Even, if one were to limit more intense obesity management (such as behavioral, pharmacological and/or surgical treatments) to those with more severe obesity (Edmonton Obesity Staging System 2+), this would still overwhelm the capacity of existing tertiary care systems.
Thus, as William Dietz and colleagues point out in their recent article in the 2015 Lancet Obesity Series, even the majority of severe (or complicated) obesity will still need to be managed in primary care.
“Care for adults with severe obesity has generally been delivered in tertiary-care centres. Although such programmes are efficacious, they are poorly suited to address the number of patients with severe obesity. Alternative approaches for the management of adults with severe obesity include primary-care settings or community settings to deliver care.”
“Transition from efficacy to effectiveness will require substantial and challenging changes in how primary care is delivered. Practices often lack the organisational structure, such as patient registries and methods for systematic tracking to assess clinical interventions, care teams to manage patients with chronic illnesses, or health information systems that support the use of evidence-based practices at the point-of-care to provide longitudinal care for chronic illnesses.”
Where they exist, these structures are already at capacity dealing with other chronic diseases including diabetes, hypertension, COPD and other lifelong disorders.
Even if many of these problems are directly related to excess weight (or would at least substantially improve with weight loss), most primary care practitioners have yet to take on the challenge of managing obesity (not just the obese patient).
Surely enthusiasm for obesity management will increase in primary care settings as more effective obesity treatments become available – making these available to those who stand to benefit, needs to be a key priority of health care system planners and payers.
The fact that many payers chose not to cover obesity treatments by delegating this to the category of “lifestyle”, shows that they have yet to take obesity seriously as a chronic disease in its own right.
It may also demonstrates their biases and discrimination of people living obesity – after all the same payers have no problem shelling out billions of dollars to treat other “lifestyle” disorders like strokes, heart attacks, type 2 diabetes or COPD.
This is where health policies can and should make a difference to people living with obesity – the sooner, the better.
For all my Canadian readers (and any international readers planning to attend), here just a quick reminder that the deadline for early bird discount registration for the upcoming 4th Canadian Obesity Summit in Toronto, April 28 – May 2, ends March 3rd.
To anyone who has been at a previous Canadian Summit, attending is certainly a “no-brainer” – for anyone, who hasn’t been, check out these workshops that are only part of the 5-day scientific program – there are also countless plenary sessions and poster presentations – check out the full program here.
To register – click here.
It would hardly come as a surprise to regular readers that I would be delighted to see the Edmonton Obesity Staging System featured quite prominently in the article on obesity management by Dietz and colleagues in the 2015 Lancet series on obesity.
Here is what the article has to say about EOSS:
“The Edmonton obesity staging system (EOSS) has been used to provide additional guidance for therapeutic interventions in individual patients (table 1). EOSS provides a practical method to address the treatment paradigm. In principle, EOSS stages 0 and 1 should be managed in a community and primary care setting. Recent data from the USA suggest that 8% of patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m²) account for 40% of the total costs of obesity, whereas the more prevalent grade 1 obesity accounts for a third of costs. These findings suggest that greater priority should be accorded to EOSS stages 3 and 4, resulting in greater focus on pharmacological and surgical management delivered in specialist centres.”
These recommendations are not surprising, as EOSS was specifically designed to provide a much better representation of how “sick” a patient is rather than just how “big” she is.
This is why EOSS has now found its way not just into the 5As of Obesity Management framework of the Canadian Obesity Network but also into the treatment algorithm of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians.
To download a slide presentation on how EOSS works click here.
The title of this post may sound like a “no-brainer”, but the research literature on the long-term health benefits of weight loss from longitudinal intervention studies in people with severe obesity is much thinner than most people would expect.
Thus, a new study from our group, that looks at the relationship between changes in body weight and changes in health status over two years in patients with severe obesity enrolled in the Alberta Population-based Prospective Evaluation of the Quality of Life Outcomes and Economic Impact of Bariatric Surgery (APPLES) study, published in OBESITY, may well be of considerable interest.
As described previously, APPLES is a 500-patient cohort study in which consecutive, consenting adults with BMI levels > 35 kg/m2 were recruited from the Edmonton Adult Bariatric Specialty Clinic. The 500 patients enrolled were between 18 and 60 years old and were either wait-listed (n=150), beginning intensive medical treatment (n=200) or had just been approved for bariatric surgery (n=150). Complete follow-up data at 24 months was available for over 80% of participants.
At study enrollment, the proportion of patients who reported >2 and >3 chronic conditions was 95.4% and 85.8%, respectively. The most common single chronic conditions at baseline were joint pain (72.2%), anxiety or depression (65.4%), hypertension (63.4%), dyslipidemia (60.4%), diabetes mellitus (44.6%), gastrointestinal reflux disease (35.4%), and sleep apnea (33.5%).
After 2 years, just over 50% of participants had maintained a weight loss > 5%, with a mean weight change for the entire cohort of about 13 kg.
Losing > 5% weight was associated with an almost 2-fold increased likelihood of reporting a reduction in multimorbidity at 2-year follow-up, whereby outcomes varied between treatment groups: in the surgery group, the top three chronic conditions that decreased in prevalence over follow-up were sleep apnea (43% at baseline vs. 25% at 2 years,), dyslipidemia (60% vs. 47%), and anxiety or depression (59% vs. 47%); in the medically treated group anxiety or depression (69% vs. 57%) and joint pain (77% vs. 67%); and none in the wait-listed group.
As expected, any reduction in multimorbidity was associated with a clinically important improvement in overall health status.
In summary, this paper not only documents the considerable multimorbidity associated with severe obesity, it also documents the clinically important improvement in health status associated even with a rather modest 5% weight loss over 2 years in these individuals.
Anyone interested in the issue of obesity and cardiovascular disease may want to get a copy of the latest edition of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology, which includes a number of review articles and opinion pieces on a wide range of issues related to obesity and cardiovascular disease.
Here is the table of contents:
Lim SP, Arasaratnam P, Chow BJ, Beanlands RS, Hessian RC: Obesity and the challenges of noninvasive imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease.
Garcia-Labbé D, Ruka E, Bertrand OF, Voisine P, Costerousse O, Poirier P. Obesity and Coronary Artery Disease: Evaluation and Treatment.
Lovren F, Teoh H, Verma S. Obesity and Atherosclerosis: Mechanistic Insights.
Sankaralingam S, Kim RB, Padwal RS. The Impact of Obesity on the Pharmacology of Medications Used for Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control.
Piché MÈ, Auclair A, Harvey J, Marceau S, Poirier P. How to Choose and Use Bariatric Surgery in 2015.
Poirier P, McCrindle BW, Leiter LA. Obesity-it must not remain the neglected risk factor in cardiology.
Lang JJ, McNeil J, Tremblay MS, Saunders TJ. Sit less, stand more: A randomized point-of-decision prompt intervention to reduce sedentary time.