Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation
Avenell A, Robertson C, Skea Z, Jacobsen E, Boyers D, Cooper D, Aceves-Martins M, Retat L, Fraser C, Aveyard P, Stewart F, MacLennan G, Webber L, Corbould E, Xu B, Jaccard A, Boyle B, Duncan E, Shimonovich M, de Bruin M
Record ID 32018000284
Authors' objectives: Systematically review bariatric surgery, weight-management programmes (WMPs) and orlistat pharmacotherapy for adults with severe obesity, and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment.
Authors' results and conclusions: Results: A total of 131 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 26 UK studies, 33 qualitative studies and 46 cost-effectiveness studies were included. From RCTs, RYGB produced the greatest long-term weight change [–20.23 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) –23.75 to –16.71 kg, at 60 months]. WMPs with very low-calorie diets (VLCDs) produced the greatest weight loss at 12 months compared with no WMPs. Adding a VLCD to a WMP gave an additional mean weight change of –4.41 kg (95% CI –5.93 to –2.88 kg) at 12 months. The intensive Look AHEAD WMP produced mean long-term weight loss of 6% in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (at a median of 9.6 years). The microsimulation model found that WMPs were generally cost-effective compared with population obesity trends. Long-term WMP weight regain was very uncertain, apart from Look AHEAD. The addition of a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. RYGB was cost-effective compared with no surgery and WMPs, but the model did not replicate long-term cost savings found in previous studies. Qualitative data suggested that participants could be attracted to take part in WMPs through endorsement by their health-care provider or through perceiving innovative activities, with WMPs being delivered to groups. Features improving long-term weight loss included having group support, additional behavioural support, a physical activity programme to attend, a prescribed calorie diet or a calorie deficit. Conclusions: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was costly to deliver, but it was the most cost-effective intervention. Adding a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. Most WMPs were cost-effective compared with current population obesity trends.
Authors' methods: Four systematic reviews evaluated clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative evidence for adults with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2. Data from meta-analyses populated a microsimulation model predicting costs, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and the most effective lifestyle WMPs over a 30-year time horizon from a NHS perspective, compared with current UK population obesity trends. Interventions were cost-effective if the additional cost of achieving a quality-adjusted life-year is < £20,000–30,000.
Authors' identified further reserach: Improved reporting of WMPs is needed to allow replication, translation and further research. Qualitative research is needed with adults who are potential users of, or who fail to engage with or drop out from, WMPs. RCTs and economic evaluations in UK settings (e.g. Tier 3, commercial programmes or primary care) should evaluate VLCDs with long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). Decision models should incorporate relevant costs, disease states and evidence-based weight regain assumptions.
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2018
URL for published report: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta22680
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Full HTA
- Anti-Obesity Agents
- Bariatric Surgery
- Behavior Therapy
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Life Style
- National Health Programs
- Obesity, Morbid
- Technology Assessment, Biomedical
- Treatment Outcome
- United Kingdom
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact Email: email@example.com
Copyright: 2009 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.