IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003725.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity: A mendelian randomisation study

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Harrison
  • Padraig Dixon
  • Hayley E Jones
  • Alisha R Davies
  • Laura D Howe
  • Neil M Davies

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of obesity has increased in the United Kingdom, and reliably measuring the impact on quality of life and the total healthcare cost from obesity is key to informing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target obesity, and determining healthcare funding. Current methods for estimating cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity may be subject to confounding and reverse causation. The aim of this study is to apply a new approach using mendelian randomisation for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target body mass index (BMI), which may be less affected by confounding and reverse causation than previous approaches. Methods and findings: We estimated health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and both primary and secondary healthcare costs for 310,913 men and women of white British ancestry aged between 39 and 72 years in UK Biobank between recruitment (2006 to 2010) and 31 March 2017. We then estimated the causal effect of differences in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs using mendelian randomisation. For this, we used instrumental variable regression with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for BMI, derived using a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of BMI, with age, sex, recruitment centre, and 40 genetic principal components as covariables to estimate the effect of a unit increase in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs. Finally, we used simulations to estimate the likely effect on BMI of policy relevant interventions for BMI, then used the mendelian randomisation estimates to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Conclusions: Mendelian randomisation can be used to estimate the impact of interventions on quality of life and healthcare costs. We observed that 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. This means that previous cost-effectiveness studies have likely underestimated the effect of BMI on quality of life and, therefore, the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce BMI. Sean Harrison and colleagues use Mendelian randomization techniques to estimate the cost effectiveness of interventions targeting body mass index.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Harrison & Padraig Dixon & Hayley E Jones & Alisha R Davies & Laura D Howe & Neil M Davies, 2021. "Long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity: A mendelian randomisation study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-24, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003725
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003725
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003725
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003725&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003725?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiwoo Lee & Sakari Jukarainen & Antti Karvanen & Padraig Dixon & Neil M. Davies & George Davey Smith & Pradeep Natarajan & Andrea Ganna, 2023. "Quantifying the causal impact of biological risk factors on healthcare costs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003725. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.