Associations between Lifetime Adversity and Obesity Treatment in Patients with Morbid Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is associated with greater and more sustainable weight loss compared with lifestyle intervention programs. On the other hand, bariatric surgery may also be associated with physical and psychosocial complications. The influence of psychological evaluation on treatment choice, however, is not known. We aimed to examine variables associated with treatment choice and, specifically, if self-reported lifetime adversity influenced obesity treatment, i.e. bariatric surgery, high-intensive lifestyle treatment or low-intensive lifestyle treatment in primary care. METHODS: We consecutively included 924 patients from the registry study of patients with morbid obesity at Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. Treatment selection was made through a shared decision-making process. Self-reported lifetime adversity was registered by trained personnel. Logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between obesity treatment and possible predictors. RESULTS: Patients who chose bariatric surgery were more likely to have type 2 diabetes (DM2) compared with patients who chose lifestyle treatment (bariatric surgery: 35%, high-intensive lifestyle treatment: 26%, and low-intensive lifestyle treatment: 26%; p = 0.035). Patients who chose bariatric surgery were less likely than patients who chose lifestyle intervention to report lifetime adversity (bariatric surgery: 39%, high-intensive lifestyle treatment: 47%, and low-intensive lifestyle treatment: 51%; p = 0.004). After multivariable adjustments, increasing BMI, having DM2, and joint pain were associated with choosing bariatric surgery over non-surgical obesity treatment (odds ratio [95% CI]: BMI 1.03 [1.01-1.06], DM2 1.47 [1.09-1.99], and joint pain 1.46 [1.08-1.96]). Self-reported lifetime adversity was furthermore associated with lower odds of choosing bariatric surgery in patients with morbid obesity (0.67 [0.51-0.89]). CONCLUSION: This study shows that increasing BMI, DM2, and joint pain were all associated with treatment choice for obesity. In addition, self-reported lifetime adversity was associated with the patients' treatment choice for morbid obesity. Consequently, we suggest that decisions concerning obesity treatment should include dialogue-based assessments of the patients' lifetime adversity.

The usage of fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin for the identification of unknown type 2 diabetes in high risk patients with morbid obesity.

BACKGROUND: In spite of increased vigilance of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (DM2), the prevalence of unknown DM2 in subjects with morbid obesity is not known. AIM: To assess the prevalence of undiagnosed DM2 and compare the performance of glycated A1c (HbA1c) and fasting glucose (FG) for the diagnosis of DM2 and prediabetes (preDM) in patients with morbid obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We measured fasting glucose and HbA1c in 537 consecutive patients with morbid obesity without previously known DM2. RESULTS: A total of 49 (9%) patients with morbid obesity had unknown DM2 out of which 16 (33%) fulfilled both the criteria for HbA1c and FG. Out of 284 (53%) subjects with preDM, 133 (47%) fulfilled both the criteria for HbA1c and FG. Measurements of agreement for FG and HbA1c were moderate for DM2 (κ = 0.461, p < .001) and fair for preDM (κ = 0.317, p < .001). Areas under the curve for FG and HbA1c in predicting unknown DM2 were 0.970 (95% CI 0.942, 0.998) and 0.894 (95% CI 0.837, 0.951) respectively. The optimal thresholds to identify unknown DM2 were FG ≥6.6 mmol/L and HbA1c ≥ 6.1% (43 mmol/mol). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DM2 remains high and both FG and HbA1c identify patients with unknown DM2. FG was slightly superior to HbA1c in predicting and separating patients with unknown DM2 from patients without DM2. We suggest that an FG ≥6.6 mmol/L or an HbA1c ≥6.1% (43 mmol/mol) may be used as primary cut points for the identification of unknown DM2 among patients with morbid obesity.