The Relative Value of Anti-Obesity Medications Compared to Similar Therapies.

PURPOSE

To demonstrate a need for improved health insurance coverage for anti-obesity medications (AOMs) by comparing clinical and economic benefits of obesity treatments to covered medications for selected therapeutic areas.

METHODS

Using a grey literature search, we identified and prioritized therapeutic areas and treatment analogues for comparison to obesity. A targeted literature review identified clinical and economic outcomes research across the therapeutic area analogues. Associated comorbidities, clinical evidence, indirect costs (ie, absenteeism and productivity loss), and direct medical costs were evaluated to determine the relative value of treating obesity.

RESULTS

Four therapeutic areas/treatment analogues were selected for comparison to obesity: smoking cessation (varenicline), daytime sleepiness (modafinil), migraines (erenumab), and fibromyalgia (pregabalin). Obesity was associated with 17 comorbidities, more than migraine (9), smoking (8), daytime sleepiness (5), and fibromyalgia (2). Economic burden was greatest for obesity, followed by smoking, with yearly indirect and direct medical costs totaling $676 and $345 billion, respectively. AOMs resulted in cost savings of $2586 in direct medical costs per patient per year (PPPY), greater than that for varenicline at $930 PPPY, modafinil at $1045 PPPY, and erenumab at $468 PPPY; pregabalin utilization increased costs by $924 PPPY. AOMs were covered by 10-16% of United States health insurance plans, compared to 45-59% for the four comparators.

CONCLUSION

Compared to four therapeutic analogues, obesity represented the highest economic burden and was associated with more comorbidities. AOMs provide greater cost savings compared to selected analogues. However, AOMs have limited formulary coverage. Improved coverage of AOMs may increase access to these treatments and may help address the clinical and economic burden associated with obesity and its comorbidities.