4.7 Article

Cost-Efficacy of Surgically Induced Weight Loss for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes A randomized controlled trial

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 580-584

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1748

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
  2. Allergan Health
  3. VicHealth Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To determine the within-trial cost-efficacy of surgical therapy relative to conventional therapy for achieving remission of recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in class I and 11 obese patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Efficacy results were derived from a 2-year randomized controlled trial. A health sector perspective was adopted, and within-trial intervention costs included gastric banding surgery, mitigation of complications, outpatient medical consultations, medical investigations, pathology, weight loss therapies, and medication, Resource use was measured based on data drawn from a trial database and patient medical records and valued based on private hospital costs and government schedules in 2006 Australian dollars (AUD). An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. RESULTS - Mean 2-year intervention Costs per patient were 13,400 AUD for surgical therapy and 3,400 AUD for conventional therapy, with laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) surgery accounting for 85% of the difference. Outpatient medical consultation costs were three times higher for surgical Patients, whereas medication Costs were 1.5 times higher for conventional patients. The cost differences were primarily in the first 6 months Of the trial. Relative to conventional therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for surgical therapy was 16,600 AUD per case of diabetes remitted (currency exchange: 1 AUD = 0.74 USD). CONCLUSIONS - Surgical therapy appears to be a cost-effective Option for managing type 2 diabetes in class I and II obese patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available