Assessment of clinical and economic benefits of weight management with sibutramine in general practice in Germany

Obesity is associated with major health risks and a high economic burden impacting on health care systems. This study utilises the latest evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to explore and to assess the cost effectiveness of sibutramine in combination with diet and lifestyle advice compared to diet and lifestyle advice alone for the treatment of obese subjects without comorbidities at baseline in Germany. New evidence from recently published RCTs and post-marketing surveillance studies, including health economic data as well as quality of life (QoL) data, were used to model the long-term outcomes of weight management with sibutramine in German practice. German healthcare costs and new data from over 8,000 patients were analysed based on a recently published model. These new RCT data were used to model weight losses, proportion of responders to treatment, utilities by weight loss and variability in weight regain post-treatment. Costs and QoL benefits associated with weight loss (using SF-36 data from sibutramine trials), reduced incidence of coronary heart disease (using Framingham equations) and diabetes were used to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life year of sibutramine treatment. For 1,000 patients treated with sibutramine for 1 year, extrapolating outcomes over 4 further years, sibutramine is estimated to save 4.18 CHD events, 2.58 diabetes incident cases and give 51.5 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-utility analysis (CUA) estimates €13,706 per QALY gained. Results are sensitive to changes in weight loss, rate of weight regain and discounting rate. Although the non-pharmacological weight management programme in the comparator arm yielded higher weight losses than generally observed in clinical practice, these results demonstrate that additional sibutramine treatment is a cost effective therapy for an obese population without comorbidities in Germany. The CUA results are within the range generally accepted as cost effective and should be viewed as conservative when generalizing to settings offering standard non-pharmacological treatment.