The Cost Effectiveness of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate for the Treatment of Binge Eating Disorder in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) demonstrated efficacy in terms of reduced binge eating days per week in adults with binge eating disorder (BED) in two randomized clinical trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of LDX versus no pharmacotherapy (NPT) in adults with BED from a USA healthcare payer's perspective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov cohort model was developed using 1-week cycles and a 52-week time horizon. Markov health states were defined based upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition criteria of BED. Model parameter estimates were obtained from RCTs, a survey, and literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis assumed a 12-week course of treatment, based upon RCTs' treatment duration. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Patients on LDX therapy gained 0.006 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) compared to patients on the NPT arm, while the average total cost was US$175 higher for LDX therapy. The estimated ICER for LDX compared with NPT was US$27,618 per QALY, which was shown to be cost effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of BED with LDX showed increase in QALYs at an acceptable cost and is considered to be cost effective at the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold in the USA. Based on the available evidence, the current model focused on short-term benefits only. There is a need to generate additional scientific evidence supporting long-term benefits of LDX therapy for BED.

[Are there irrationalities in the consumption of anti-obesity drugs in Brazil? A pharmaco-econometric analysis of panel datasets]. / Há irracionalidades no consumo de inibidores de apetite no Brasil? Uma análise farmacoeconométrica de dados em painel.

The scope of this study is to analyze the determinants of the use of appetite suppressants (amfepramone, femproporex, mazindol and sibutramine) through the estimation of a dynamic panel dataset model for the Brazilian state capitals and the Federal District (DF) in the period from 2009 to 2011. The results show that consumption of appetite suppressants did not follow the geographic distribution of overweight and obese individuals across the capitals and DF. There is a recurrent consumption of appetite inhibitors, in which 79% of the current consumption of these drugs is explained by past consumption. Among the variables that explain the use of inhibitors, the percentage of obese adults, the percentage of adults who habitually consume fruit and vegetables, and the coverage rate of health plans stand out. The pharmaco-econometric analysis suggests that there are problems in the rational use of appetite suppressants in the Brazilian state capitals and the Federal District with respect to both the combined consumption of these drugs with other medicines - deemed illegal by the Federal Council of Medicine and ANVISA - and in the therapeutic prescription of these products.

Há irracionalidades no consumo de inibidores de apetite no Brasil? Uma análise farmacoeconométrica de dados em painel / Are there irrationalities in the consumption of anti-obesity drugsin Brazil? A pharmaco-econometric analysis of panel datasets

Este estudo busca analisar os determinantes do consumo de inibidores de apetite (anfepramona, femproporex, mazindol e sibutramina) por meio da estimação de um modelo dinâmico de dados em painel para as capitais brasileiras e do Distrito Federal (DF) no período de 2009 a 2011. Os resultados revelam que o consumo de inibidores de apetite não acompanhou a distribuição geográfica dos indivíduos com excesso de peso e com obesidade nas unidades estudadas. Do consumo recorrente de inibidores, 79% são explicados pelo ocorrido no passado. Dentre as variáveis que explicam o consumo de inibidores, destacam-se os percentuais de adultos com obesidade e que dos que consomem frutas e hortaliças e a taxa de cobertura de planos de saúde. A análise farmacoeconométrica sugere que há problemas no uso racional dos inibidores de apetite nas capitais brasileiras e no DF, seja no que tange ao consumo desses medicamentos com outros fármacos - considerados ilegais pelo Conselho Federal de Medicina e pela Anvisa - e, também, na indicação terapêutica de uso desses produtos.

The scope of this study is to analyze the determinants of the use of appetite suppressants (amfepramone, femproporex, mazindol and sibutramine) through the estimation of a dynamic panel dataset model for the Brazilian state capitals and the Federal District (DF) in the period from 2009 to 2011. The results show that consumption of appetite suppressants did not follow the geographic distribution of overweight and obese individuals across the capitals and DF. There is a recurrent consumption of appetite inhibitors, in which 79% of the current consumption of these drugs is explained by past consumption. Among the variables that explain the use of inhibitors, the percentage of obese adults, the percentage of adults who habitually consume fruit and vegetables, and the coverage rate of health plans stand out. The pharmaco-econometric analysis suggests that there are problems in the rational use of appetite suppressants in the Brazilian state capitals and the Federal District with respect to both the combined consumption of these drugs with other medicines - deemed illegal by the Federal Council of Medicine and ANVISA - and in the therapeutic prescription of these products.

The clinical and economic consequences of obesity.

Obesity and its many serious comorbidities exert a heavy toll in both human and economic terms. More than one-third of adults in the United States are obese and, therefore, subject to elevated rates of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors. The negative effect on the quality of life (QoL) of these individuals is enormous. Among the severely obese, QoL scores are comparable to QoL scores associated with diabetes and laryngeal cancer. The medical costs of obesity-related illnesses in the United States have been estimated at $209.7 billion annually (in 2008 dollars). For example, with regard to impact on pharmaceutical costs, obesity is associated with a more than 13-fold increase in the cost of antidiabetic medications. The cost of absenteeism to employers has been estimated to exceed $4.3 billion annually. Successful and cost-effective short-term treatments for obesity are available, and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk factors. Intensive lifestyle intervention with the goal of losing 7% of baseline body weight, for example, resulted in a 58% reduction in the risk of diabetes in patients with prediabetes. In clinical trials, improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as elevated triglycerides and high blood pressure, have also been seen with a modest weight loss of 5% to 10% of baseline body weight. As obesity becomes an ever greater public health problem, additional interventions with long-term efficacy are needed to reduce body weight and maintain weight loss.

[Evidence for the use of appetite suppressant drugs in Brazil: a pharmacoeconometric study]. / Evidências advindas do consumo de medicamentos moduladores do apetite no Brasil: um estudo farmacoeconométrico.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the use of appetite suppressants in Brazil in 2009, according to the characteristics of users, healthcare system, and other drugs. METHODS: Pharmaconeconometric study of cross-sectional data to analyze the relationship between the use of appetite suppressants (mg/per capita) and the independent variables selected (gender, race/color, age, schooling, income, health insurance coverage, and use of fluoxetine and chlordiazepoxide) using multiple linear regression analysis. This study used these variables in level of aggregation by states for 2009. The analyses were performed using the Gretl software. RESULTS: We highlight that São Paulo showed the highest use of appetite suppressants with 97.3 mg/per capita, followed by Goiás with 94.8 mg/per capita. The lowest use of appetite suppressants was seen in Ceará (3.8 mg/per capita). The biggest fluoxetine users were in Rio Grande do Sul, with 58.0 mg/per capita, and in Goiás, with 51.5 mg/per capita. Ceará showed the lowest fluoxetine use (2.3 mg/per capita). For chlordiazepoxide, the highest values were seen in Minas Gerais (7.5 mg/per capita) and in Rio de Janeiro (4.8 mg/per capita), while Amazonas (0.08 mg/per capita) showed the lowest use. Based on regression analysis, we can highlight: 1) the use of appetite suppressants is related to income, education, and fluoxetine use; and 2) race/color, gender, age, health insurance coverage, and use of chlordiazepoxide showed no relation to the use of appetite suppressants. CONCLUSION: These evidences may contribute to the improvement of regulatory actions, sanitary surveillance, and ethical conduct, particularly with regard to the concomitant use of appetite suppressants and fluoxetine, which is prohibited by the Federal Council of Medicine (Conselho Federal de Medicina) and also by Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária - National Health Surveillance Agency).

Evidências advindas do consumo de medicamentos moduladores do apetite no Brasil: um estudo farmacoeconométrico / Evidence for the use of appetite suppressant drugs in Brazil: a pharmacoeconometric study

OBJETIVO: Analisar o consumo de moduladores do apetite (CMA) no Brasil em 2009, condicionado às características dos usuários, do sistema de saúde e de outros medicamentos. MÉTODOS: Estudo farmacoeconométrico com dados em corte transversal para analisar as relações entre o CMA (mg/per capita) e as variáveis independentes selecionadas (gênero, raça/cor, faixa etária, escolaridade, renda, cobertura de planos de saúde e consumo de fluoxetina e clordiazepóxido), mediante análise de regressão linear múltipla. Este estudo utilizou-se dessas variáveis em nível de agregação por estados para 2009. As análises foram realizadas no software Gretl. RESULTADOS: Destacamos que São Paulo registrou o maior CMA, com 97,3 mg/per capita, seguido de Goiás, com 94,8 mg/per capita. O menor consumo foi verificado no Ceará (3,8 mg/per capita). Os maiores consumidores de fluoxetina foram o Rio Grande do Sul, com 58,0 mg/per capita, e Goiás, com 51,5 mg/per capita. O Ceará (2,3 mg/per capita) registrou o menor con-sumo. Para o clordiazepóxido, os maiores valores foram verificados em Minas Gerais (7,5 mg/per capita) e Rio de Janeiro (4,8 mg/per capita), enquanto que o Amazonas (0,08 mg/per capita) obteve o menor consumo. Da análise de regressão destacamos: 1) o CMA está relacionado com renda, escolaridade e consumo de fluoxetina; e 2) raça/cor, gênero, idade, cobertura de plano de saúde e consumo de clordiazepóxido, porém revelaram-se não relacionados com CMA. CONCLUSÃO: Essas evidências podem contribuir para o aprimoramento das ações de regulação, vigilância sanitária e de conduta ética, principalmente, no que tange o consumo "casado" de moduladores do apetite com fluoxetina, o qual é vedado pelo Conselho Federal de Medicina, e, também, pela Anvisa.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the use of appetite suppressants in Brazil in 2009, according to the characteristics of users, healthcare system, and other drugs. METHODS: Pharmaconeconometric study of cross-sectional data to analyze the relationship between the use of appetite suppressants (mg/per capita) and the independent variables selected (gender, race/color, age, schooling, income, health insurance coverage, and use of fluoxetine and chlordiazepoxide) using multiple linear regression analysis. This study used these variables in level of aggregation by states for 2009. The analyses were performed using the Gretl software. RESULTS: We highlight that São Paulo showed the highest use of appetite suppressants with 97.3 mg/per capita, followed by Goiás with 94.8 mg/per capita. The lowest use of appetite suppressants was seen in Ceará (3.8 mg/per capita). The biggest fluoxetine users were in Rio Grande do Sul, with 58.0 mg/per capita, and in Goiás, with 51.5 mg/per capita. Ceará showed the lowest fluoxetine use (2.3 mg/per capita). For chlordiazepoxide, the highest values were seen in Minas Gerais (7.5 mg/per capita) and in Rio de Janeiro (4.8 mg/per capita), while Amazonas (0.08 mg/per capita) showed the lowest use. Based on regression analysis, we can highlight: 1) the use of appetite suppressants is related to income, education, and fluoxetine use; and 2) race/color, gender, age, health insurance coverage, and use of chlordiazepoxide showed no relation to the use of appetite suppressants. CONCLUSION: These evidences may contribute to the improvement of regulatory actions, sanitary surveillance, and ethical conduct, particularly with regard to the concomitant use of appetite suppressants and fluoxetine, which is prohibited by the Federal Council of Medicine (Conselho Federal de Medicina) and also by Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária - National Health Surveillance Agency).

Pharmaceutical interventions for obesity: a public health perspective.

The prevalence of obesity, a major risk factor for many chronic diseases, has risen in most developed countries over the past several decades. The economic burden for both public and private health care systems is substantial. Although certain non-pharmaceutical interventions have been proven efficacious in specific populations, the lack of scalability has caused many of these programmes to fail in sustainably decreasing the percent of patients who are overweight or obese. The benefits of other interventions, such as pharmaceutical agents, medical devices and surgery, should therefore be carefully considered: this article focuses on the first of these strategies. Various pharmaceutical products have been plagued with safety concerns or patient non-adherence because of unpleasant side effects. Therefore, the need for additional antiobesity drugs that are both safe and effective is considerable. This article discusses the regulatory landscape for the development of new antiobesity compounds in the United States and Europe and considers the ramifications of greater or lesser regulatory burdens.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological anti-obesity treatments: a systematic review.

AIM: To review economic evaluations of weight loss drugs and compare reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). METHODS: A literature search was conducted for cost-effectiveness (CEAs) and cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of sibutramine, orlistat and rimonabant. RESULTS: Fourteen unique articles were identified (11 CUAs and 3 CEAs; 9 orlistat, 4 sibutramine and 1 rimonabant). All used diet and exercise as comparator, whereas none included indirect costs. Time horizons varied from treatment period only (1-4 years) to 80 years (median 7.5 years). Longer studies modeled effects on diabetes, micro- and macrovascular complications, coronary heart disease and death. Of the CUAs, the median ICER was 16,000 euro(2007)/QALY (quality-adjusted life-year; range 10,000-88,000), with the worst cost-effectiveness when recommended stop rules for non-responding patients were not applied. All studies but three were funded by the manufacturing company, and the median ICER was considerably higher for independent than for sponsored analyses (62,000 euro vs 15,000 euro/QALY). However, two of the three independent CUAs did not use recommended stop rules, as compared with one of eight manufacturer-sponsored analyses. The results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding weight loss sustainability and utility per kilogram lost. Side effects and dropout because of reasons other than lack of efficacy were generally not incorporated. CONCLUSION: Published economic evaluations indicate that orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant are within the range of what is generally regarded as cost-effective. Uncertainty remains about weight loss sustainability, utility gain associated with weight loss and extrapolations from transient weight loss to long-term health benefits. Modeling of head-to-head comparisons and attrition is needed, as are analyses conducted independently of manufacturing companies.

The cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in non-diabetic obese patients: evidence from four Western countries.

This paper aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in treating obese patients in the Western countries. The model estimates the costs and quality of life benefits directly associated with weight losses combined with the costs and benefits associated with the reduced incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes. The pivotal effectiveness evidence is derived from a German multicentre, double-blind, randomized clinical trial on obese (body mass index >/= 30 Euro kg m(-2)) patients. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year ranges from 10,734 Euro in Switzerland to 13,707 Euro in Germany. The total number of CHD events avoided ranges from 1.96 for the UK to 4.49 for Switzerland. The number of diabetes cases avoided is in the region of 3.0 (ranges from 2.58 for Germany to 3.28 for Switzerland). The majority of costs and benefits are accrued through sibutramine treatment and monitoring. Univariate sensitivity analyses show that results are sensitive to changes in the utility directly attributable to weight losses. The results demonstrate that the benefits associated with sibutramine-induced weight losses are obtained at a reasonable cost in each of the settings explored and suggest that sibutramine treatment could be considered as a viable option for pharmacotherapy treatment alongside diet and exercise.

Assessment of clinical and economic benefits of weight management with sibutramine in general practice in Germany.

Obesity is associated with major health risks and a high economic burden impacting on health care systems. This study utilises the latest evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to explore and to assess the cost effectiveness of sibutramine in combination with diet and lifestyle advice compared to diet and lifestyle advice alone for the treatment of obese subjects without comorbidities at baseline in Germany. New evidence from recently published RCTs and post-marketing surveillance studies, including health economic data as well as quality of life (QoL) data, were used to model the long-term outcomes of weight management with sibutramine in German practice. German healthcare costs and new data from over 8,000 patients were analysed based on a recently published model. These new RCT data were used to model weight losses, proportion of responders to treatment, utilities by weight loss and variability in weight regain post-treatment. Costs and QoL benefits associated with weight loss (using SF-36 data from sibutramine trials), reduced incidence of coronary heart disease (using Framingham equations) and diabetes were used to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life year of sibutramine treatment. For 1,000 patients treated with sibutramine for 1 year, extrapolating outcomes over 4 further years, sibutramine is estimated to save 4.18 CHD events, 2.58 diabetes incident cases and give 51.5 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-utility analysis (CUA) estimates 13,706 euro per QALY gained. Results are sensitive to changes in weight loss, rate of weight regain and discounting rate. Although the non-pharmacological weight management programme in the comparator arm yielded higher weight losses than generally observed in clinical practice, these results demonstrate that additional sibutramine treatment is a cost effective therapy for an obese population without comorbidities in Germany. The CUA results are within the range generally accepted as cost effective and should be viewed as conservative when generalizing to settings offering standard non-pharmacological treatment.

Use and costs of bariatric surgery and prescription weight-loss medications.

The extent of use of bariatric surgery and weight-loss medications is unknown. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we estimate that the number of bariatric surgeries grew 400 percent between 1998 and 2002; such surgeries were performed on 0.6 percent of the 11.5 million adults clinically eligible in 2002. Hospital costs for bariatric surgery grew sixfold to $948 million in 2002. The inpatient death rate declined 64 percent. Among employers that covered weight-loss drugs in 2002, less than 2.4 percent of adults clinically eligible for these drugs used them, with average annual spending of $304 per user.

Cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the LOSE Weight Study: evaluating the role of pharmacologic weight-loss therapy within a weight management program.

UNLABELLED: the cost-effectiveness of drug therapy when used in conjunction with a weight management program (WMP) for treatment of obesity. The objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of sibutramine (Meridia) plus a structured WMP versus only a structured WMP in both overweight and obese individuals. The core WMP was a physician-supervised, multidisciplinary program for which each enrollee paid $100 out of pocket. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based upon the results of a previously published randomized controlled trial conducted within a managed care organization. The target population for this study was obese or overweight persons. The perspective of the study was that of a managed care organization. The intervention consisted of subjects receiving a WMP with or without sibutramine. The primary outcomes of this study were (a) absolute change in body weight and percentage change in body weight over 12 months, (b) change in obesity-related and total medical costs from 12 months prior to enrollment through 12 months after enrollment, and (c) cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per pound of weight loss. All costs were adjusted to 2004 dollars using the respective components of the consumer price index for each medical service or medication. RESULTS: A total of 501 evaluable subjects were enrolled in the study, with 281 receiving sibutramine plus a structured WMP and 220 receiving only the structured WMP. The meanSD weight loss was significantly greater in the sibutramine (13.715.5 pounds, 4.8%) group than in the nondrug group (513.2 pounds, 2.2%) (P < 0.001). The change in obesity-related total cost was a median increase of $408 for the sibutramine group compared with $31 for the nondrug group (P < 0.001). The change in total health care cost was a median $1,279 increase in the sibutramine group compared with $271 for the nondrug group (P < 0.001). Adding sibutramine to the WMP increased the total cost by $44 per additional pound of weight loss (95% confidence interval, 42-46). Sensitivity analyses found that the results were sensitive to the price of sibutramine, whereas varying the cost of clinic visits did not substantially change the results. CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled in a WMP receiving sibutramine had greater weight loss and decrease in body mass index at greater cost than did patients enrolled in the same program who did not receive sibutramine. There were no observed savings in total health care resource utilization or cost in the sibutramine group compared with the nondrug group.

Does prior authorization of sibutramine improve medication compliance or weight loss?

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to examine whether prior authorization for insurer reimbursement of weight loss medication affects compliance with taking sibutramine or adherence to a medical weight control program. The underlying hypothesis is that physician advocacy through prior authorization increases patient compliance and treatment outcomes. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective review was conducted of 22 subjects who had received a prescription for sibutramine that was reimbursed through their health insurer by prior authorization (PAR) and compared them with 47 randomly selected subjects who were also prescribed sibutramine but did not receive reimbursement (non-PAR). Outcome measures included the percentage weight lost, visits to the clinic, and number of prescriptions received at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects remaining in the clinic program, the number of clinic visits made, the number of prescriptions received, and the amount of weight lost were all significantly greater among PAR subjects than among non-PAR subjects. PAR subjects used the medication 37% longer by month 6 (2.43 vs. 1.52 prescriptions; p<0.02), visited the clinic 44% more often (72.5 vs. 40.5 visits in 12 months; p<0.0006), and achieved 38% better maximal weight loss (16% vs. 9.9% at 6 months; p<0.49) than non-PAR subjects. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that, when those medications are not included on a health insurer's formulary, the use of the prior authorization process may improve both medication and behavioral compliance.

Cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the treatment of obesity.

BACKGROUND: This study reports incremental cost-utility of sibutramine compared to diet and lifestyle advice for the treatment of obesity. METHOD: The model estimates the costs and quality of life benefits associated with weight loss itself and the reduced incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes in the "healthy obese." The key source of effectiveness data is 2 randomized controlled trials over 12 months. Utility gain per kilogram lost is analyzed using Short Form-36 data from sibutramine trials. The impact on CHD is estimated using the Framingham risk equation, which relates age/sex/body mass index to risk of heart disease. The reduced incidence of diabetes due to weight loss is estimated from published literature. A life tables approach was used to calculate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 1 year's treatment with sibutramine compared to diet and lifestyle advice. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY of sibutramine is 4,780 UK pounds. Sensitivity analyses show that this result is sensitive to utility associated with weight loss and the frequency of monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Sibutramine is a cost-effective treatment for obesity when combined with diet and lifestyle advice.

Pharmacoeconomics of obesity management in childhood and adolescence.

The level of fatness of a child at which morbidity acutely increases is operationally determined by calculating the body mass index (BMI). An increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease in adults has been found in subjects whose BMI had been > 75(th) percentile as adolescents. Childhood obesity seems to substantially increase the risk of subsequent morbidity whether or not obesity persists into adulthood. Among the most common sequelae of primary childhood obesity are hypertension, dyslipidaemia, back pain and psychosocial problems. Environmental/exogenous factors largely contribute to the development of body fatness early in life. Therapeutic strategies include psychological and family therapy, lifestyle/behaviour modification and nutrition education. The role of regular exercise and exercise programmes is emphasised. Surgical procedures and drugs used in adult obesity are not generally recommended in children and adolescents. Appetite suppressants and thermogenic drugs have not been approved for use in children. Digestive inhibitors such as lipase inhibitors and fat substitutes have been used in children and adolescents in off-label use and in only a few clinical studies. As obesity is the most common chronic disorder in the industrialised societies, its impact on individual lives, as well as on health economics, has to be recognised more widely. One should aim to increase public awareness of the ever increasing health burden and economic dimension of the childhood obesity epidemic that is present around the globe.

Pharmaceutical costs in obese individuals: comparison with a randomly selected population sample and long-term changes after conventional and surgical treatment: the SOS intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity rates and pharmaceutical costs. To what extent various medication costs are affected by intentional weight loss is unknown. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison of the use of prescribed pharmaceuticals was conducted in 1286 obese individuals in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) intervention study and 958 randomly selected reference individuals. Medication changes for 6 years after bariatric surgery were evaluated in 510 surgically and 455 conventionally treated SOS patients. RESULTS: Compared with the reference group, obese individuals were more often taking diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and pain, and asthma medications (risk ratios ranging from 2.3-9.2). Average annual costs for all medications were 1400 Swedish kronor (SEK) (US $140) in obese individuals and 800 SEK (US $80) in the reference population (P<.001). Average yearly medication costs during follow-up were 1849 (US $185) in surgically treated patients (weight change -16%) and 1905 SEK (US $190) in weight-stable conventionally treated patients (P =.87). The surgical group had lower costs for diabetes mellitus (difference: -94 SEK/y (-US $9]) and cardiovascular disease medications (difference: -186 SEK/y (-US $19]) but higher costs for gastrointestinal tract disorder (difference: +135 SEK/y [US $13]) and anemia and vitamin deficiency medications (difference: +50 SEK/y [US $5]). CONCLUSIONS: Use and cost of medications are markedly increased in obese vs reference populations. Surgical obesity treatment lowers diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease medication costs but increases other medication costs, resulting in similar total costs for surgically and conventionally treated obese individuals for 6 years.