3.8 Article

Obesity and healthcare resource utilization: results from Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD)

Journal

OBESITY SCIENCE & PRACTICE
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 409-416

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/osp4.291

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus type 2; general practitioners; obesity; prescriptions

Funding

  1. Novo Nordisk, Denmark

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/ObjectivesThe economic burden of obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) rises with increasing prevalence. This study estimates the association between obesity, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs in individuals with/without T2D. Subjects/MethodsThis observational cohort study used the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink data. Between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015, total HCRU costs and individual component costs (hospitalizations, general practitioner contacts, prescriptions) were calculated for individuals linked to the Hospital Episodes Statistics database with/without T2D with normal weight, overweight, class I, II, III obesity. ResultsA total of 396,091 individuals were included. Increasing body mass index (BMI) was associated with increased HCRU costs. At each BMI category, costs were greater for individuals with than without T2D. Relative to normal BMI, increasing BMI was positively associated with increased HCRU costs, with similar magnitude regardless of T2D. The total HCRU cost for an individual with class III obesity was 1.4-fold (3,695) greater than for normal weight. ConclusionIn the United Kingdom, HCRU costs were positively associated with increasing BMI, irrespective of T2D status. The combination of T2D and obesity was associated with higher HCRU costs compared with individuals of the same BMI, without T2D. These findings suggest that prioritizing weight management programmes focused specifically on individuals with obesity and T2D may be more cost-effective than for those with obesity alone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available