This week I will be giving a key note address on the use of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (and the shortcomings of BMI) at the 2015 Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium (MISS) in Las Vegas.
Without doubt, minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has revolutionised bariatric surgery – what was once a messy, life-threatening operation is now an elegant procedure, which usually has patients up and about the next day.
But are the BMI-based indications for bariatric surgery still the best way to go? Not when we have better systems like the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) to determine how “sick” someone is rather than just how “big”.
This morning, in a separate presentation, I will also be providing an extensive overview on the efficacy and safety of the modern anti-obesity medications that have recently become available in the US.
While these medications may still not help patients achieve or maintain quite the degree of weight loss seen with surgery, they are certainly viable treatment options for individuals with less severe obesity or those unwilling or unable to undergo surgery.
Although evidence for this is still scarce, these medications may well also come to play a role in helping prevent the weight gain that some patients experience after surgery.
If nothing else, minimally invasive bariatric surgeons should certainly be aware of the available medical treatments as they counsel their patients about the pros and cons of surgery.
Las Vegas, NV
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.
In 2011, The Lancet dedicated a special issue to the topic of obesity – the general gist being that obesity is a world wide problem which will not be reversed without government leadership and will require a systems approach across multiple sectors. The Lancet also noted that current assumptions about the speed and sustainability of weight loss are wrong.
This week, The Lancet again dedicates itself to this topic with ten articles that explore both the prevention and management of obesity.
According to Christina Roberto, Assistant Professor of Social and Behavioural Sciences and Nutrition at the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health and a key figure behind this new Lancet Series, “There has been limited and patchy progress on tackling obesity globally”.
Or, as Sabine Kleinert and Richard Horton, note in their accompanying commentary, “While some developed countries have seen an apparent slowing of the rise in obesity prevalence since 2006, no country has reported significant decreases for three decades.”
As Kleinert and Horton correctly point out, a huge part of this lack of progress may well be attributable to the increasingly polarised false and unhelpful dichotomies that divide both the experts and the public debate, thereby offering policy makers a perfect excuse for inaction.
These dichotomies include: individual blame versus an obesogenic society; obesity as a disease versus sequelae of unrestrained gluttony; obesity as a disability versus the new normal; lack of physical activity as a cause versus overconsumption of unhealthy food and beverages; prevention versus treatment; overnutrition versus undernutrition.
I have yet read to read all the articles in this series and will likely be discussing what I find in the coming posts but from what I can tell based on a first glance at the summaries, there appears to be much rehashing of appeals to governments to better control and police the food environments with some acknowledgement that healthcare systems may need to step up to the plate and do their job of providing treatments to people who already have the problem.
As much as I commend the authors and The Lancet for this monumental effort, I would be surprised if this new call to action delivers results that are any more compelling that those that followed the 2011 series.
I can only hope I am wrong.
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.