Search

Objective: The study aim was to review the economic evaluation literature of commercially available and effective nonsurgical weight‐loss interventions to investigate whether there is evidence to support claims of cost‐effectiveness (i.e., good value for money) or cost savings (i.e., a positive return on investment). Methods: Relevant databases were systematically reviewed to identify economic evaluations of commercially available weight‐loss products and services shown to result in clinically significant weight loss. Five weight‐loss medications (orlistat, liraglutide, naltrexone‐bupropion, semaglutide, and phentermine‐topiramate), two meal replacement programs (Jenny Craig, Optifast), and one behavioral intervention (Weight Watchers [WW]) that met inclusion criteria were identified. After screening, 32 relevant comparisons of cost‐effectiveness or cost savings across 20 studies were identified. Results: Ten of twenty pharmaceutical comparisons showed evidence of cost‐effectiveness based on established thresholds. Four of twelve nonpharmaceutical comparisons provided evidence of cost‐effectiveness, and five made claims of cost savings. However, methodological concerns cast doubt on the robustness of these claims. Conclusions: Evidence of cost‐effectiveness for commercially available, evidence‐based, nonsurgical weight‐loss interventions is mixed. There is no evidence for cost‐saving weight‐loss medications and only weak evidence for behavioral and weight‐loss interventions. Results provide a call to action to generate more robust evidence of the economic value proposition for these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alveolar ridge preservation is routinely indicated in clinical practice with the purpose of attenuating postextraction ridge atrophy. Over the past two decades numerous clinical studies and reviews on this topic have populated the literature. In recent years the focus has primarily been on analyzing efficacy outcomes pertaining to postextraction dimensional changes, whereas other relevant facets of alveolar ridge preservation therapy have remained unexplored. With this premise, we carried out a comprehensive evidence‐based assessment of the complications associated with different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation and modeled the cost‐effectiveness of different therapeutic modalities as a function of changes in ridge width and height. We conclude that, among allogeneic and xenogeneic bone graft materials, increased expenditure does not translate into increased effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation therapy. On the other hand, a significant association between expenditure on a barrier membrane and reduced horizontal and vertical ridge resorption was observed, though only to a certain degree, beyond which the return on investment was significantly diminished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to our paper, we understand that James Heckman communicated to the journal Editors states that the Heckman Curve does not describe how the average return on investment of programs differs by the age of recipients. This clarification is useful as many people in the policy community have understood the Heckman Curve in this manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]