News

Obesity as a disease: Implications for treatment and reimbursement

View on the News

Adding patients to regulatory perspective

In December 2013, the AGA's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology (CGIT), along with the Food and Drug Administration, held a workshop on "Changing Regulatory and Reimbursement Paradigms for Medical Devices in the Treatment of Metabolic Diseases: How to Estimate and Reward True Patient-Centric Value."

Dr. Jay Pasricha
The primary objective of this meeting was to bring together thought leaders from the government, investor community, private payers, medtech companies, and entrepreneurs and engage them in a conversation about what is needed to reform current regulatory and reimbursement practices. Leading up to this conference was the recognition that conventional approaches are no longer adequate for several reasons. First, they are usually a yes/no binary process based on simple safety and efficacy standards and do not take into account the many nuances and trade-offs that patients consider when examining different procedures for the same indication. For example, an outpatient endoscopic procedure for obesity may not have close to the effectiveness of gastric bypass surgery but is an attractive option to patients because of its simplicity and lack of serious side effects. Therefore, a major theme of this workshop was how to calculate and include the patient's perspective when evaluating a new procedure or technology.

The theme of the workshop was broad, but obesity and reflux were chosen as representative conditions that highlighted the challenges that companies and innovators face. The FDA showcased some truly innovative GI devices. These initiatives were praised by the other groups, and it is hoped the workshop will inspire similar introspection into coverage policies as well.

It also became clear at the workshop that continuing with current regulatory and reimbursement procedures may result in the throttling of medical innovation. Therefore, taking ownership of the reform process is a task that all parties need to embrace.

The workshop was very successful in bringing together representatives from all walks, and members in the audience enthusiastically joined vigorous discussions by the panel. As a follow-up, the CGIT and FDA are working on a white paper that will lay out a road map for much needed changes.

Dr. Jay Pasricha is director of the Center for Neurogastroenterology and professor (PAR) of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.


 

AT AN FDA/AGA WORKSHOP

WASHINGTON – Despite the recent attention given to considering obesity a disease, there are still many limitations to providing treatments for obesity and receiving adequate reimbursement for those treatments, Dr. Lee Kaplan said at a public workshop cosponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The American Medical Association resolution to recognize obesity as a disease in 2013 has no legal authority, and therefore does not represent as much progress as suggested by the media attention surrounding the announcement, said Dr. Kaplan, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston.

Dr. Lee M. Kaplan

The AMA resolution was preceded by the Internal Revenue Service’s determination that obesity could qualify as a medical deduction in 2007, and in 2008, the Obesity Society provided support for considering obesity as a medical disorder.

But despite these apparent signs of progress, limitations remain. Weight loss drugs are excluded under Medicare Part D coverage, and while Medicare has started coverage for nutritional counseling, only services provided in a primary care setting are covered, he pointed out. An estimated 1 of every 400 people with obesity in the United States has bariatric surgery every year, but 1 in 100-150 of every 400 meets the criteria for surgery, which "doesn’t sound like we are addressing the problem very seriously," he said.

One problem is that obesity, which has many causes, is lumped together "into one big group," raising the issue of whether treating obesity would require an investment that is so huge, "that even as a society we cannot make it."

A critical issue is how to define obesity, Dr. Kaplan said. A simple definition is excess fat accumulation that presents a risk to health, but this definition does not include ways of measuring excess fat. One measurement, body mass index, is a marker, not a definition of obesity.

A major barrier is the development of an effective therapy, he said, noting that other than gastric bands, there are no devices on the market to treat obesity, and the four drugs approved by the FDA have modest efficacy overall and are not widely used. Another major barrier is "provider utilization," getting the provider to prescribe treatments and obtain reimbursement for the costs of treatment.

"There is also a large gap between the relatively noninvasive treatments and the invasive, more effective therapies, which needs to be filled by midlevel therapies," he said. Those therapies should be gastrointestinal therapies almost exclusively, he added. The current treatment strategy is fairly simplistic: Patients are asked to change their lifestyle and when that does not work, the next step is to see a dietician, psychologist, or another professional to help with their lifestyle changes, followed by the addition of medication if that does not work. Surgery is broached in a small number of patients.

"Obesity is a disease whether we call it one or not, because it behaves like a disease," and there are implications to viewing it as a disease, he said. Therapy should be physiologically based, and the heterogeneity in the underlying causes of obesity, which explains the variable treatment responses, provides an opportunity to benefit selected subpopulations.

Considering the number of disorders that are associated with obesity, it is not surprising that treatment responses vary widely, Dr. Kaplan said. People with one defect may do better than others with gastric bypass, and some people may respond better than others to the approved combination of phentermine and topiramate (Qsymia) – as reflected in the ranges of response rates associated with these therapies, he pointed out.

The average excess weight loss with gastric bypass, the most effective therapy for obesity, is about 65%, but it can be as low as 20% in some people. With banding, some patients lose all or most of their excess weight, but most lose about 25%-30%, he said. Similarly, Dr. Kaplan found some patients responded well to treatment with sibutramine (which is no longer marketed), while others did not respond well; the same pattern was seen with lorcaserin.

"Whether you’re talking about a drug, a device, surgery, or lifestyle modifications, ... you see this very broad response," because there are subtypes of obesity, he said. Identifying the subgroups of patients that are highly responsive to any of these treatments could increase the success rate of the treatment, he noted.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

Recommended Reading

RYGB showed better nutritional outcomes than duodenal switch
MDedge Surgery
‘Substantial’ weight loss seen 3 years after bariatric surgery
MDedge Surgery
Gastric bypass associated with greatest improvement in cardiac risk factors
MDedge Surgery
Discharge protocols cut 30-day bariatric surgery readmissions
MDedge Surgery
Gastric bypass associated with reversal of aging process
MDedge Surgery
Cognitive impairment at baseline linked to poorer bariatric surgery outcomes
MDedge Surgery
Gastric banding benefited overweight, not just obese in type 2 diabetes
MDedge Surgery
Complication gap narrows between low- and high-volume bariatric centers
MDedge Surgery
Lower urinary tract symptoms bother obese women more than obese men
MDedge Surgery
Psychoeducation, compliance contracts curb postsurgery alcohol abuse
MDedge Surgery