Purpose Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Weight loss due to gastric bypass (GBP) surgery improves clinical outcomes and may be a cost-effective intervention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of GBP compared to clinical treatment in severely obese individuals with and without diabetes in the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of gastric bypass in an open approach to clinical treatment. Health states were living with diabetes, remission of diabetes, non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction, and death. We also included the occurrence of complications related to surgery and plastic surgery after the gastric bypass surgery. The direct costs were obtained from primary data collection performed in three public reference centers for obesity treatment. Utility values also derived from this cohort, while transition probabilities came from the international literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainties. The model considered a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate. Results Over 10 years, GBP increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs compared to clinical treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Int$1820.17/QALY and Int$1937.73/QALY in individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values and direct costs of treatments were the parameters that affected the most the ICERs. ConclusionThe study demonstrated that GBP is a cost-effective intervention for severely obese individuals in the Brazilian public health system perspective, with a better result in individuals with diabetes.

No abstract

Total costs were higher in the surgical group in the first 2 years after surgery. However, from the third year on, the costs were lower than in the clinical group.

Growth hormone (GH) use has been speculated to improve physical capacity in subjects without GH deficiency (GHD) through stimulation of collagen synthesis in the tendon and skeletal muscle, which leads to better exercise training and increased muscle strength. In this context, the use of GH in healthy elderly should be an option for increasing muscle strength. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of GH therapy on muscle strength in healthy men over 50 years old. Fourteen healthy men aged 50–70 years were evaluated at baseline for body composition and muscle strength (evaluated by leg press and bench press exercises, which focus primarily on quadriceps—lower body part and pectoralis major—upper body part—muscles, resp.). Subjects were randomised into 2 groups: GH therapy (7 subjects) and placebo (7 subjects) and reevaluated after 6 months of therapy. Thirteen subjects completed the study (6 subjects in the placebo group and 7 subjects in the GH group). Subjects of both groups were not different at baseline. After 6 months of therapy, muscle strength in the bench press responsive muscles did not increase in both groups and showed a statistically significant increase in the leg press responsive muscles in the GH group. Our study demonstrated an increase in muscle strength in the lower body part after GH therapy in healthy men. This finding must be considered and tested in frail older populations, whose physical incapacity is primarily caused by proximal muscle weakness. The trial was registered with NCT01853566.

No abstract