Obesity Management in Adults: A Review.

Importance: Obesity affects approximately 42% of US adults and is associated with increased rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, sleep disorders, osteoarthritis, and premature death. Observations: A body mass index (BMI) of 25 or greater is commonly used to define overweight, and a BMI of 30 or greater to define obesity, with lower thresholds for Asian populations (BMI ≥25-27.5), although use of BMI alone is not recommended to determine individual risk. Individuals with obesity have higher rates of incident cardiovascular disease. In men with a BMI of 30 to 39, cardiovascular event rates are 20.21 per 1000 person-years compared with 13.72 per 1000 person-years in men with a normal BMI. In women with a BMI of 30 to 39.9, cardiovascular event rates are 9.97 per 1000 person-years compared with 6.37 per 1000 person-years in women with a normal BMI. Among people with obesity, 5% to 10% weight loss improves systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg for those with hypertension, and may decrease hemoglobin A1c by 0.6% to 1% for those with type 2 diabetes. Evidence-based obesity treatment includes interventions addressing 5 major categories: behavioral interventions, nutrition, physical activity, pharmacotherapy, and metabolic/bariatric procedures. Comprehensive obesity care plans combine appropriate interventions for individual patients. Multicomponent behavioral interventions, ideally consisting of at least 14 sessions in 6 months to promote lifestyle changes, including components such as weight self-monitoring, dietary and physical activity counseling, and problem solving, often produce 5% to 10% weight loss, although weight regain occurs in 25% or more of participants at 2-year follow-up. Effective nutritional approaches focus on reducing total caloric intake and dietary strategies based on patient preferences. Physical activity without calorie reduction typically causes less weight loss (2-3 kg) but is important for weight-loss maintenance. Commonly prescribed medications such as antidepressants (eg, mirtazapine, amitriptyline) and antihyperglycemics such as glyburide or insulin cause weight gain, and clinicians should review and consider alternatives. Antiobesity medications are recommended for nonpregnant patients with obesity or overweight and weight-related comorbidities in conjunction with lifestyle modifications. Six medications are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for long-term use: glucagon-like peptide receptor 1 (GLP-1) agonists (semaglutide and liraglutide only), tirzepatide (a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/GLP-1 agonist), phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, and orlistat. Of these, tirzepatide has the greatest effect, with mean weight loss of 21% at 72 weeks. Endoscopic procedures (ie, intragastric balloon and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty) can attain 10% to 13% weight loss at 6 months. Weight loss from metabolic and bariatric surgeries (ie, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) ranges from 25% to 30% at 12 months. Maintaining long-term weight loss is difficult, and clinical guidelines support the use of long-term antiobesity medications when weight maintenance is inadequate with lifestyle interventions alone. Conclusion and Relevance: Obesity affects approximately 42% of adults in the US. Behavioral interventions can attain approximately 5% to 10% weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/GLP-1 receptor agonists can attain approximately 8% to 21% weight loss, and bariatric surgery can attain approximately 25% to 30% weight loss. Comprehensive, evidence-based obesity treatment combines behavioral interventions, nutrition, physical activity, pharmacotherapy, and metabolic/bariatric procedures as appropriate for individual patients.

Race/Ethnicity, Spirometry Reference Equations, and Prediction of Incident Clinical Events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Lung Study.

Rationale: Normal values for FEV1 and FVC are currently calculated using cross-sectional reference equations that include terms for race/ethnicity, an approach that may reinforce disparities and is of unclear clinical benefit. Objectives: To determine whether race/ethnicity-based spirometry reference equations improve the prediction of incident chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD) events and mortality compared with race/ethnicity-neutral equations. Methods: The MESA Lung Study, a population-based, prospective cohort study of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults, performed standardized spirometry from 2004 to 2006. Predicted values for spirometry were calculated using race/ethnicity-based equations following guidelines and, alternatively, race/ethnicity-neutral equations without terms for race/ethnicity. Participants were followed for events through 2019. Measurements and Main Results: The mean age of 3,344 participants was 65 years, and self-reported race/ethnicity was 36% White, 25% Black, 23% Hispanic, and 17% Asian. There were 181 incident CLRD-related events and 547 deaths over a median of 11.6 years. There was no evidence that percentage predicted FEV1 or FVC calculated using race/ethnicity-based equations improved the prediction of CLRD-related events compared with those calculated using race/ethnicity-neutral equations (difference in C statistics for FEV1, -0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.013 to 0.003; difference in C statistic for FVC, -0.008; 95% CI, -0.016 to -0.0006). Findings were similar for mortality (difference in C statistics for FEV1, -0.002; 95% CI, -0.008 to 0.003; difference in C statistics for FVC, -0.004; 95% CI, -0.009 to 0.001). Conclusions: There was no evidence that race/ethnicity-based spirometry reference equations improved the prediction of clinical events compared with race/ethnicity-neutral equations. The inclusion of race/ethnicity in spirometry reference equations should be reconsidered.

Strange Bedfellows: Coordinating Medicare and Medicaid to Achieve Cost-Effective Care for Patients with the Greatest Health Needs.

This perspective describes federal efforts in the United States (U.S.) to integrate care for an especially complex, vulnerable, and costly patient population: adults eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance. The goal of the paper is to demystify for clinical policy leaders and practicing clinicians the origins and evolution of the Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) recently permanently authorized by the U.S. Congress and to explore the potential for these policy changes to help such health plans improve care for the sickest and most vulnerable Americans.