Cost-utility analysis of bariatric surgery compared with conventional medical management in Germany: a decision analytic modeling

Clinical outcomes and adverse events of bariatric surgery in adults with severe obesity in Scotland: the SCOTS observational cohort study

Background

Bariatric surgery is a common procedure worldwide for the treatment of severe obesity and associated comorbid conditions but there is a lack of evidence as to medium-term safety and effectiveness outcomes in a United Kingdom setting.

Objective

To establish the clinical outcomes and adverse events of different bariatric surgical procedures, their impact on quality of life and the effect on comorbidities.

Design

Prospective observational cohort study.

Setting

National Health Service secondary care and private practice in Scotland, United Kingdom.

Participants

Adults (age >16 years) undergoing their first bariatric surgery procedure.

Main outcome measures

Change in weight, hospital length of stay, readmission and reoperation rate, mortality, diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, medications), quality of life, anxiety, depression.

Data sources

Patient-reported outcome measures, hospital records, national electronic health records (Scottish Morbidity Record 01, Scottish Care Information Diabetes, National Records Scotland, Prescription Information System).

Results

Between December 2013 and February 2017, 548 eligible patients were approached and 445 participants were enrolled in the study. Of those, 335 had bariatric surgery and 1 withdrew from the study. Mean age was 46.0 (9.2) years, 74.7% were female and the median body mass index was 46.4 (42.4; 52.0) kg/m2. Weight was available for 128 participants at 3 years: mean change was -19.0% (±14.1) from the operation and -24.2% (±12.8) from the start of the preoperative weight-management programme. One hundred and thirty-nine (41.4%) participants were readmitted to hospital in the same or subsequent 35 months post surgery, 18 (5.4% of the operated cohort) had a reoperation or procedure considered to be related to bariatric surgery gastrointestinal complications or revisions. Fewer than five participants (<2%) died during follow-up. HbA1c was available for 93/182 and diabetes medications for 139/182 participants who had type 2 diabetes prior to surgery; HbA1c mean change was -5.72 (±16.71) (p = 0.001) mmol/mol and 65.5% required no diabetes medications (p < 0.001) at 3 years post surgery. Physical quality of life, available for 101/335 participants, improved in the 3 years post surgery, mean change in Rand 12-item Short Form Survey physical component score 8.32 (±8.95) (p < 0.001); however, there was no change in the prevalence of anxiety or depression.

Limitations

Due to low numbers of bariatric surgery procedures in Scotland, recruitment was stopped before achieving the intended 2000 participants and follow-up was reduced from 10 years to 3 years.

Conclusions

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective treatment for obesity. Patients in Scotland, UK, appear to be older and have higher body mass than international comparators, which may be due to the small number of procedures performed.

Future work

Intervention studies are required to identify the optimal pre- and post surgery pathway to maximise safety and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as ISRCTN47072588.

Funding details

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bariatric Surgery for Adults With Class I Obesity and Difficult-to-Manage Type 2 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

Many individuals with type 2 diabetes are classified as either overweight or obese. A patient may be described as having difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes if their HbA1c levels remain above recommended target levels, despite efforts to treat it with lifestyle changes and pharmacotherapy. Bariatric surgery refers to procedures that modify the gastrointestinal tract. In patients with class II or III obesity, bariatric surgery has resulted in substantial weight loss, improved quality of life, reduced mortality risk, and resolution of type 2 diabetes. There is some evidence suggesting these outcomes may also be possible for patients with class I obesity as well. We conducted a health technology assessment of bariatric surgery for adults with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding bariatric surgery, and patient preferences and values.

Methods

We performed a systematic clinical literature review. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for cohort studies, and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool for systematic reviews; we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature review and conducted a cost-utility analysis of bariatric surgery in comparison with nonsurgical usual care over a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding bariatric surgery for adults with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of bariatric surgery, we spoke with people with obesity and type 2 diabetes who had undergone or were considering this procedure.

Results

We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review. There were large increases in diabetes remission rates (GRADE: Low to Very low) and large reductions in body mass index (GRADE: Low to Very low) with bariatric surgery than with medical management. Bariatric surgery may also reduce the use of medications for type 2 diabetes (GRADE: Low) and may improve quality of life for people with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes compared with medical management. (GRADE: Low)Our economic evidence review included 5 cost-effectiveness studies; none were conducted in a Canadian setting, and 4 were considered partially applicable to our research question. Most studies found bariatric surgery to be cost-effective compared to standard care for patients with class I obesity and type 2 diabetes; however, the applicability of these results to the Ontario context is uncertain due to potential differences in clinical practice, resource utilization, and unit costs.Our primary economic evaluation found that over a lifetime horizon, bariatric surgery was more costly (incremental cost: $8,151 per person) but also more effective than current usual care (led to a 0.339 quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gain per person). The cost increase was driven by costs associated with surgery (before, after, and during surgery), and the QALY gain was due to life-years gained. Results were sensitive to the bariatric surgery cost and assumptions regarding its long-term benefits with respect to weight loss and diabetes remission.Publicly funding 50 bariatric surgeries in year 1, and gradually increasing to 250 surgeries in year 5, for people with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes would lead to budget increases of $0.55 million in year 1 to $2.45 million in year 5, for a total of $7.63 million over 5 years.The people with obesity and type 2 diabetes with whom we spoke reported that bariatric surgery was generally seen as a positive treatment option, and those who had undergone the procedure reported positively on its value as a treatment to manage their weight and diabetes.

Conclusions

For adults with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery may be more clinically effective and cost-effective than medical management. Compared with medical management in people with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery may result in large increases in diabetes remission rates, large reductions in BMI, and reduced medication use for type 2 diabetes, improved quality of life. Over a lifetime horizon, bariatric surgery led to a cost increase and QALY gain. Bariatric surgery can result in postsurgical complications that are not faced by those receiving medical management. The cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery depends on its long-term impacts on obesity-related and diabetes-related complications, which could be uncertain.Our budget impact analysis suggests that publicly funding bariatric surgery in Ontario for people with class I obesity and difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes would lead to a budget increase of $7.63 million over 5 years.For people with obesity and type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery was seen as a potential positive treatment option to manage their weight and diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review of economic evaluations

AIM

To systematically identify and appraise the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of comorbid type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 20 January 2021. Economic evaluations in a T2D population or a subpopulation with T2D were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, critical appraisal of methodological quality (Consensus Health Economic Criteria list) and assessment of transferability (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research questionnaire) were undertaken in duplicate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome. Costs were reported in 2020 Irish Euro. Cost-effectiveness was interpreted using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €20,000 and €45,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Due to heterogeneity arising from various sources, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty studies across seventeen jurisdictions met the inclusion criteria; 16 specifically in a T2D population and 14 in a subpopulation with T2D. Overall, metabolic surgery was found to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Where undertaken, the results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. Of the 30 studies included, 15 were considered high quality. Identified limitations included limited long-term follow-up data and uncertainty regarding the utility associated with T2D remission.

CONCLUSION

Published high-quality studies suggest metabolic surgery is a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention. As the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases increases worldwide, significant investment and careful consideration of the resource requirements needed for metabolic surgery programmes will be necessary to ensure that service provision is adequate to meet demand.

Does bariatric surgery reduce future hospital costs? A propensity score-matched analysis using UK Biobank Study data

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the hospital costs among persons with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery compared with those without bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We analysed the UK Biobank Cohort study linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, for all adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery at National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland, or Wales from 2006 to 2017. Surgery patients were matched with controls who did not have bariatric surgery using propensity scores approach with a ratio of up to 1-to-5 by year. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to correct for potential informative censoring. Annual and cumulative hospital costs were assessed for the surgery and control groups.

RESULTS

We identified 348 surgical patients (198 gastric bypass, 73 sleeve gastrectomy, 77 gastric banding) during the study period. In total, 324 surgical patients and 1506 matched control participants were included after propensity score matching. Mean 5-year cumulative hospital costs were €11,659 for 348 surgical patients. Compared with controls, surgical patients (n = 324) had significantly higher inpatient expenditures in the surgery year (€7289 vs. €2635, P < 0.001), but lower costs in the subsequent 4 years. The 5-year cumulative costs were €11,176 for surgical patients and €8759 for controls (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery significantly increased the inpatient costs in the surgery year, but was associated with decreased costs in the subsequent 4 years. However, any cost savings made up to 4 years were not enough to compensate for the initial surgical expenditure.

SurgiCal Obesity Treatment Study (SCOTS): a prospective, observational cohort study on health and socioeconomic burden in treatment-seeking individuals with severe obesity in Scotland, UK

OBJECTIVES

There is a lack of evidence to inform the delivery and follow-up of bariatric surgery for people with severe obesity. The SurgiCal Obesity Treatment Study (SCOTS) is a national longitudinal cohort of people undergoing bariatric surgery. Here, we describe characteristics of the recruited SCOTS cohort, and the relationship between health and socioeconomic status with body mass index (BMI) and age.

PARTICIPANTS/METHODS

445 participants scheduled for bariatric surgery at any of 14 centres in Scotland, UK, were recruited between 2013 and 2016 for this longitudinal cohort study (1 withdrawal); 249 completed health-related preoperative patient-reported outcome measures. Regression models were used to estimate the effect of a 10-unit increase in age or BMI, adjusting for sex, smoking and socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

Mean age was 46 years and median BMI was 47 kg/m². For each 10 kg/m² higher BMI, there was a change of -5.2 (95% CI -6.9 to -3.5; p<0.0001) in Rand 12-item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), -0.1 (95% CI -0.2 to -0.1; p<0.0001) in EuroQoL 5-level EQ-5D version index score and 14.2 (95% CI 10.7 to 17.7; p<0.0001) in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Physical Function Score. We observed a 3.1 times higher use of specialist aids and equipment at home (OR: 3.1, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.0; p<0.0001). Broadly, similar results were seen for each 10-year higher age, including a change of -2.1 (95% CI -3.7 to -0.5; p<0.01) in SF-12 PCS.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher BMI combined with older age is associated with poor physical functioning and quality of life in people seeking bariatric surgery treatment. Policy-makers must consider the health and care needs of these individuals and invest to provide increased access to effective weight management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN47072588.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity: A mendelian randomisation study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of obesity has increased in the United Kingdom, and reliably measuring the impact on quality of life and the total healthcare cost from obesity is key to informing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target obesity, and determining healthcare funding. Current methods for estimating cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity may be subject to confounding and reverse causation. The aim of this study is to apply a new approach using mendelian randomisation for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target body mass index (BMI), which may be less affected by confounding and reverse causation than previous approaches.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We estimated health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and both primary and secondary healthcare costs for 310,913 men and women of white British ancestry aged between 39 and 72 years in UK Biobank between recruitment (2006 to 2010) and 31 March 2017. We then estimated the causal effect of differences in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs using mendelian randomisation. For this, we used instrumental variable regression with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for BMI, derived using a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of BMI, with age, sex, recruitment centre, and 40 genetic principal components as covariables to estimate the effect of a unit increase in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs. Finally, we used simulations to estimate the likely effect on BMI of policy relevant interventions for BMI, then used the mendelian randomisation estimates to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. A unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by 0.65% of a QALY (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49% to 0.81%) per year and increased annual total healthcare costs by £42.23 (95% CI: £32.95 to £51.51) per person. When considering only health conditions usually considered in previous cost-effectiveness modelling studies (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes), we estimated that a unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by only 0.16% of a QALY (95% CI: 0.10% to 0.22%) per year. We estimated that both laparoscopic bariatric surgery among individuals with BMI greater than 35 kg/m2, and restricting volume promotions for high fat, salt, and sugar products, would increase QALYs and decrease total healthcare costs, with net monetary benefits (at £20,000 per QALY) of £13,936 (95% CI: £8,112 to £20,658) per person over 20 years, and £546 million (95% CI: £435 million to £671 million) in total per year, respectively. The main limitations of this approach are that mendelian randomisation relies on assumptions that cannot be proven, including the absence of directional pleiotropy, and that genotypes are independent of confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Mendelian randomisation can be used to estimate the impact of interventions on quality of life and healthcare costs. We observed that the effect of increasing BMI on health-related quality of life is much larger when accounting for 240 chronic health conditions, compared with only a limited selection. This means that previous cost-effectiveness studies have likely underestimated the effect of BMI on quality of life and, therefore, the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce BMI.

Cost-effectiveness of procedure-less intragastric balloon therapy as substitute or complement to bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Procedure-less intragastric balloon (PIGB) eliminates costs and risks of endoscopic placement/removal and involves lower risk of serious complications compared with bariatric surgery, albeit with lower weight loss. Given the vast unmet need for obesity treatment, an important question is whether PIGB treatment is cost-effective-either stand-alone or as a bridge to bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation model to compare the costs and effectiveness of six treatment strategies: PIGB, gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy as stand-alone treatments, PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, and no treatment.

RESULTS

PIGB as a bridge to bariatric surgery is less costly and more effective than bariatric surgery alone as it helps to achieve a lower post-operative BMI. Of the six strategies, PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy is the most cost-effective with an ICER of $3,781 per QALY gained. While PIGB alone is not cost-effective compared with bariatric surgery, it is cost-effective compared with no treatment with an ICER of $21,711 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

PIGB can yield cost savings and improve health outcomes if used as a bridge to bariatric surgery and is cost-effective as a stand-alone treatment for patients lacking access or unwilling to undergo surgery.

Incremental Net Monetary Benefit of Bariatric Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Evidences

This systematic review aimed to comprehensively synthesize cost-effectiveness evidences of bariatric surgery by pooling incremental net monetary benefits (INB). Twenty-eight full economic evaluation studies comparing bariatric surgery with usual care were identified from five databases. In high-income countries (HICs), bariatric surgery was cost-effective among mixed obesity group (i.e., obesity with/without diabetes) over a 10-year time horizon (pooled INB = $53,063.69; 95% CI $42,647.96, $63,479.43) and lifetime horizon (pooled INB = $101,897.96; 95% CI $79,390.93, $124,404.99). All studies conducted among obese with diabetes reported that bariatric surgery was cost-effective. Also, the pooled INB for obesity with diabetes group over lifetime horizon in HICs was $80,826.28 (95% CI $32,500.75, $129,151.81). Nevertheless, no evidence is available in low- and middle-income countries.

Cost-Utility of Gastric Bypass Surgery Compared to Clinical Treatment for Severely Obese With and Without Diabetes in the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System

PURPOSE

Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Weight loss due to gastric bypass (GBP) surgery improves clinical outcomes and may be a cost-effective intervention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of GBP compared to clinical treatment in severely obese individuals with and without diabetes in the perspective of the Brazilian public health system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of gastric bypass in an open approach to clinical treatment. Health states were living with diabetes, remission of diabetes, non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction, and death. We also included the occurrence of complications related to surgery and plastic surgery after the gastric bypass surgery. The direct costs were obtained from primary data collection performed in three public reference centers for obesity treatment. Utility values also derived from this cohort, while transition probabilities came from the international literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainties. The model considered a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate.

RESULTS

Over 10 years, GBP increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs compared to clinical treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Int$1820.17/QALY and Int$1937.73/QALY in individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values and direct costs of treatments were the parameters that affected the most the ICERs.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that GBP is a cost-effective intervention for severely obese individuals in the Brazilian public health system perspective, with a better result in individuals with diabetes.

Economic evaluation of surgical treatment of obesity

INTRODUCTION

Obesity surgery is the best treatment for extreme obesity, with demonstrated long-term positive outcomes. The potential cost-savings generated by the improvement of comorbidities after surgery can justify the allocation of more resources in the surgical treatment of obesity.

METHODS

This was an observational, descriptive, longitudinal and retrospective study. Eligible patients underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery at the Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias between 2003 and 2012. The established minimum follow-up period was two years. We calculated the individualized cost per patient treated (bottom-up) as well as per Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) codes (top-down).

RESULTS

Our study included 307 patients. The average cost per hospitalization calculated by DRG codes was €6,545.90, and the average cost per patient was €10,572.20. DRG 288 represented 91% of the series, with a value of €4,631. The number of medications also decreased during this period, from 2.86 to 0.78 per medically treated patient, representing a cost reduction of €4,433 per patient with all the obesity-related comorbidities analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Two years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conducted at Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, the savings in drug costs for patients with multiple pathologies would compensate the inherent costs of the surgical treatment itself. Our results showed that DRG-related costs was insufficient to make a correct economic evaluation, so we recommend an individualized cost calculating method.

Bariatric surgery is a cost-saving treatment for obesity-A comprehensive meta-analysis and updated systematic review of health economic evaluations of bariatric surgery

Demand for bariatric surgery to treat severe and resistant obesity far outstrips supply. We aimed to comprehensively synthesise health economic evidence regarding bariatric surgery from 1995 to 2018 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018094189). Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the annual cost changes "before" and "after" surgery, and cumulative cost differences between surgical and nonsurgical groups. An updated narrative review also summarized the full and partial health economic evaluations of surgery from September 2015. N = 101 studies were eligible for the qualitative analyses since 1995, with n = 24 studies after September 2015. Quality of reporting has increased, and the inclusion of complications/reoperations was predominantly contained in the full economic evaluations after September 2015. Technical improvements in surgery were also reflected across the studies. Sixty-one studies were eligible for the quantitative meta-analyses. Compared with no/conventional treatment, surgery was cost saving over a lifetime scenario. Additionally, consideration of indirect costs through sensitivity analyses increased cost savings. Medication cost savings were dominant in the before versus after meta-analysis. Overall, bariatric surgery is cost saving over the life course even without considering indirect costs. Health economists are hearing the call to present higher quality studies and include the costs of complications/reoperations; however, indirect costs and body contouring surgery are still not appropriately considered.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Aspiration Therapy vs Bariatric Surgery and No Treatment for Morbid Obesity

INTRODUCTION

Despite its recent approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, aspiration therapy-one of the latest weight loss treatments-remains controversial. Critics have expressed concerns that the therapy could lead to bulimia and other binge eating disorders. Meanwhile, proponents argue that the therapy is less invasive, reversible, and cheaper than bariatric surgery. Cost-effectiveness of this therapy, however, is not yet established.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of aspiration therapy relative to 2 most common bariatric surgery procedures (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) and no treatment over a lifetime horizon. Costs were estimated from the health system's perspective using US data. Effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Despite being a cheaper procedure than bariatric surgery, aspiration therapy costs more than bariatric surgery in the long term because of its high maintenance costs (i.e., periodic replacement of device parts). It also yields lower QALYs than bariatric surgery because of its smaller weight loss effects. Thus, the therapy is dominated by bariatric surgery. In particular, compared with gastric bypass, it costs US$5,318 more and yields 1.31 fewer QALYs. However, aspiration therapy is cost-effective relative to no treatment with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$17,532 per QALY gained.

DISCUSSION

Given its high lifetime costs and its modest weight loss effects, aspiration therapy is not cost-effective relative to bariatric surgery. However, it is a cost-effective treatment option for patients who lack access to bariatric surgery.

[Barriers to the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) accreditation "Center for bariatric and metabolic surgery"]

INTRODUCTION

The certification and accreditation process of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) aims to improve the quality of care and enhance transparency in accredited centers. To achieve these goals a high level of infrastructural and staffing requirements are set out by the DGAV.

AIMS

The Surgical Working Group on Obesity Treatment and Metabolic Surgery (CAADIP) survey 2017 of the members of the German Bariatric Society aimed to identify the perceived and encountered barriers in the DGAV accreditation process.

METHODS

Between February and March 2017 an online poll was conducted of all members of the CAADIP on topics pertaining to the accreditation process.

RESULTS

A total of 214 (51%) CAADIP members participated in the poll, 47% reported that they worked at a non-certified center and 53% worked at a DGAV certified center. Of these, 68% reported employment in a unit with the lowest accreditation level, 21% in an intermediate level center, 11% reported employment in a unit with the highest accreditation level (Center of Excellence) and 86% of those currently working in non-accredited units stated that they aimed for future accreditation. Reasons stated for not having obtained accreditation were recent establishment of the new bariatric specialty (54%), lack of bariatric case numbers (71%), lack of human resources and infrastructure (28% and 13%, respectively). Of those surgeons in non-accredited centers 24% stated that the hospital management had no interest in a certification and 12% of the surgeons themselves felt that accreditation was unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

The majority of CAADIP members strived for DGAV certification. The main barriers encountered and perceived were the specific time (reference years) and caseload requirements.

Bariatric surgery versus conservative management for morbidly obese patients in Spain: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery (BS) versus conservative management (CM) for treating morbid obesity in Spain.

METHODS

We developed a probabilistic Markov model to estimate health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), life years gained (LYG), and costs over lifetime and 10-year horizons. Combined common BS procedures were compared with CM. Clinical and utility inputs were obtained from the literature and resource use and costs from local sources (€2017).

RESULTS

Over the 10-year horizon, BS led to a cost increment of €9,386 and 1.6 additional QALY (€5,966/QALY). Leading to 0.6 LYG and 4.4 QALY gains and €300/patient average cost savings over lifetime, BS could potentially significantly reduce diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk over the considered horizons. Despite short-term cost reductions, surgery delay may lead to significant clinical benefits loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CM, BS is a more effective and less costly alternative for treating morbid obesity in Spain.