevalence and low provision of BaS in England despite its high clinical effectiveness. DESIGN: Data were included for the patients with obesity who were eligible for BaS. We used a decision-tree approach including four distinct steps of the patient pathway to capture all associated resource use. We estimated total costs according to the current capacity (current scenario) and three BaS scaling up strategies over a time horizon of 20 years (projected scenario): maximising NHS capacity (strategy 1), maximising NHS and private sector capacity (strategy 2) and adding infrastructure to NHS capacity to cover the entire prevalent and incident obesity populations (strategy 3). SETTING: BaS centres based in NHS and private sector hospitals in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of BaS procedures (including revision surgery), cost (GBP) and resource utilisation over 20 years. RESULTS: At current capacity, the number of BaS procedures and the total cost over 20 years were estimated to be 140 220 and £1.4 billion, respectively. For strategy 1, these values were projected to increase to 157 760 and £1.7 billion, respectively. For strategy 2, the values were projected to increase to 232 760 and £2.5 billion, respectively. Strategy 3 showed the highest increase to 564 784 and £6.4 billion, respectively, with an additional 4081 personnel and 49 facilities required over 20 years. CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of BaS capacity in England beyond a small proportion of the eligible population will likely be challenging given the significant upfront economic investment and additional requirement of personnel and infrastructure.

A Comprehensive Insight into the Economic Profile of People Receiving Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Use in France.

BACKGROUND: The use of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is not uniformly distributed within the population, even if it is governed by established guidelines. This disparity seems to be associated, among other factors, with the economic profile of people receiving this surgery. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the disparities in the use of MBS with respect to the socio-economic level in France based on socio-economic status (SES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive observational study was conducted to compare the population of individuals with obesity who underwent MBS (MBS group) with individuals with obesity with no history of MBS (obese group). Data were extracted from the French National Hospital discharge database ("Programme De Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information," PMSI). Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed through the French Deprivation Index (FDep). RESULTS: The use of MBS was significantly lower in patients having a higher SES compared to those having a lower one. There was no statistically significant difference in the use of MBS between individuals within the 4th and 5th SES quintiles compared to those in the 2nd and 3rd quintiles. No difference was found in the specific MBS procedures used depending on the SES. The obesity level was significantly lower in patients from the 1st and 3rd SES quintiles compared to the patients having a lower SES. CONCLUSION: Our study provides valuable insights into the complex interrelationships between the use of MBS, patients' SES, and obesity levels according to the FDep. These findings underscore the importance of developing targeted interventions to address disparities in the use of bariatric care.

Hospital charges for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy compared to robotic sleeve gastrectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy has become a gold standard in addressing medically refractory obesity. Robotic platforms are becoming more utilized, however, data on its cost-effectiveness compared to laparoscopy remain controversial (1-3). At NYU Langone Health, many of the bariatric surgeons adopted robotic surgery as part of their practices starting in 2021. We present a retrospective cost analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) vs. robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) at New York University (NYU) Langone Health campuses. METHODS: All adult patients ages 18-65 who underwent LSG or RSG from 202 to 2023 at NYU Langone Health campuses (Manhattan, Long Island, and Brooklyn) were evaluated via electronic medical records and MBSAQIP 30-day follow-up data. Patients with prior bariatric surgery were excluded. Complication-related ICD-10/CPT codes are collected and readmission costs will be estimated from ICD codes using the lower limit of CMS transparent NYU standard charges (3). Direct charge data for surgery and length of stay cost data were also obtained. Statistical T-test and chi-squared analysis were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Direct operating cost data at NYU Health Campuses demonstrated RSG was associated with 4% higher total charges, due to higher OR charges, robotic-specific supplies, and more post-op ED visits. CONCLUSIONS: RSG was associated with higher overall hospital charges compared to LSG, though there are multiple contributing factors. More research is needed to identify cost saving measures. This study is retrospective in nature, and does not include indirect costs nor reimbursement. Direct operating costs, per contractual agreement with suppliers, are only given as percentages. Data are limited to 30-day follow-up.

Cost-Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Chinese Patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most popular bariatric surgery procedure in China. However, its cost-effectiveness in Chinese patients is currently unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of LSG vs no surgery in Chinese patients with severe and complex obesity, taking into account both healthcare expenses and the potential improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, encompassing 135 Chinese patients who underwent LSG between January 3, 2022 and December 29, 2022, at a major bariatric center. The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness from a healthcare service perspective, employing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The analyses compared LSG with the alternative of not undergoing surgery over a 1-year period, using actual data, and extended to a lifetime horizon by projecting costs and utilities at an annual discount rate of 3.0%. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore cost-effectiveness variations across different sex, age and BMI categories, and diabetes status, employing a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). To ensure the reliability of the findings, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were executed. RESULTS: The results indicated that 1-year post-LSG, patients achieved an average total weight loss (TWL) of (32.7 ± 7.3)% and an excess weight loss (EWL) of (97.8 ± 23.1)%. The ICER for LSG compared to no surgery over a lifetime was $4,327/QALY, significantly below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for Chinese patients with severe and complex obesity. From a lifetime perspective, LSG proved to be cost-effective for all sex and age groups, across all BMI categories, and for both patients with and without diabetes. Notably, it was more cost-effective for younger patients, patients with higher BMI, and patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: LSG is a highly cost-effective intervention for managing obesity in Chinese patients, delivering substantial benefits in terms of HRQoL improvement at a low cost. Its cost-effectiveness is particularly pronounced among younger individuals, those with higher BMI, and patients with diabetes.

Comparing the Efficacy of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as the predominant metabolic bariatric surgery. With a growing number of studies evaluating the feasibility of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG), it becomes imperative to ascertain whether the outcomes of both techniques are comparable. This study endeavors to synthesize existing evidence and juxtapose the surgical outcomes of LSG and RSG. METHODS: We collected articles comparing LSG and RSG published between 2011 and 2024. The compiled data included author names, study duration, sample size, average age, gender distribution, geographical location, preoperative body mass index (BMI), bougie diameter, duration of hospitalization, surgical duration, readmission rates, conversion rates, costs, postoperative percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), postoperative BMI, mortality rates, and complications. RESULTS: We incorporated 21 articles. Both the RSG and LSG cohorts exhibited comparable rates of readmission, conversion, mortality, and incidence of complications (p > 0.05). Moreover, the efficacy of weight loss was similar between RSG and LSG. Nonetheless, RSG was linked to longer operative duration (WMD, -27.50 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -28.82 to -26.18; p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (WMD, -0.15 days; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.04; p = 0.006), and elevated expenses (WMD, -5830.9 dollars; 95% CI, -8075.98 to -3585.81; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While both RSG and LSG demonstrated positive postoperative clinical outcomes, RSG patients experienced extended hospital stays, longer operative times, and increased hospitalization costs compared to LSG patients. Using the robotic platform for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in patients with obesity did not appear to offer any clear benefits.

Insurance payor status and risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events after metabolic and bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Medicare/Medicaid insurance receive metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) at lower rates than privately insured (PI) patients. Although studies on some surgical procedures report that Medicare/Medicaid insurance confers increased postoperative complication rates and a longer length of stay, less is known about these outcomes after MBS. Among often-feared postoperative complications are major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACEs). Although these events are rare after MBS, they have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the effect of insurance payor status on MACEs after MBS. SETTING: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS). METHODS: HCUP-NIS was queried for cases including sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass between 2012 and 2019. Bivariate associations between patient-level factors and MACEs were assessed via Rao-Scott χ2 tests. Adjusted and unadjusted risks of insurance payor status for MACEs were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence of MACEs was higher in both Medicare (.75% versus .11%; P < .001) and Medicaid (.15% versus .11%; P < .001) groups than in the PI group. After adjustment for high-risk demographics, high-risk co-morbidities, socioeconomic variables, and hospital factors, insurance status of Medicare (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23, 2.07; P = .0026) or Medicaid (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12, 2.16; P = .0026) remained an independent risk factor for MACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the significance of Medicaid/Medicare payor status as an independent predictor of postoperative MACEs in MBS. The results of this study can have a significant impact on deepening our understanding of socioeconomic and health system-related issues that can be targeted to improve outcomes in both MBS and other surgical specialties.

The financial toxicity of postbariatric body contouring surgery: a survey study of an urban tertiary care center's patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity who undergo bariatric surgery achieve sustained weight loss but are often left with excess skin folds that cause functional and psychological deficits. To remove excess skin, patients can undergo postbariatric BCS; however, cost and lack of insurance coverage present a significant barrier for many patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the financial impact of treatment on all patients who received bariatric surgery and to compare between those receiving only bariatric surgery and those with postbariatric BCS. SETTING: Email-based survey study at an urban tertiary care center. METHODS: Surveys that included the COST-FACIT were sent to patients with a history of bariatric surgery and/or post-bariatric BCS. RESULTS: One hundred and five respondents completed the survey, of which 19 reported having postbariatric BCS. Patients with postbariatric BCS had slightly higher COST scores than those receiving bariatric surgery only, but this difference was not significant (15.6 versus 17.8, P = .23). Most patients (76%) did not have an awareness of BCS or BCS cost prior to bariatric surgery, and many (68%) had more loose skin than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity was similar across all postbariatric surgery patients surveyed regardless of history of BCS. However, survey respondents noted a gap between patient education and expectations around loose skin and body contouring that can be addressed through improved presurgical counseling.

Economic Evaluations of Anti-obesity Interventions in Obese Adults: An Umbrella Review.

This umbrella review amalgamates the outcomes of economic evaluations pertaining to bariatric surgeries, pharmacotherapy, and gastric balloon for adult obesity treatment. Six databases were systematically searched. The inclusion criteria were established following the Patient/population Intervention Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) statement. Fifteen reviews met all the inclusion criteria. Eight studies focused on surgical interventions, four on pharmacotherapy, and three on both interventions. No systematic review of the economic evaluation of gastric balloons was identified. The majority of reviews advocated bariatric surgery as a cost-effective approach; however, there was discordance in the interpretation of pharmacological cost-effectiveness. Most of the economic evaluations were conducted from the payer and the healthcare system perspectives. We propose that future economic evaluations assessing weight loss interventions in adults adopt a societal perspective and longer-term time horizons.

Association of prior bariatric surgery with outcomes following emergency general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite the favorable outcomes and safety profile associated with metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), complications may occur postoperatively, necessitating emergency general surgery (EGS) intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of outcomes in patients with prior MBS following EGS interventions. SETTING: Academic, University-affiliated; USA. METHODS: All adults undergoing nonelective EGS operations were identified using the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Readmission Database. Patients with a history of MBS were subsequently categorized as Bariatric, with the remainder of patients as NonBariatric. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality, while perioperative complications, length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission were secondarily assessed. Multivariable regression models were developed to evaluate the association of history of MBS with outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of an estimated 632,375 hospitalizations for EGS operations, 29,112 (4.6%) had a history of MBS. Compared to Nonbariatric, Bariatric were younger, more frequently female and more commonly had severe obesity. Following risk adjustment, Bariatric had significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR .83, 95%CI .71-.98). Compared to others, Bariatric had reduced LOS by .5 days (95%CI .4-.7) and hospitalization costs by $1600 (95%CI $900-2100). Patients with prior MBS had reduced odds of nonhome discharge (AOR .89, 95%CI .85-.93) and increased likelihood of 30-day readmissions (AOR 2.32, 95%CI 1.93--2.79) following EGS. CONCLUSIONS: Prior MBS is associated with decreased mortality and perioperative complications as well as reduced resource utilization in select EGS procedures. Our findings suggest that patients with a history of MBS can be managed effectively by acute surgical interventions.

The impact of the affordable care act on access to bariatric surgery in Maryland.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate the influence of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the utilization of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedures in Maryland. METHODS: Using the Maryland State Inpatient Database, this retrospective study compared all patients undergoing RYGB during the pre-ACA (2007-2009) and post-ACA (2018-2020) periods, including patient demographic factors, pre-existing conditions, and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: A total of 16,494 RYGB procedures were performed during the study period, of which 12,089 (73.3 â€‹%) were post-ACA. This was a 179.2 â€‹% increase in patients undergoing RYGB post-ACA; nearly triple that of the pre-ACA period. There was a significant decrease in uninsured patients (5.6 â€‹%-1.5 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.01) an increase in Black patients (32.1 â€‹%-46.8 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.01) and Medicaid beneficiaries (6.0 â€‹% pre-ACA to 17.8 â€‹% post-ACA, p â€‹< â€‹0.01). There were significant reductions in adverse outcomes (long hospital stays, hemorrhage, GIT leaks, and mortality) across all insurance types (all p â€‹< â€‹0.01). CONCLUSION: The ACA increased access to RYGB procedures, especially in Black and Medicaid recipients in Maryland, enhancing healthcare across all insurance types.

Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery and Medical Insurance Payment in China.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper briefly introduces the status quo of bariatric and metabolic surgery and medical insurance payment in China. RECENT FINDINGS: Along with China's rapid economic growth, the prevalence of obesity and diabetes is increasing quickly. Because of their high body fat percentage and predominance of abdominal obesity, Chinese people experience metabolic disorders more frequently than Caucasians with the same BMI. Treatments are not medical because there is a lack of social understanding of obesity. Furthermore, obesity has not been accepted as a disease in China and so has not been included in the medical insurance payment system. Therefore, weight-loss medications are not covered by medical insurance. In China, bariatric and metabolic surgery have advanced for almost 20 years, and corresponding guidelines have been developed. However, there are regional and cognitive variations in whether medical insurance covers bariatric surgery or not. Recent research on the financial advantages of medical insurance coverage for weight-loss surgery showed that it conserves healthcare system resources. It will be important to raise public awareness regarding obesity in the future, present more evidence of the clinical efficacy of surgery, and work towards a higher percentage of medical insurance reimbursement for obesity treatment and bariatric surgery.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND LAPAROTOMY BARIATRIC SURGERY IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS?

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing popularity, laparoscopy is not the option for bariatric surgeries performed in the Brazilian public health system. AIMS: To compare laparotomy and laparoscopic access in bariatric surgery, considering aspects such as morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 80 patients who were randomly assigned to perform a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. They were equally divided in two groups, laparoscopic and laparotomy. The results obtained in the postoperative period were evaluated and compared according to the Ministry of Health protocol, and later, in their outpatient returns. RESULTS: The surgical time was similar in both groups (p=0.240). The costs of laparoscopic surgery proved to be higher, mainly due to staplers and staples. The patients included in the laparotomy group presented higher rates of severe complications, such as incisional hernia (p<0.001). Costs related to social security and management of postoperative complications were higher in the open surgery group (R$ 1,876.00 vs R$ 34,268.91). CONCLUSIONS: The costs related to social security and treatment of complications were substantially lower in laparoscopic access when compared to laparotomy. However, considering the operative procedure itself, the laparotomy remained cheaper. Finally, the length of stay, the rate of complications, and return to labor had more favorable results in the laparoscopic route.

Relationship Between Health Care Spending and Clinical Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Implications for Medicare Bundled Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sources of 90-day episode spending variation in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery and whether spending variation was related to quality of care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medicare's bundled payments for care improvement-advanced program includes the first large-scale episodic bundling program for bariatric surgery. This voluntary program will pay bariatric programs a bonus if 90-day spending after surgery falls below a predetermined target. It is unclear what share of bariatric episode spending may be due to unnecessary variation and thus modifiable through care improvement. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 761 acute care hospitals providing inpatient bariatric surgery between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2016. We measured associations between patient and hospital factors, clinical outcomes, and total Medicare spending for the 90-day bariatric surgery episode using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 64,537 patients, 46% underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 22% revisited the emergency department (ED) within 90 days, and 12.5% were readmitted. Average 90-day episode payments were $14,124, ranging from $12,220 at the lowest-spending quintile of hospitals to $16,887 at the highest-spending quintile. After risk adjustment, 90-day episode spending was $11,447 at the lowest quintile versus $15,380 at the highest quintile (difference $3932, P < 0.001). The largest components of spending variation were readmissions (44% of variation, or $2043 per episode), post-acute care (19% or $871), and index professional fees (15% or $450). The lowest spending hospitals had the lowest complication, ED visit, post-acute utilization, and readmission rates (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the largest components of 90-day episode spending variation are readmissions, inpatient professional fees, and post-acute care utilization. Hospitals with lower spending were associated with lower rates of complications, ED visits, post-acute utilization, and readmissions. Incentives for improving outcomes and reducing spending seem to be well-aligned in Medicare's bundled payment initiative for bariatric surgery.

Análise custo-efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica para combate à obesidade moderada e severa no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery to tackle moderate and severe obesity in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health System

Introdução: O excesso de peso é um dos principais fatores de risco para mortalidade e carga global de doenças no mundo. No Brasil, o incremento na prevalência de sobrepeso e obesidade constitui um desafio em saúde pública ao longo das últimas três décadas, acarretando uma grande e crescente pressão nos custos em saúde para seu tratamento. Objetivos: O objetivo da tese foi conduzir uma revisão sistemática com meta-análise da literatura científica sobre avaliação econômica da cirurgia bariátrica em diferentes países, destacando custos e desfechos em saúde da intervenção em curto, médio e longo prazo; assim como investigar custo e efetividade de diferentes estratégias de abordagem da cirurgia bariátrica como intervenção para combate à obesidade moderada a severa em uma coorte de pacientes do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP). Metodologia: O estudo foi conduzido em duas etapas: revisão sistemática e meta-análise da literatura e avaliação dos custos e da efetividade do tratamento de obesidade moderada a severa por meio de cirurgia bariátrica. A revisão sistemática com meta-análise buscou estabelecer nível de qualidade das evidências científicas sobre associação entre custos do tratamento da obesidade por meio de cirurgia bariátrica e desfechos em saúde relacionados à prevalência de doenças crônicas não transmissíveis (DCNT). A avaliação dos custos e da efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica foi baseada em coleta de dados clínicos e sociodemográficos junto aos bancos de dados de prontuários eletrônicos dos pacientes do Departamento de Gastroenterologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP). Foi utilizada análise de séries temporais para verificação de diferenças entre custos e desfechos em saúde pré- e pós-cirurgia bariátrica, assim como tendência ao longo do período de acompanhamento pré- e pós-cirurgia bariátrica. Resultados: A etapa de revisão sistemática e meta-análise identificou 697 artigos, sendo incluídos 50 estudos na extração e análise de dados, totalizando 15.548.697 pacientes. Dos estudos incluídos, 27 (54%) realizaram avaliação econômica completa, sendo 20 estudos de análise custo-efetividade (40%) e 7 estudos de análise custo-utilidade (14%), assim como 23 estudos de avaliações econômicas parciais com custos ou desfechos (46%). Somente 6 estudos avaliaram custo e efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica comparados ao tratamento tradicional de doenças relacionadas à obesidade e 3 estudos apresentaram comparação entre custo da cirurgia bariátrica e custo da obesidade. O custo da cirurgia bariátrica sem especificação da técnica foi apresentado em 19 estudos, correspondendo a US$ 49,419.63 ± 96,707.49 (mediana = US$ 12,661.96). O resultado da meta-análise de estudos que avaliaram custos pré- e pós-cirurgia bariátrica apontou redução de aproximadamente 70% nos custos pós-intervenção (diferença média padronizada, SMD = 1,691; p = 0,01). A análise do custo e da efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica na coorte do ICHC-FMUSP incluiu 318 pacientes que foram submetidos a cirurgia bariátrica entre 2017 e 2018 (267 mulheres = 83,9% e 51 homens = 16,1%), sendo incluídos indivíduos com dados completos de acompanhamento de 240 meses pré-cirurgia bariátrica e 24 meses pós-cirurgia bariátrica. O custo total antes da cirurgia bariátrica foi US$ 7,915.35 ± 15,426.70 e o custo total após a cirurgia bariátrica foi US$ 7,347.97 ± 23,105.05 (p = 0,326). O custo total dos procedimentos realizados por via aberta (laparotômica) foi de US$ 15,806.01 ± 17,167.89, US$ 8,477.10 ± 3,929.73 e US$ 10,054.58 ± 7,834.89 nas cirurgias gastrectomia vertical, BGA e BGYR, respectivamente (p = 0,0195 entre gastrectomia vertical e BGA). O custo total dos procedimentos realizados por via laparoscópica foi de US$ 5,589.11 ± 0.00, US$ 4,759.14 ± 0.00 e US$ 7,027.38 ± 7,719.15 nas cirurgias gastrectomia vertical, BGA e BGYR, respectivamente (p = 0,093). Após a cirurgia bariátrica, houve redução estatisticamente significativa no peso corporal e IMC (p<0,001). Conclusão: A cirurgia bariátrica apresenta elevada razão de custo-efetividade, com reversão da maioria dos marcadores de risco para doenças crônicas não transmissíveis relacionadas à obesidade no paciente adulto, contribuindo à diminuição dos custos do atendimento de pacientes no âmbito do sistema público de saúde em médio e longo prazos.

Introduction: Excess body weight comprises one of the main risk factors for mortality and global burden of disease worldwide. In Brazil, the increase in prevalence of overweight and obesity represents a challenge in public health throughout the last three decades, caucusing an increasing burden of cost on health services. Objectives: The objective of the dissertation was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of scientific literature on economic assessment of bariatric surgery in diverse countries, highlighting health care costs and health outcomes of the intervention in short-, medium-, and long-term; and to investigate cost and effectiveness of diverse strategies of bariatric surgery to tackle moderate to severe obesity in a cohort of patients of the Clinics Hospital at the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (HC-FMUSP). Methodology: The study was conducted in two stages: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and assessment of costs and effectiveness of treatment of moderate to severe obesity through bariatric surgery. The systematic review with meta-analysis focused on the level of scientific evidence on the association between health care costs for treatment of obesity through bariatric surgery and health outcomes related to the prevalence of chronic non communicable diseases (NCD). The assessment of costs and effectiveness of bariatric surgery was based on data collection of clinical and sociodemographic information in electronic medical records of patients from the Department of Gastroenterology of the Clinics Hospital at the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (HC-FMUSP). A time-series analysis was performed to verify differences between health care costs and health outcomes pre- and post-bariatric surgery, and trends throughout follow-up before and after the surgery. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis stage identified 697 studies, being 50 studies included in the data extraction and analysis, corresponding to 6,034,589 patients. Among the studies included, 27 (54%) conducted a complete economic assessment, being 20 cost-effectiveness studies (40%) and 7 cost-utility studies (14%), and 23 partial economic assessment studies with costs and outcomes (46%). Only 6 studies assessed cost and effectiveness of bariatric surgery compared to traditional treatment of diseases related to obesity and 3 studies presented comparison between costs of bariatric surgery and costs due to obesity. The cost of bariatric surgery without indication of the surgical technique was presented in 19 studies, corresponding to US$ 49,419.63 ± 96,707.49 (median = US$ 12.661,96). The meta-analysis of the studies assessing costs pre- and post-bariatric surgery indicated reduction of approximately 70% in post-intervention costs (standard mean difference, SMD = 1,691; p = 0,01). The analysis of costs and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in the ICHC_FMUSP cohort included 318 patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2017 and 2018 (267 women = 83.9% and 51 men = 16.1%), being included individuals with complete data on follow-up of 240 months pre-surgery and 24 months post-surgery. The total cost before bariatric surgery was US$ 7,915.35 ± 15,426.70 and the total cost after bariatric surgery was US$ 7,347.97 ± 23,105.05 (p = 0.326). The total cost of open procedures (laparotomy) was US$ 15,806.01 ± 17,167.89, US$ 8,477.10 ± 3,929.73 and US$ 10,054.58 ± 7,834.89 in surgeries of vertical gastrectomy, BGA and BGYR, respectively (p = 0.0195 between vertical gastrectomy and BGA). The total cost of procedures conducted through laparoscopy was US$ 5,589.11 ± 0.00, US$ 4,759.14 ± 0.00 and US$ 7,027.38 ± 7,719.15 in vertical gastrectomy, BGA and BGYR, respectively (p = 0.093). After bariatric surgery, there was statistically significant reduction in body weight and BMI (p<0.001). Conclusion: The bariatric surgery presents high cost-effectiveness ratio, with reversion in trends of the majority of risk factors for chronic non communicable diseases related to obesity in adult patients, contributing to the decrease in health care costs of patients in the public health system in the medium and long run.

Does bariatric surgery reduce future hospital costs? A propensity score-matched analysis using UK Biobank Study data.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the hospital costs among persons with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery compared with those without bariatric surgery. METHODS: We analysed the UK Biobank Cohort study linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, for all adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery at National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland, or Wales from 2006 to 2017. Surgery patients were matched with controls who did not have bariatric surgery using propensity scores approach with a ratio of up to 1-to-5 by year. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to correct for potential informative censoring. Annual and cumulative hospital costs were assessed for the surgery and control groups. RESULTS: We identified 348 surgical patients (198 gastric bypass, 73 sleeve gastrectomy, 77 gastric banding) during the study period. In total, 324 surgical patients and 1506 matched control participants were included after propensity score matching. Mean 5-year cumulative hospital costs were €11,659 for 348 surgical patients. Compared with controls, surgical patients (n = 324) had significantly higher inpatient expenditures in the surgery year (€7289 vs. €2635, P < 0.001), but lower costs in the subsequent 4 years. The 5-year cumulative costs were €11,176 for surgical patients and €8759 for controls (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery significantly increased the inpatient costs in the surgery year, but was associated with decreased costs in the subsequent 4 years. However, any cost savings made up to 4 years were not enough to compensate for the initial surgical expenditure.

Cost-effectiveness of procedure-less intragastric balloon therapy as substitute or complement to bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Procedure-less intragastric balloon (PIGB) eliminates costs and risks of endoscopic placement/removal and involves lower risk of serious complications compared with bariatric surgery, albeit with lower weight loss. Given the vast unmet need for obesity treatment, an important question is whether PIGB treatment is cost-effective-either stand-alone or as a bridge to bariatric surgery. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare the costs and effectiveness of six treatment strategies: PIGB, gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy as stand-alone treatments, PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, and no treatment. RESULTS: PIGB as a bridge to bariatric surgery is less costly and more effective than bariatric surgery alone as it helps to achieve a lower post-operative BMI. Of the six strategies, PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy is the most cost-effective with an ICER of $3,781 per QALY gained. While PIGB alone is not cost-effective compared with bariatric surgery, it is cost-effective compared with no treatment with an ICER of $21,711 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PIGB can yield cost savings and improve health outcomes if used as a bridge to bariatric surgery and is cost-effective as a stand-alone treatment for patients lacking access or unwilling to undergo surgery.

The real-world cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe obesity is associated with adverse health outcomes and increased risk of death. This study evaluates the real-world cost-utility of therapy for severe obesity, from the publicly funded health care system and societal perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using primary data from a prospective observational cohort of adults living with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 and a major medical comorbidity or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) who were enrolled in a regional obesity program over 2 years. We extrapolated 10-year and lifetime Markov models, validated and supplemented with literature sources, to compare medical, surgical and standard care therapies. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The cohort included 500 adults living with severe obesity, 150 of whom received laparoscopic surgical therapy. From a publicly funded health system perspective, at 2 years, surgical therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $54 456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with standard care therapy. Over a lifetime, it had an ICER of $14 056 per QALY. From the societal perspective, at 2 years, surgical therapy had an ICER of $340 per QALY; over a lifetime, it was the dominant option. The results were robust to sensitivity analysis. INTERPRETATION: From a public health care perspective, surgery for severe obesity is cost effective, and when approached from a societal perspective, it becomes cost saving. Real-world data support using surgical therapy for severe obesity, and our results contribute to the health economic and clinical literature with regard to a robust analysis from a societal perspective.