RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Robust causal inference for long-term policy decisions: cost effectiveness of interventions for obesity using Mendelian randomization
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.11.20097873
DO 10.1101/2020.05.11.20097873
A1 Sean Harrison
A1 Padraig Dixon
A1 Hayley E Jones
A1 Alisha R Davies
A1 Laura D Howe
A1 Neil M Davies
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/14/2020.05.11.20097873.abstract
AB Objectives To estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce body mass index (BMI) using Mendelian randomization.Design We estimated the causal effect of differences in BMI on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total healthcare costs using Mendelian randomization and applied our results to policy-relevant questions.Setting UK Biobank.Participants 310,913 men and women of white British ancestry aged between 39 and 72 years, followed-up for an average of 8.1 years (6.1 years for secondary care healthcare costs).Main outcome measures Predicted average QALYs and total healthcare costs per year, and cost-effectiveness of interventions.Results A unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by 0.65% of a QALY (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49% to 0.81%) per year and increased annual total healthcare costs by £42.23 (95% CI: £32.95 to £51.51) per person. When considering only health conditions usually considered in previous studies (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease and type 2 diabetes), we estimated that a unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by only 0.16% of a QALY (95% CI: 0.10% to 0.22%) per year.Compared to no intervention and over 20 years, a person in England or Wales aged 40-69 years with a BMI over 35 kg/m2 receiving laparoscopic bariatric surgery would have, on average, an increase of 0.92 QALYs (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.17) and a decrease in total healthcare costs of £5,096 (95% CI: £3,459 to £6,852), with a net monetary benefit (at £20,000 per QALY) of £13,936 (95% CI: £8,112 to £20,658).Restricting volume promotions for high fat, salt and sugar products would, across the 21.7 million adults aged 40 to 69 years in England and Wales, increase QALYs by 20,551 per year (95% CI: 15,335 to 25,301), decrease total healthcare costs by £137 million per year (95% CI: £106 million to £170 million), with a net monetary benefit (at £20,000 per QALY) of £546 million per year (95% CI: £435 million to £671 million).Between 1993 and 2017 in England and Wales, the increase in BMI of people aged 40 to 69 years led to a decrease of 1.13% of a QALY per person per year (95% CI: 0.90% to 1.38%) and an increase in annual healthcare costs of £69 per person (95% CI: £53 to £84).Compared to if all people with a BMI above 25 kg/m2 aged 40 to 69 years in England and Wales in 2017 had a BMI of 25 kg/m2, QALYs are decreased by 580,494 in total per year (95% CI: 457,907 to 717,691) and annual healthcare costs are increased by £3.58 billion (95% CI: £2.75 billion to £4.34 billion).Conclusions Mendelian randomization can be used to estimate the impact of interventions on quality of life and healthcare costs. The effect of increasing BMI on health-related quality of life is much larger when accounting for 240 chronic health conditions, compared with only a limited selection.What is known?The prevalence of obesity in adults in England and Wales has been increasing over time. Obesity is associated with many chronic illnesses, such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, dyslipidaemia, metabolic liver disease, renal and urological diseases, sleep apnoea, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, psychiatric comorbidity, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, and some cancers.Reliably measuring the impact of obesity on quality of life and healthcare costs is key to informing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target obesity, helping prioritisation decisions for the allocation of limited resources to address obesity now, as well as how much additional healthcare funding may be required should the trend of increasing obesity continue.Previous observational methods of estimating the effect of obesity on quality of life and healthcare costs are subject to bias from confounding and reverse causation; Mendelian randomization is less likely to be affected by these biases.What this study addsWe show that Mendelian randomization can be used for policy analysis; in this case, to estimate the effect of an exposure (obesity) on quality of life and healthcare costs. This means we can estimate the cost effectiveness of any specified intervention with potentially less bias than other observational methods.This can be especially useful where in the case of obesity, or for other prevalent behaviours with adverse health impacts, such as smoking and alcohol use, where it is difficult, unethical or impossible to randomise participants to the exposure, as well as for interventions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is rare.The effect of increasing BMI on health-related quality of life may be larger than previously thought, as existing models may underestimate the effect of BMI on QALYs. This is because we accounted for 240 health conditions, a far larger range than has been previously been considered.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 29294. Quality Control filtering of the UK Biobank data was conducted by R.Mitchell, G.Hemani, T.Dudding, L.Paternoster as described in the published protocol (doi:10.5523/bris.3074krb6t2frj29yh2b03x3wxj). The MRC IEU UK Biobank GWAS pipeline was developed by B.Elsworth, R.Mitchell, C.Raistrick, L.Paternoster, G.Hemani, T.Gaunt (doi: 10.5523/bris.pnoat8cxo0u52p6ynfaekeigi). The Medical Research Council (MRC) and the University of Bristol support the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit [MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9, MC_UU_00011/1]. NMD is supported by an Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC) Future Research Leaders grant [ES/N000757/1] and the Norwegian Research Council Grant number 295989. LDH is supported by a Career Development Award from the UK Medical Research Council (MR/M020894/1). PD acknowledges support from a Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship (MR/P014259/1). This work is part of a project entitled “social and economic consequences of health: causal inference methods and longitudinal, intergenerational data”, which is part of the Health Foundation’s Social and Economic Value of Health Programme (Grant ID: 807293). The Health Foundation is an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. No funding body has influenced data collection, analysis or its interpretation. This publication is the work of the authors, who serve as the guarantors for the contents of this paper.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe empirical dataset will be archived with UK Biobank and made available to individuals who obtain the necessary permissions from the study’s data access committees. The code used to clean and analyse the data is available here: https://github.com/sean-harrison-bristol/Robust-causal-inference-for-long-term-policy-decisions