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.

Understanding Physicians' Preferences for Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to the current broad dissemination of telemedicine across medical specialties, previous research focused on the effectiveness of telemedicine in special populations and for behavioral health encounters, demonstrating that both physician and patient factors impact the efficacious use of telemedicine. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate physician perceptions of the appropriateness of telemedicine for patients attending the primary care practices of a federally qualified health center in New York City. METHODS: We used an anonymous cross-sectional survey including closed- and open-ended questions. We used chi-square to test whether providers from certain specialties were more likely to state they would use telemedicine in the future. We used t tests to compare age between those who would versus would not use telemedicine. We then used logistic regression to test whether age and specialty were both correlated with the desire to use telemedicine in the future. We used thematic content analysis to describe the reasons providers felt they would not want to use telemedicine in the future and to describe the situations for which they felt telemedicine would be appropriate. RESULTS: Of 272 health care providers who were sent the electronic survey, 157 (58%) responded within the 2-week survey time frame. The mean age of providers was 45 (range 28-75) years. Overall, 80% (126/157) stated they would use telemedicine in the future. Compared to the family medicine, internal medicine, behavioral health, dental, and obstetrics and gynecology specialties, providers from pediatrics, med-peds, subspecialties, and surgery (protelemedicine specialties) were more likely to believe telemedicine would be useful post pandemic (61/67 [91%] vs 65/90 [72%]; P<.001). Providers who reported they would use telemedicine in the future were younger (mean age 44, range 42-46 years vs mean age 50, range 46-55 years; P=.048). In the regression analysis, both protelemedicine specialties and age were significantly associated with odds of reporting they would use telemedicine in the future (prospecialties: odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 1.7-16.2; younger age: odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.08). Providers who did not want to use telemedicine in the future cited concerns about inadequate patient care, lack of physical patient interaction, technology issues, and lack of necessity. Providers who felt telemedicine would be useful cited the following situations: follow-up visits, medication refills, urgent care, patient convenience, and specific conditions such as behavioral health, dermatology visits, and chronic care management. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of health providers in this resource-limited setting in a federally qualified health center believed that telemedicine would be useful for providing care after the pandemic is over.