Maternal perceived stress, household disorder, eating behaviors and adiposity of women and their children.

BACKGROUND: Stress is associated with physiological and behavioral adaptations that increase the risk for obesity and related diseases in adults and children. Mechanisms linking stress to chronic disease are diverse and not fully elucidated, but research suggests stress may impact eating behaviors and increase food intake and thereby, risk for obesity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that women's perceived stress and household disorder are associated with more uncontrolled and emotional eating among women, more food responsiveness and emotional overeating among their children, and greater adiposity in both women and their children. METHODS: Women (n = 86) completed the Perceived Stress Scale, Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale, Three Factor Eating Questionnaire, and Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire. Total body fat (%) was measured via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Linear regression models evaluated associations of perceived stress and household disorder with eating behaviors and adiposity of women and their children (4-10 years old). RESULTS: In a sample of predominantly non-Hispanic Black women (84.9%, n = 73), more perceived stress and household disorder were associated with more uncontrolled and emotional eating (p < 0.05). Women's perceived stress was not associated with their children's eating behaviors; however, household disorder was positively associated with children's food responsiveness and emotional overeating (p < 0.05). Perceived stress and household disorder were not associated with adiposity of women or their children. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest household disorder may be a factor for home-based interventions to consider when addressing eating behaviors among families with children.

Strengths and Limitations of BMI in the Diagnosis of Obesity: What is the Path Forward?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to discuss strengths and limitations of body mass index (BMI) in diagnosing obesity, the use of alternative anthropometric measurements, and potential new technology that may change the future of obesity diagnosis and management. RECENT FINDINGS: The diagnosis of obesity requires the anthropometric assessment of adiposity. In clinical settings, this should include BMI with confirmation that elevated BMI represents excess adiposity and a measure of fat distribution (i.e., waist circumference (WC), waist to height ratio (WHtR), or WC divided by height0.5 (WHR.5R). Digital anthropometry and bioelectric impedance (BIA) can estimate fat distribution and be feasibly employed in the clinic. In addition, the diagnosis should include a clinical component assessing the presence and severity of weight-related complications. As anthropometric measures used in the diagnosis of obesity, BMI is generally sufficient if confirmed to represent excess adiposity, and there are advantages to the use of WHtR over WC to assess fat distribution. BIA and digital anthropometry have the potential to provide accurate measures of fat mass and distribution in clinical settings. There should also be a clinical evaluation for the presence and severity of obesity complications that can be used to stage the disease.

DCRM 2.0: Multispecialty practice recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases.

The spectrum of cardiorenal and metabolic diseases comprises many disorders, including obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), dyslipidemias, hypertension, and associated comorbidities such as pulmonary diseases and metabolism dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and metabolism dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASLD and MASH, respectively, formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NAFLD and NASH]). Because cardiorenal and metabolic diseases share pathophysiologic pathways, two or more are often present in the same individual. Findings from recent outcome trials have demonstrated benefits of various treatments across a range of conditions, suggesting a need for practice recommendations that will guide clinicians to better manage complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. To meet this need, we formed an international volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM 2.0 Practice Recommendations, an updated and expanded revision of a previously published multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of persons living with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 22 separate graphics covering the essentials of management to improve general health, control cardiorenal risk factors, and manage cardiorenal and metabolic comorbidities, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Cardiometabolic Disease Staging and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event Prediction in 2 Prospective Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic risk prediction models that incorporate metabolic syndrome traits to predict cardiovascular outcomes may help identify high-risk populations early in the progression of cardiometabolic disease. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine whether a modified cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) system, a validated diabetes prediction model, predicts major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: We developed a predictive model using data accessible in clinical practice [fasting glucose, blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol, triglycerides, smoking status, diabetes status, hypertension medication use] from the REGARDS (REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study to predict MACE [cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and/or nonfatal stroke]. Predictive performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, mean squared errors, misclassification, and area under the curve (AUC) statistics. RESULTS: Among 20,234 REGARDS participants with no history of stroke or myocardial infarction (mean age 64 ± 9.3 years, 58% female, 41% non-Hispanic Black, and 18% diabetes), 2,695 developed incident MACE (13.3%) during a median 10-year follow-up. The CMDS development model in REGARDS for MACE had an AUC of 0.721. Our CMDS model performed similarly to both the ACC/AHA 10-year risk estimate (AUC 0.721 vs 0.716) and the Framingham risk score (AUC 0.673). CONCLUSIONS: The CMDS predicted the onset of MACE with good predictive ability and performed similarly or better than 2 commonly known cardiovascular disease prediction risk tools. These data underscore the importance of insulin resistance as a cardiovascular disease risk factor and that CMDS can be used to identify individuals at high risk for progression to cardiovascular disease.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions and management of obesity & knowledge of glucagon, GLP-1, GIP receptor agonists, and dual agonists.

Background: Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) have historically had limited weight-loss efficacy. However, newer glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA)-based therapies seem to be more effective, including dual agonists of GLP-1R and the glucagon receptor (GCGR) or glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor. Objective: To explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experience in obesity treatment and their understanding of agonists of GCGR, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) RA, and GLP-1 RA. Methods: This cross-sectional online survey of HCPs prescribing AOMs was conducted in the United States in 2023 with a questionnaire designed to evaluate prescribing behavior and understanding of GCGR, GIP RA, and GLP-1 RA. Results: The 785 respondents (251 primary-care physicians [PCPs], 263 endocrinologists, and 271 advanced practice providers [APPs]) reported 55% of their patients had obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 or ≥27 with weight-related complications) and recommended AOMs to 49% overall, significantly more endocrinologists (57% of patients, p < 0.0005) than PCPs (43%) or APPs (46%). The greatest barriers to treatment were medication cost/lack of insurance (mean 4.2 on 1-5 scale [no barrier-extreme barrier]), low patient engagement/adherence (3.3), and inadequate time/staff (3.1). Metformin was the type 2 diabetes (T2D) medication most commonly prescribed to treat obesity in T2D patients (92.5% of respondents). Most HCPs (65%) were very/extremely familiar with GLP-1 RA, but only 30% with GIP RA and 16% with GCGR. Most HCPs expected dual GCGR/GLP-1 RA to benefit many obesity-related conditions; however, only a minority of HCPs perceived that they would benefit non-cardiometabolic complications of obesity. Conclusions: Among HCPs prescribing AOMs, gaps exist in the management of people living with obesity as <50% are prescribed AOMs. Barriers to treatment indicate a need to improve access to AOMs. HCPs were less familiar with GCGR or GIP RA than GLP-1 RA but expect dual GCGR/GLP-1 RA may offer additional benefits, potentially addressing treatment barriers and access. Thus, there is a need for greater education among HCPs regarding the mechanism of action and therapeutic effects of GCGR agonists, and dual GCGR/GLP-1 RA, so that the full range of obesity-related complications can be effectively treated.

Comparative Effects of Randomized Second-line Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes on a Composite Outcome Incorporating Glycemic Control, Body Weight, and Hypoglycemia: An Analysis of the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: In Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) (5,047 participants, mean follow-up 5.0 years), differences in glycemic control were demonstrated over time among four randomized therapies added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are also important outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes. We compared the effects of the four randomized GRADE medications on a composite outcome incorporating glycemic deterioration, weight gain, and hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The composite outcome was time to first occurrence of any of the following: HbA1c >7.5%, confirmed; ≥5% weight gain; or severe or recurrent nonsevere hypoglycemia. Secondary analyses included examination of individual components of the composite outcome, subgroup effects and potential mediators, and treatment satisfaction. Cumulative incidence was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess pairwise group differences in risk of an outcome. RESULTS: Risk of reaching the composite outcome (events per 100 participants per treatment year [PTYs]) was lowest with liraglutide (19 per 100 PTYs) followed by sitagliptin (26 per 100 PTYs), glargine (29 per 100 PTYs), and glimepiride (40 per 100 PTYs); all pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The order was the same for risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia, but risk of glycemic deterioration was lowest with glargine, followed by liraglutide, glimepiride, and sitagliptin. No significant heterogeneity in risk of composite outcome was detected across prespecified covariates. Participants who reached the composite outcome had modestly but significantly lower treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants treated with common second-line drug classes for type 2 diabetes, the liraglutide group had the lowest and glimepiride the highest risk of reaching a composite outcome encompassing glycemic deterioration, weight gain, and hypoglycemia. These findings may inform decision-making regarding type 2 diabetes therapy.

Association of Baseline Factors With Glycemic Outcomes in GRADE: A Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the individual and joint associations of baseline factors with glycemia, and also with differential effectiveness of medications added to metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) participants (with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for <10 years, on metformin, and with HbA1c 6.8-8.5%; N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to a basal insulin (glargine), sulfonylurea (glimepiride), glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist (liraglutide), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (sitagliptin). The glycemic outcome was HbA1c ≥7.0%, subsequently confirmed. Univariate and multivariate regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were used to assess the association of baseline factors with the glycemic outcome at years 1 and 4. RESULTS: In univariate analyses at baseline, younger age (<58 years), Hispanic ethnicity, higher HbA1c, fasting glucose, and triglyceride levels, lower insulin secretion, and relatively greater insulin resistance were associated with the glycemic outcome at years 1 and/or 4. No factors were associated with differential effectiveness of the medications by year 4. In multivariate analyses, treatment group, younger age, and higher baseline HbA1c and fasting glucose were jointly associated with the glycemic outcome by year 4. The superiority of glargine and liraglutide at year 4 persisted after multiple baseline factors were controlled for. CART analyses indicated that failure to maintain HbA1c <7% by year 4 was more likely for younger participants and those with baseline HbA1c ≥7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Several baseline factors were associated with the glycemic outcome but not with differential effectiveness of the four medications. Failure to maintain HbA1c <7% was largely driven by younger age and higher HbA1c at baseline. Factors that predict earlier glycemic deterioration could help in targeting patients for more aggressive management.

Tirzepatide reduces the predicted risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and improves cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with obesity or overweight: SURMOUNT-1 post hoc analysis.

AIM: To assess the effect of tirzepatide on long-term risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) among people with obesity or overweight without diabetes from SURMOUNT-1. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURMOUNT-1, a phase 3 trial, evaluated the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in adults with body mass index ≥30 or ≥27 kg/m2 and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. Participants were randomly assigned to tirzepatide (5/10/15 mg) or placebo. Changes from baseline in cardiometabolic variables were assessed. The predicted 10-year ASCVD risk scores were calculated (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association risk engine) at baseline, week 24, and week 72 in SURMOUNT-1 participants without a history of ASCVD. Percent change in risk scores from baseline to weeks 24 and 72 was compared between tirzepatide and placebo using mixed model for repeated measures analysis. Analyses were also conducted in participants with intermediate to high risk at baseline. RESULTS: Tirzepatide-treated groups demonstrated reductions in cardiometabolic variables over 72 weeks. In participants without a history of ASCVD (N = 2461), the baseline median risk score was low and did not differ across groups (1.5%-1.6%). Relative change in risk from baseline to week 72 was greater for tirzepatide (-23.5% to -16.4%) than placebo (12.7%; P < 0.001). Relative change among participants with intermediate-to-high baseline risk was significantly greater for tirzepatide (P < 0.05). Intermediate-to-high-risk participants demonstrated similar relative change but greater absolute risk reduction compared to the overall population. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide treatment significantly reduced the 10-year predicted risk of ASCVD versus placebo in patients with obesity or overweight without diabetes.

Leptin resistance in children with in utero exposure to maternal obesity and gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Leptin resistance occurs with obesity, but it is unknown if individuals at risk for obesity develop leptin resistance prior to obesity. OBJECTIVE: Investigate whether leptin resistance is independent of weight status in children at risk for obesity due to intrauterine exposure to maternal obesity or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: Mother-child dyads (N = 179) were grouped by maternal pregnancy weight and GDM status: (1) normal weight, no GDM; (2) overweight/obesity, no GDM; (3) overweight/obesity with GDM. Children (4-10 years) were further stratified by current body mass index (BMI) <85th or ≥85th percentile. Leptin resistance of children and mothers was calculated as fasting leptin/fat mass index. Two-way ANOVA was used to assess whether leptin concentrations and leptin resistance differed by current weight status or in utero exposure group, after adjusting for race, sex and Tanner stage. RESULTS: Children with a BMI ≥85th percentile had more leptin resistance than those with a BMI <85th percentile (p < 0.001), but leptin resistance did not differ by in utero exposure. Similarly, leptin resistance in women was associated with weight status and not prior GDM. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that leptin concentrations are associated with obesity but not risk for obesity based on in utero exposure to maternal obesity or GDM.

Tirzepatide reduces the predicted risk of developing type 2 diabetes in people with obesity or overweight: Post hoc analysis of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

AIM: We assessed the impact of tirzepatide on 10-year predicted risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among participants in the SURMOUNT-1 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of SURMOUNT-1, the Cardiometabolic Disease Staging risk engine was used to calculate the 10-year predicted risk of T2D at baseline, week 24 and week 72 among participants randomized to receive 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or placebo. Mean changes in risk scores from baseline to weeks 24 and 72 were compared between tirzepatide and placebo groups. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on participants' glycaemic status and body mass index at baseline. RESULTS: Mean baseline T2D predicted risk scores did not differ between tirzepatide and placebo groups (range: 22.9%-24.3%). At week 72, mean absolute T2D predicted risk score reductions were significantly greater in tirzepatide groups (5 mg, 12.4%; 10 mg, 14.4%; 15 mg, 14.7%) versus placebo (0.7%). At week 72, median relative predicted risk reductions following tirzepatide treatment ranged from 60.3% to 69.0%. For participants with and without prediabetes, risk reductions were significantly greater in tirzepatide groups versus placebo. At week 72, participants with prediabetes (range: 16.0%-20.3%) had greater mean risk score reductions from baseline versus those without prediabetes (range: 10.1%-11.3%). Across body mass index subgroups, mean reductions from baseline were significantly greater in tirzepatide groups versus placebo. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide treatment significantly reduced the 10-year predicted risk of developing T2D compared with placebo in participants with obesity or overweight, regardless of baseline glycaemic status.

Effect of semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly on 10-year type 2 diabetes risk in adults with overweight or obesity.

OBJECTIVE: In the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) trials, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg plus lifestyle intervention reduced body weight and improved cardiometabolic parameters in adults with obesity (or overweight with weight-related comorbidities). Effects on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) require investigation. METHODS: STEP 1 (68 weeks) and 5 (104 weeks) randomized participants to semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo. STEP 4 included a 20-week semaglutide run-in followed by randomization to 48 weeks of continued semaglutide or withdrawal (placebo). Ten-year T2D risk scores were calculated post hoc using Cardiometabolic Disease Staging. RESULTS: In STEP 1 (N = 1583), relative risk score reductions were greater with semaglutide versus placebo (semaglutide: -61.1%; placebo: -12.9%; p < 0.0001). These reductions were maintained to week 104 in STEP 5 (N = 295; semaglutide: -60.0%; placebo: 3.5%; p < 0.0001). Risk scores during the STEP 4 run-in period (N = 776) were reduced from 20.6% to 11.1% and further to 7.7% at week 68 with continued semaglutide, increasing to 15.4% with withdrawal (relative risk score change: semaglutide: -32.1%; placebo: +40.6%; p < 0.0001). Risk score reductions mirrored weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiometabolic Disease Staging risk assessment suggests that once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg may substantially lower 10-year T2D risk in people with overweight or obesity.

Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity in people with type 2 diabetes (SURMOUNT-2): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Weight reduction is essential for improving health outcomes in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus placebo, for weight management in people living with obesity and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in seven countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 or higher and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7-10% (53-86 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a computer-generated random sequence via a validated interactive web-response system, to receive either once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (10 mg or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were the percent change in bodyweight from baseline and bodyweight reduction of 5% or higher. The treatment-regimen estimand assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or initiation of antihyperglycaemic rescue therapy. Efficacy and safety endpoints were analysed with data from all randomly assigned participants (intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04657003. FINDINGS: Between March 29, 2021, and April 10, 2023, of 1514 adults assessed for eligibility, 938 (mean age 54·2 years [SD 10·6], 476 [51%] were female, 710 [76%] were White, and 561 [60%] were Hispanic or Latino) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of tirzepatide 10 mg (n=312), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=311), or placebo (n=315). Baseline mean bodyweight was 100·7 kg (SD 21·1), BMI 36·1 kg/m2 (SD 6·6), and HbA1c 8·02% (SD 0·89; 64·1 mmol/mol [SD 9·7]). Least-squares mean change in bodyweight at week 72 with tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg was -12·8% (SE 0·6) and -14·7% (0·5), respectively, and -3·2% (0·5) with placebo, resulting in estimated treatment differences versus placebo of -9·6% percentage points (95% CI -11·1 to -8·1) with tirzepatide 10 mg and -11·6% percentage points (-13·0 to -10·1) with tirzepatide 15 mg (all p<0·0001). More participants treated with tirzepatide versus placebo met bodyweight reduction thresholds of 5% or higher (79-83% vs 32%). The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal-related, including nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting and were mostly mild to moderate in severity, with few events leading to treatment discontinuation (<5%). Serious adverse events were reported by 68 (7%) participants overall and two deaths occurred in the tirzepatide 10 mg group, but deaths were not considered to be related to the study treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: In this 72-week trial in adults living with obesity and type 2 diabetes, once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg provided substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in bodyweight, with a safety profile that was similar to other incretin-based therapies for weight management. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, semaglutide 50 mg, taken once per day versus placebo for the treatment of overweight or obesity in adults without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, superiority trial enrolled adults with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with bodyweight-related complications and comorbidities, without type 2 diabetes. The trial was done at 50 outpatient clinics in nine countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) via an interactive web-response system to oral semaglutide escalated to 50 mg, or visually matching placebo, once per day for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention. Group assignment was masked for participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes. Coprimary endpoints were the percentage change in bodyweight and whether participants reached a bodyweight reduction of at least 5% at week 68 for oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo, assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of other bodyweight-lowering therapies (an intention-to-treat analysis). Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05035095), is now complete. FINDINGS: From Sept 13 to Nov 22, 2021, 709 participants were screened, of whom 667 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 50 mg (n=334) or placebo (n=333). The estimated mean bodyweight change from baseline to week 68 was -15·1% (SE 0·5) with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus -2·4% (0·5) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -12·7 percentage points, 95% CI -14·2 to -11·3; p<0·0001). More participants reached bodyweight reductions of at least 5% (269 [85%] of 317 vs 76 [26%] of 295; odds ratio [OR] 12·6, 95% CI 8·5 to 18·7; p<0·0001), 10% (220 [69%] vs 35 [12%]; OR 14·7, 9·6 to 22·6), 15% (170 [54%] vs 17 [6%]; OR 17·9, 10·4 to 30·7), and 20% (107 [34%] vs 8 [3%]; OR 18·5, 8·8 to 38·9) at week 68 with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo. Adverse events were more frequent with oral semaglutide 50 mg (307 [92%] of 334) than with placebo (285 [86%] of 333). Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild to moderate) were reported in 268 (80%) participants with oral semaglutide 50 mg and 154 (46%) with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide 50 mg once per day led to a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Addressing Stigma and Bias in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Obesity/Adiposity-Based Chronic Disease and Assessing Bias and Stigmatization as Determinants of Disease Severity.

OBJECTIVE: To focus on the intersection of perception, diagnosis, stigma, and weight bias in the management of obesity and obtain consensus on actionable steps to improve care provided for persons with obesity. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) convened a consensus conference of interdisciplinary health care professionals to discuss the interplay between the diagnosis of obesity using adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD) nomenclature and staging, weight stigma, and internalized weight bias (IWB) with development of actionable guidance to aid clinicians in mitigating IWB and stigma in that context. RESULTS: The following affirmed and emergent concepts were proposed: (1) obesity is ABCD, and these terms can be used in differing ways to communicate; (2) classification categories of obesity should have improved nomenclature across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) using ethnic-specific BMI ranges and waist circumference (WC); (3) staging the clinical severity of obesity based on the presence and severity of ABCD complications may reduce weight-centric contribution to weight stigma and IWB; (4) weight stigma and internalized bias are both drivers and complications of ABCD and can impair quality of life, predispose to psychological disorders, and compromise the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions; (5) the presence and of stigmatization and IWB should be assessed in all patients and be incorporated into the staging of ABCD severity; and (6) optimal care will necessitate increased awareness and the development of educational and interventional tools for health care professionals that address IWB and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus panel has proposed an approach for integrating bias and stigmatization, psychological health, and social determinants of health in a staging system for ABCD severity as an aid to patient management. To effectively address stigma and IWB within a chronic care model for patients with obesity, there is a need for health care systems that are prepared to provide evidence-based, person-centered treatments; patients who understand that obesity is a chronic disease and are empowered to seek care and participate in behavioral therapy; and societies that promote policies and infrastructure for bias-free compassionate care, access to evidence-based interventions, and disease prevention.

Correction: Development and validation of a model for predicting incident type 2 diabetes using quantitative clinical data and a Bayesian logistic model: A nationwide cohort and modeling study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003232.].

Obesity and Overweight: Probing Causes, Consequences, and Novel Therapeutic Approaches Through the American Heart Association's Strategically Focused Research Network.

As the worldwide prevalence of overweight and obesity continues to rise, so too does the urgency to fully understand mediating mechanisms, to discover new targets for safe and effective therapeutic intervention, and to identify biomarkers to track obesity and the success of weight loss interventions. In 2016, the American Heart Association sought applications for a Strategically Focused Research Network (SFRN) on Obesity. In 2017, 4 centers were named, including Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center. These 4 centers were convened to study mechanisms and therapeutic targets in obesity, to train a talented cadre of American Heart Association SFRN-designated fellows, and to initiate and sustain effective and enduring collaborations within the individual centers and throughout the SFRN networks. This review summarizes the central themes, major findings, successful training of highly motivated and productive fellows, and the innovative collaborations and studies forged through this SFRN on Obesity. Leveraging expertise in in vitro and cellular model assays, animal models, and humans, the work of these 4 centers has made a significant impact in the field of obesity, opening doors to important discoveries, and the identification of a future generation of obesity-focused investigators and next-step clinical trials. The creation of the SFRN on Obesity for these 4 centers is but the beginning of innovative science and, importantly, the birth of new collaborations and research partnerships to propel the field forward.

Clinical and Cost Benefits of Anti-Obesity Medication for US Veterans Participating in the MOVE! Weight Management Program.

Abstract This study investigated the clinical and economic impact of anti-obesity medications (AOMs; orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate extended-release [ER], naltrexone ER/bupropion ER) among United States Veterans with obesity participating in Motivating Overweight/Obese Veterans Everywhere! (MOVE!), a government-initiated weight management program. The study population was identified from electronic medical records of the Veterans Health Administration (2010-2020). Clinical indices of obesity and health care resource utilization and costs were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months after the initial dispensing of an AOM in the AOM+MOVE! cohort (N = 3732, mean age 57 years, 79% male) or on the corresponding date of an inpatient or outpatient encounter in the MOVE! cohort (N = 7883, mean age 58 years, 81% male). At 6 months postindex, the AOM+MOVE! cohort had better cardiometabolic indices (eg, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c) than the MOVE! cohort, with the trends persisting at 12 and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort was significantly more likely than the MOVE! cohort to have weight decreases of 5%-10%, 10%-15%, and >15% and lower body mass index at 6, 12, and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort also had fewer inpatient and emergency department visits than the MOVE! cohort, which was associated with lower mean total medical costs including inpatient costs. These results suggest that combining AOM treatment with the MOVE! program could yield long-term cost savings for the Veterans Affairs network and meaningful clinical improvements for Veterans with obesity.