Rob Carter

Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action

The global obesity epidemic has been escalating for four decades, yet sustained prevention efforts have barely begun. An emerging science that uses quantitative models has provided key insights into the dynamics of this epidemic, and enabled researchers to combine evidence and to calculate the effect of behaviours, interventions, and policies at several levels--from individual to population. Forecasts suggest that high rates of obesity will affect future population health and economics. Energy gap models have quantified the association of changes in energy intake and expenditure with weight change, and have documented the effect of higher intake on obesity prevalence. Empirical evidence that shows interventions are effective is limited but expanding. We identify several cost-effective policies that governments should prioritise for implementation. Systems science provides a framework for organising the complexity of forces driving the obesity epidemic and has important implications for policy makers. Many parties (such as governments, international organisations, the private sector, and civil society) need to contribute complementary actions in a coordinated approach. Priority actions include policies to improve the food and built environments, cross-cutting actions (such as leadership, healthy public policies, and monitoring), and much greater funding for prevention programmes. Increased investment in population obesity monitoring would improve the accuracy of forecasts and evaluations. The integration of actions within existing systems into both health and non-health sectors (trade, agriculture, transport, urban planning, and development) can greatly increase the influence and sustainability of policies. We call for a sustained worldwide effort to monitor, prevent, and control obesity.

A new approach to assessing the health benefit from obesity interventions in children and adolescents: The assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity project

Objective:To report on a new modelling approach developed for the assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity (ACE-Obesity) project and the likely population health benefit and strength of evidence for 13 potential obesity prevention interventions in children and adolescents in Australia.Methods:We used the best available evidence, including evidence from non-traditional epidemiological study designs, to determine the health benefits as body mass index (BMI) units saved and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) saved. We developed new methods to model the impact of behaviours on BMI post-intervention where this was not measured and the impacts on DALYs over the childs lifetime (on the assumption that changes in BMI were maintained into adulthood). A working group of stakeholders provided input into decisions on the selection of interventions, the assumptions for modelling and the strength of the evidence.Results:The likely health benefit varied considerably, as did the strength of the evidence from which that health benefit was calculated. The greatest health benefit is likely to be achieved by the ‘Reduction of TV advertising of high fat and/or high sugar foods and drinks to children’, ‘Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding’ and the ‘multi-faceted school-based programme with an active physical education component’ interventions.Conclusions:The use of consistent methods and common health outcome measures enables valid comparison of the potential impact of interventions, but comparisons must take into account the strength of the evidence used. Other considerations, including cost-effectiveness and acceptability to stakeholders, will be presented in future ACE-Obesity papers. Information gaps identified include the need for new and more effective initiatives for the prevention of overweight and obesity and for better evaluations of public health interventions.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND The absence of trial data comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy is a crucial knowledge gap in uro-oncology. We aimed to compare these two approaches in terms of functional and oncological outcomes and report the early postoperative outcomes at 12 weeks. METHOD In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, were able to read and speak English, had no previous history of head injury, dementia, or psychiatric illness or no other concurrent cancer, had an estimated life expectancy of 10 years or more, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital (Brisbane, QLD). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patients condition. Further, a masked central pathologist reviewed the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of EPIC) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and IIEF) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 months and oncological outcome (positive surgical margin status and biochemical and imaging evidence of progression at 24 months). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality of life outcomes over 24 months. We report here the early outcomes at 6 weeks and 12 weeks. The per-protocol populations were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), number ACTRN12611000661976. FINDINGS Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and 163 to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group. 121 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy completed the 12 week questionnaire versus 131 assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (74·50 vs 71·10; p=0·09) or 12 weeks post-surgery (83·80 vs 82·50; p=0·48). Sexual function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (30·70 vs 32·70; p=0·45) or 12 weeks post-surgery (35·00 vs 38·90; p=0·18). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of positive surgical margins between the two groups (15 [10%] in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs 23 [15%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a Δ of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were not significantly different (p=0·21). 14 patients (9%) in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group versus six (4%) in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group had postoperative complications (p=0·052). 12 (8%) men receiving radical retropubic prostatectomy and three (2%) men receiving robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy experienced intraoperative adverse events. INTERPRETATION These two techniques yield similar functional outcomes at 12 weeks. Longer term follow-up is needed. In the interim, we encourage patients to choose an experienced surgeon they trust and with whom they have rapport, rather than a specific surgical approach. FUNDING Cancer Council Queensland.

Lifetime Cost of Stroke Subtypes in Australia Findings From the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

Background and Purpose— Little is known about any variations in resource use and costs of care between stroke subtypes, especially nonhospital costs. The purpose of this study was to describe the patterns of resource use and to estimate the first-year and lifetime costs for stroke subtypes. Methods— A cost-of-illness model was used to estimate the total first-year costs and lifetime costs of stroke subtypes for all strokes (subarachnoid hemorrhages excluded) that occurred in Australia during 1997. For each subtype, average cost per case during the first year and the present value of average cost per case over a lifetime were calculated. Resource use data obtained in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS) were used. Results— The present value of total lifetime costs for all strokes was Aus

Is phase-specific, community-oriented treatment of early psychosis- an economically viable method of improving outcome?

1.3 billion (US

Priority setting in health: Origins, description and application of the Australian Assessing Cost–Effectiveness initiative

985 million). Total lifetime costs were greatest for ischemic stroke (72%; Aus

The cost of obesity: the Australian perspective.

936.8 million; US

The Economic Analysis of Prevention in Mental Health Programs

709.7 million), followed by intracerebral hemorrhage (26%; Aus

Economic evaluation of skin cancer prevention in Australia

334.5 million; US

The cost-effectiveness of removing television advertising of high-fat and/or high-sugar food and beverages to Australian children

253.4 million) and unclassified stroke (2%; Aus