Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic, surgical and pharmacological obesity therapies: a microsimulation and threshold analyses

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

Update on Endoscopic Treatments for Obesity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Increased morbidity seen with rising obesity rates continues to place an unheralded burden on our health system. Lack of higher bariatric surgery utilization and limitations with lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy highlights the need for additional therapies for obesity. Endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMT) are effective, safe treatments for obesity. Current FDA-approved EBMT are confined to gastric modalities while small bowel directed therapies are still considered investigational. This review highlights current modalities of EBMT.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many randomized controlled trials have been performed, including both open label and sham-controlled, which have demonstrated safety and efficacy of EBMT over lifestyle therapy alone. In addition, emerging evidence from clinical experience further supports EBMT for treatment of obesity. Current evidence supports the safety and efficacy of EBMT for obesity treatment in conjunction with lifestyle therapy. They can also be used concurrently with weight loss medications to increase total weight loss.

Semaglutide vs Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty for Weight Loss

Importance

Obesity is a disease with a large socioeconomic burden. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive endoscopic bariatric procedure with wide global adoption. More recently, new weight-loss medications, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (eg, semaglutide), have attracted increased attention due to their efficacy. However, their cost-effectiveness over an extended period compared with ESG is a critical gap that needs to be better explored for informed health care decision-making.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide compared with ESG over 5 years for individuals with class II obesity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation study, conducted from September 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023, used a Markov cohort model to compare ESG and semaglutide, with a no-treatment baseline strategy. The study comprised adult patients in the US health care system with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 35-39.9). The base case was a 45-year-old patient with class II obesity (BMI of 37). Patients undergoing ESG were subjected to risks of perioperative mortality and adverse events with resultant costs and decrement in quality of life.

Interventions

Strategies included treatment with semaglutide and ESG.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Costs (2022 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. A 5-year time horizon with a cycle length of 1 month with a 3% discount rate was used. Probabilities, costs, and quality-of-life estimates of the model were derived from published literature. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

The model found that ESG was more cost-effective than semaglutide over a 5-year time horizon, with an ICER of -$595 532/QALY. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty added 0.06 QALYs and reduced total cost by $33 583 relative to semaglutide. The results remained robust on 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty sustained greater weight loss over 5 years vs semaglutide (BMI of 31.7 vs 33.0). To achieve nondominance, the annual price of semaglutide, currently $13 618, would need to be $3591.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that ESG is cost saving compared with semaglutide in the treatment of class II obesity. On price threshold analyses, a 3-fold decrease in the price of semaglutide is needed to achieve nondominance.

Weight Loss Interventions for Adults With Obesity-Related Asthma

Obesity is a common asthma comorbidity in adults, contributing to higher patient morbidity and mortality. Conversely, weight loss can reduce the impact of obesity on asthma and improve patient outcomes by diverse mechanisms including modulating airway inflammation, reducing oxidative stress, and improving lung function. Multiple lifestyle, nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical interventions are effective at reducing weight in the general population. Fewer have been studied specifically in the context of patients with asthma. However, increasingly effective pharmacologic options for weight loss highlight the need for allergists and pulmonologists to understand the range of approaches that may directly or indirectly yield clinical benefits in asthma management. Weight loss interventions often require multidisciplinary support to create strategies that can realistically achieve a patient's personalized asthma and weight goals. This includes minimizing the adverse weight effects of glucocorticoids, which remain a mainstay of asthma management. Disparities in access, cost, and insurance coverage of weight loss interventions remain acute challenges for providers and patients. Future studies are needed to elucidate mechanisms of action of specific weight loss interventions on short-term and long-term asthma outcomes.