Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, 19:1542 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Obesity Surgery in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Three European Countries(II)

  • Marco Anselmino
  • Tanja Bammer
  • José Maria Fernández Cebrián
  • Frederic Daoud
  • Giuliano Romagnoli
  • Antonio Torres
Other

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to establish a payer-perspective cost-effectiveness and budget impact model of adjustable gastric banding (AGB) and gastric bypass (GBP) vs. conventional treatment (CT) in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg.m−2 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Austria, Italy, and Spain.

Methods

A health economics model described in a previous publication was applied to resource utilization and cost data in AGB, GBP, and CT from Austria, Italy, and Spain in 2009.

Results

The base case time scope is 5 years; the annual discount rate for utilities and costs is 3.5%. In Austria and Italy, both AGB and GBP are cost-saving and are thus dominant in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to CT. In Spain, AGB and GBP yield a moderate cost increase but are cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 euro per quality adjusted life-year. Under worst-case analysis, AGB and GBP remain cost-saving or around breakeven in Austria and Italy and remain cost-effective in Spain.

Conclusion

In patients with T2DM and BMI ≥ 35 kg.m−2 at 5-year follow-up vs. CT, AGB and GBP are not only clinically effective and safe but represent satisfactory value for money from a payer perspective in Austria, Italy, and Spain.

Keywords

Obesity surgery Gastric bypass Adjustable gastric banding Cost-effectiveness Budget impact EQ-5D utility Diabetes 

Abbreviations

ABG

Adjustable gastric banding

BI

Budget impact

CT

Conventional treatment

DRG

Diagnostic-related group

EQ-5D

EuroQol three-level five-dimensional

GBP

Gastric bypass

HTA

Health technology assessment

LKF

Leistungsorientierte Krankenanstaltenfinanzierung: the point-based Austrian service-based hospital funding

ICER

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

QALYs

Quality adjusted life-years

T2DM

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

WTP

Willingness to pay: the maximum ICER accepted by health care payers

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support by Ethicon Endo-Surgery for Excel model software development and for resource utilization collection by clinicians is acknowledge.

Conflict of Interest Statements

Dr. Marco Anselmino: Ethicon Endo-Surgery Consultant for Bariatric Surgery

Dr Tanja Bammer: none

Dr José Maria Fernández Cebrián: none

Dr Frederic Daoud: Consultant in clinical epidemiology to Ethicon Endo-Surgery

Dr Giuliano Romagnoli: none

Pr Antonio Torres: none

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of surgery to aid weight reduction for people with morbid obesity. Technology appraisal—guidance no. 46. 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchwald H, Avido Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ackroyd R, Mouiel J, Chevallier JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of obesity surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes in three European countries. Obes Surg. 2006;16(11):1488–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jönsson B. Revealing the cost of type-2 diabetes in Europe. Diabetologia. 2002;45:S5–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moreno O, Meoro A, Martinez A, et al. Comparison of two low-calorie diets: a prospective study of effectiveness and safety. J Endocrinol Invest. 2006;29(7):633–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ministero del Lavoro della Salute e delle Politiche Soziali. Centro Nazionale per la Prevenzione e il Controllo delle Malattie. Evidence-based prevention. EBP e obesita. Direct link to NICE. 2009. website. http://www.ccm-network.it/ebp_e_obesita/enti_istituti.
  7. 7.
    Corbella A. Linee Guida Nice (National Institute For Clinical Excellence) NHS (National Health Service) Servizio Sanitario Nazionale Inglese Titolo: Cadute: La Valutazione E La Prevenzione Delle Cadute Nelle Persone Anziane. Lineeguida Cliniche N. 21. Unità di gestione del rischio dell'ASL 3 Genovese. http://www.gestionerischio.asl3.liguria.it/pdf/traduzione%20linee%20guida%20nice2.pdf. 2004.
  8. 8.
    Razdik D. U.O di Pediatria Ospedale di Castelfranco Veneto (TV). Analisi Critica Delle Linee Guida Sull’uso Dei Distanziatori Nell’asma Bronchiale Infantile Società Italiana di Immunologia e Allergologia Pediatrica (SIAIP); http://www.siaip.it/atom/atom/allegato/207.pdf. 2007.
  9. 9.
    Clegg AJ, Colquitt J, Sidhu MK et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery for people with morbid obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. The National Coordinating Center for Health Technology Assessment (SPAIN). 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    HM Treasury. The green book, annex 6. http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/annex06.htm. 2003.
  12. 12.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Reference N1618. www.nice.org.uk. 2008.
  13. 13.
    Iannazzo S, Zaniolo O, Pradelli L. Economic evaluation of treatment with Orlistat in Italian obese patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(1):63–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    STATISTIK AUSTRIA—Gesundheitsausgaben. Gesundheitsausgaben in Österreich laut System of Health Accounts (OECD) 1 1990–2006, in Mio. EUR. Öffentliche Gesundheitsausgaben, insgesamt. http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/gesundheit/gesundheitsausgaben/019701.html.
  15. 15.
    Steiermärkische Gebietskrankenkasse, DI Fritz Bruner. Presentation at health-connex 06, October 9–11 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dorner T, Rathmanner T, Lechleitner M, et al. Public health aspects of diabetes mellitus—epidemiology, prevention strategies, policy implications: the First Austrian Diabetes Report. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2006;118(17–18):513–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    García-Altés A. Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona. Fundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA). Newsletter, Issue 38, January 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oliva J, Lobo F, Molina B, et al. Direct health care costs of diabetic patients in Spain. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(11):2616–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Anselmino
    • 1
  • Tanja Bammer
    • 2
  • José Maria Fernández Cebrián
    • 3
  • Frederic Daoud
    • 4
  • Giuliano Romagnoli
    • 5
  • Antonio Torres
    • 6
  1. 1.Bariatric Surgery UnitAzienda Ospedaliera PisanaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Surgery Unit BKH KufsteinKufsteinAustria
  3. 3.Fundación Hospital AlcorcónAlcorcónSpain
  4. 4.Medextens Clinical Epidemiology Dept.ParisFrance
  5. 5.U.O. di Chirurgia Ospedale Civile di Legnano, P.O, di MagentaMagentaItaly
  6. 6.Complutense University of Madrid Hospital Clinico San CarlosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations