UK cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus lifestyle modification alone for adults with class II obesity.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive procedure that has been demonstrated in the MERIT randomised, controlled trial to result in substantial and durable additional weight loss in adults with obesity compared with lifestyle modification (LM) alone. We sought to conduct the first cost-effectiveness analysis of ESG versus LM alone in adults with class II obesity (BMI 35.0-39.9 kg/m2) from a national healthcare system perspective in England based on results from this study. METHODS: A 6-state Markov model was developed comprising 5 BMI-based health states and an absorbing death state. Baseline characteristics, utilities, and transition probabilities were informed by patient-level data from the subset of patients with class II obesity in MERIT. Adverse events (AEs) were based on the MERIT safety population. Mortality was estimated by applying BMI-specific hazard ratios from the published literature to UK general population mortality rates. Utilities for the healthy weight and overweight health states were informed from the literature; disutility associated with increasing BMI in the class I-III obesity health states was estimated using MERIT utility data. Disutility due to AEs and the prevalence of obesity-related comorbidities were based on the literature. Costs included intervention costs, AE costs, and comorbidity costs. RESULTS: ESG resulted in higher overall costs than LM alone but led to an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ESG vs LM alone was £2453/QALY gained. ESG was consistently cost effective across a wide range of sensitivity analyses, with no ICER estimate exceeding £10,000/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £2502/QALY gained and ESG remained cost effective in 98.25% of iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that ESG is highly cost effective versus LM alone for the treatment of adults with class II obesity in England.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of PreserFlo versus Trabeculectomy for Glaucoma Management in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: Clinical evaluation and cost analysis of mitomycin-C-augmented PreserFlo MicroShunt versus trabeculectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study across 3 teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 134 consecutive eyes of 129 patients (70 undergoing MicroShunt, 64 trabeculectomy). METHODS: Primary and secondary glaucoma cases with uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) were included. Neovascular glaucoma and surgery combined with cataract extraction were excluded. The cost analysis used results from the clinical study to estimate operative costs (equipment and staff costs) and postoperative costs (follow-up visits, nonglaucoma medications, and postoperative procedures) per eye for PreserFlo and trabeculectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was surgical failure (defined as IOP > 21 mmHg or < 20% reduction from baseline, IOP ≤ 5 mmHg, reoperation, or loss of light perception) or qualified and complete success (with or without medication) at 18 months. Secondary measures were IOP, glaucoma medications, visual acuity, mean deviation, time to cessation of steroid drops, complications, surgical time, follow-up visits, postoperative interventions, and reoperations. The cost analysis evaluated costs of PreserFlo compared with trabeculectomy. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar, except for more non-White patients in the trabeculectomy group (51% Black and Asian vs. 32% MicroShunt, P = 0.02) and more cases with prior ab externo glaucoma surgery in the MicroShunt group (19% vs. 3% in the trabeculectomy group, P = 0.004). Overall, 59% of eyes had primary open-angle glaucoma. Mean follow-up was 19.9 months for both groups. At 18 months, surgical failure was 25% for MicroShunt compared with 35% for trabeculectomy (P = 0.18). Failure in MicroShunt cases was due to inadequate IOP reduction (84%) or reoperation for glaucoma (16%). Failure in trabeculectomy cases was due to inadequate IOP reduction (58%), persistent hypotony (29%), or reoperation for glaucoma (13%). Combined blebitis and endophthalmitis rate was 1.4% for MicroShunt and 3.1% for trabeculectomy. Cost analysis showed a savings of £245 to £566 per eye in the MicroShunt group, driven mostly by reduced postoperative procedures and follow-up visits. This is in contrast to prior randomized controlled trial data reporting the incremental cost of $2058 of PreserFlo over trabeculectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience of introducing PreserFlo MicroShunt surgery showed it was safer than trabeculectomy and is a cost-saving and effective option that offers potential to free up highly limited National Health Service resources. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.