Borisenko Oleg, Lukyanov Vasily, Debergh Isabelle, Dillemans Bruno
a Health Economics and Market Access , Synergus AB , Danderyd ( Stockholm ), Sweden.
b Health Economics , Synergus AB , Danderyd (Stockholm) , Sweden.
J Med Econ. 2018 Apr;21(4):365-373. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1419958. Epub 2018 Jan 10.
This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon.
A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium.
In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon.
The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabetic patients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert.
It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.
本研究从第三方支付者的角度,对比利时减肥手术进行了终身和10年期限的成本效益分析。
开发了一个包含马尔可夫过程的决策分析模型,以比较胃旁路手术、袖状胃切除术和可调节胃束带术与传统药物治疗(CMM)的成本效益。在该模型中,患者可能接受手术,或经历术后并发症、2型糖尿病、心血管疾病或死亡。转移概率、成本和效用均来自文献。在基础案例分析中,不同手术方法对体重指数(BMI)水平的影响参考了斯堪的纳维亚肥胖手术登记处和瑞典肥胖受试者(SOS)研究。医疗资源使用情况和成本数据来自比利时。针对比利时手术候选者的人群特征进行了基础案例分析。
在为期10年的基础案例分析中,减肥手术相对于传统药物治疗每例患者获得的质量调整生命年(QALY)增量为1.4,而增量成本为3788欧元,导致每QALY的增量成本效益比(ICER)为2809欧元。从终身来看,减肥手术节省了9332欧元,额外增加了1.1个生命年和5.0个QALY。减肥手术在术后10年具有成本效益,并且在终身期限内优于传统治疗。
该模型未涵盖肥胖相关并发症的全部范围,也未考虑不同糖尿病患者群体手术结果的差异。此外,术后患者管理的数据基于假设和临床专家的意见。
结果表明,目前的减肥手术方法组合在术后10年具有成本效益,并且对于本分析中所考虑的比利时患者队列在其一生中是节省成本的。