Barriers to progression through Australian obesity management pathways: Survey data from the ACTION-IO study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our previous work uncovered a nine-year delay, from when Australian people with obesity (PwO) first began struggling with excess weight and first discussed weight with a healthcare professional (HCP). In this study we explore barriers to having an obesity consultation, making and discussing the diagnosis of obesity and arranging a management plan, including a follow-up appointment. METHOD: Australian PwO (n = 1000) and HCPs (n = 200; 50% general practitioners [GPs]), completed the Awareness, Care & Treatment In Obesity Management - An International Observation (ACTION-IO) online survey. RESULTS: Of Australian PwO, 53% had discussed weight with an HCP in the past five years, 25% were informed of their obesity diagnosis and 15% had weight-related follow-up appointments scheduled. Fewer GPs than other specialists reported recording obesity diagnoses, but GPs scheduled more follow-up appointments. Receiving formal obesity training was reported by 22% of GPs and 44% of other specialists. DISCUSSION: Barriers to obesity care in Australia include unrealistic expectations from both PwO and HCPs, lack of evidence-based strategies and insufficient training. Further exploration of barriers is required.

Global Impact of Obesity.

The prevalence of preobesity and obesity is rising globally, multiple epidemiologic studies have identified preobesity and obesity as predisposing factors to a number of noncommunicable diseases including type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology of obesity in both children and adults in different regions of the world. We also explore the impact of obesity as a disease not only on physical and mental health but also its economic impact.

The role of adjuvant pharmacotherapy with liraglutide for patients with inadequate weight loss following bariatric surgery.

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of bariatric surgery for many patients, there are a proportion of patients who do not achieve adequate weight loss. We evaluate the role of liraglutide as adjuvant pharmacotherapy in those who respond poorly to weight loss surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A non-controlled, prospective, open-label cohort study in which participants are prescribed liraglutide following inadequate response to weight loss surgery. The efficacy and tolerability of liraglutide was measured through measurement of BMI and monitoring of side effect profile. RESULTS: A total of 68 partial responders to bariatric surgery were included in the study, 2 participants were lost to follow-up. Overall 89.7% lost weight on liraglutide, with 22.1% showing a good response (>10% total body weight loss). There were 41 patients who discontinued liraglutide mainly due to cost. CONCLUSION: Liraglutide is efficacious in achieving weight loss and reasonably well tolerated in patients who have inadequate weight loss post-bariatric surgery.

Two-year effect of semaglutide 2.4 mg on control of eating in adults with overweight/obesity: STEP 5.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg on 2-year control of eating. METHODS: In STEP 5, adults with overweight/obesity were randomized 1:1 to semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo, plus lifestyle modification, for 104 weeks. A 19-item Control of Eating Questionnaire was administered at weeks 0, 20, 52, and 104 in a subgroup of participants. P values were not controlled for multiplicity. RESULTS: In participants completing the Control of Eating Questionnaire (semaglutide, n = 88; placebo, n = 86), mean body weight changes were -14.8% (semaglutide) and -2.4% (placebo). Scores significantly improved with semaglutide versus placebo for Craving Control and Craving for Savory domains at weeks 20, 52, and 104 (p < 0.01); for Positive Mood and Craving for Sweet domains at weeks 20 and 52 (p < 0.05); and for hunger and fullness at week 20 (p < 0.001). Improvements in craving domain scores were positively correlated with reductions in body weight from baseline to week 104 with semaglutide. At 104 weeks, scores for desire to eat salty and spicy food, cravings for dairy and starchy foods, difficulty in resisting cravings, and control of eating were significantly reduced with semaglutide versus placebo (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight/obesity, semaglutide 2.4 mg improved short- and longer-term control of eating associated with substantial weight loss.

Two-year effects of semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity: the STEP 5 trial.

The STEP 5 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo (both plus behavioral intervention) for long-term treatment of adults with obesity, or overweight with at least one weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes. The co-primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight and achievement of weight loss of ≥5% at week 104. Efficacy was assessed among all randomized participants regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue intervention. From 5 October 2018 to 1 February 2019, 304 participants were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 152) or placebo (n = 152), 92.8% of whom completed the trial (attended the end-of-trial safety visit). Most participants were female (236 (77.6%)) and white (283 (93.1%)), with a mean (s.d.) age of 47.3 (11.0) years, body mass index of 38.5 (6.9) kg m-2 and weight of 106.0 (22.0) kg. The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 104 was -15.2% in the semaglutide group (n = 152) versus -2.6% with placebo (n = 152), for an estimated treatment difference of -12.6 %-points (95% confidence interval, -15.3 to -9.8; P < 0.0001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight loss ≥5% from baseline at week 104 (77.1% versus 34.4%; P < 0.0001). Gastrointestinal adverse events, mostly mild-to-moderate, were reported more often with semaglutide than with placebo (82.2% versus 53.9%). In summary, in adults with overweight (with at least one weight-related comorbidity) or obesity, semaglutide treatment led to substantial, sustained weight loss over 104 weeks versus placebo. NCT03693430.

The Australian Obesity Management Algorithm: A simple tool to guide the management of obesity in primary care.

Obesity is a complex and multifactorial chronic disease with genetic, environmental, physiological and behavioural determinants that requires long-term care. Obesity is associated with a broad range of complications including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dyslipidaemia, metabolic associated fatty liver disease, reproductive hormonal abnormalities, sleep apnoea, depression, osteoarthritis and certain cancers. An algorithm has been developed (with PubMed and Medline searched for all relevant articles from 1 Jan 2000-1 Oct 2021) to (i) assist primary care physicians in treatment decisions for non-pregnant adults with obesity, and (ii) provide a practical clinical tool to guide the implementation of existing guidelines (summarised in Appendix 1) for the treatment of obesity in the Australian primary care setting. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT: Treatment pathways should be determined by a person's anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC)) and the presence and severity of obesity-related complications. A target of 10-15% weight loss is recommended for people with BMI 30-40 kg/m2 or abdominal obesity (WC > 88 cm in females, WC > 102 cm in males) without complications. The treatment focus should be supervised lifestyle interventions that may include a reduced or low energy diet, very low energy diet (VLED) or pharmacotherapy. For people with BMI 30-40 kg/m2 or abdominal obesity and complications, or those with BMI > 40 kg/m2 a weight loss target of 10-15% body weight is recommended, and management should include intensive interventions such as VLED, pharmacotherapy or bariatric surgery, which may be required in combination. A weight loss target of > 15% is recommended for those with BMI > 40 kg/m2 and complications and they should be referred to specialist care. Their treatment should include a VLED with or without pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery.

The impact of delaying colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer detection and prevention.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a partial to total shutdown of endoscopy in many healthcare centers. This study aims to quantify the impact of the reduction in colonoscopies on colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and screening. METHODS: After institutional ethics board approval, the endoscopy database at an academic tertiary-care center in Montreal, Canada, was searched for all colonoscopies performed from during the first wave locally (March-June 2020), and during the ramp up period where endoscopy service resumed (July to August 2020). We compared these periods to the same periods in 2019, the pre-pandemic periods. The indications, CRC and adenoma detection rates, as well as the prioritization of urgent procedures were compared. RESULTS: In the first wave, only 462 colonoscopies were performed, compared to 2515 in the same period in 2019, an 82% reduction. The ramp up period saw 843 colonoscopies performed compared to 1328 in 2019, a 35% reduction. Urgent and inpatient colonoscopies numbers increased (324 (24.8%) vs. 220 (5.7%)) while surveillance and high-risk screening colonoscopies fell (376 (28.8%) vs 1869 (48.6%)). Emergency access to colonoscopy was preserved with a median time to endoscopy of < 1 day (IQR 0,1) in both pandemic periods. During the pandemic periods, there was an absolute reduction in CRC diagnosis of 28, despite the CRC detection per colonoscopy rate increasing slightly in the first wave from 1.7% (44) to 3.9% (18), and in the ramp up period from 2.5% (33) to 3.6% (31). The rate of adenoma detection per colonoscopy did not increase significantly between the pre- and pandemic periods, resulting in reduction in adenoma removal in 723 patients. DISCUSSION: The restriction of access to colonoscopy resulted in a significant reduction in screening and surveillance of high-risk patients, adenomas removed, and CRCs diagnosed. Clinicians and patients will face the oncologic ramifications this the coming years.

Fertility, pregnancy and post partum management after bariatric surgery: a narrative review.

•Of the women who gave birth in Australia in 2018, 47% had overweight or obesity, with obesity being associated with both maternal and fetal complications. •Bariatric surgery improves fertility and some pregnancy-related outcomes. •Following bariatric surgery, pregnancy should be delayed by at least 12-18 months due to adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with rapid weight loss. •Contraception should be prescribed after bariatric surgery, although the effectiveness of the oral contraceptive pill may be reduced due to malabsorption and contraceptive devices such as intrauterine devices should be considered as first line therapy. •After bariatric surgery, women should undergo close monitoring for nutritional insufficiencies before, during and after pregnancy. Expert opinion recommends these women undergo dietary assessment and supplementation to prevent micronutrient deficiencies. •Bariatric surgeons, bariatric medical practitioners, bariatric dieticians, the patient's usual general practitioner, obstetricians, and maternity specialists should be involved to assist in the multidisciplinary management of these complex patients.

Patient motivation to lose weight: Importance of healthcare professional support, goals and self-efficacy.

BACKGROUND: People with obesity (PwO) often struggle to achieve and maintain weight loss. This can perpetuate and/or be influenced by feelings of low motivation. This analysis from ACTION-IO data identified factors associated with PwO motivation to lose weight. METHODS: PwO completed an online survey in 11 countries. Exploratory multinomial logistic regression analyses identified independent variables associated with self-report of feeling motivated versus not motivated to lose weight. RESULTS: Data from 10,854 PwO were included (5,369 motivated; 3,312 neutral; 2,173 not motivated). Variables associated with feeling motivated versus not motivated included (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]): acknowledgement of healthcare professional (HCP) responsibility to contribute to weight loss (2.32 [1.86-2.88]), comfort in talking to their HCP about weight (1.46 [1.24-1.72), agreement that it is easy to lose weight (1.73 [1.30-2.31]), and a goal of reducing risks from excess weight (1.45 [1.22-1.73]). Conversely, if PwO considered obesity less important than other diseases they were less likely to report feeling motivated (0.49 [0.41-0.58]). PwO who reported being motivated to lose weight were more likely to exercise ≥5 times a week versus <1 time a week (2.77 [2.09-3.68]) than those who reported they were not motivated. CONCLUSIONS: Positive interactions with HCPs, self-efficacy, setting goals and knowledge of the importance of weight management, in addition to regular exercising, may increase PwO motivation for weight loss. Appropriate HCP support may help PwO who are ready to engage in weight management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03584191.

The 3Ds - Discussion, diagnosis and direction: Elements for effective obesity care by healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: The care of people with obesity is often suboptimal due to both physician and patient perceptions about obesity itself and clinical barriers. Using data from the ACTION-IO study, we aimed to identify factors that might improve the quality of obesity care through adoption of the 3D approach (Discussion, Diagnosis and Direction [follow-up]) by healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: An online survey was completed by HCPs in 11 countries. Exploratory beta regression analyses identified independent variables associated with each component of the 3D approach. RESULTS: Data from 2,331 HCPs were included in the statistical models. HCPs were significantly more likely to initiate weight discussions and inform patients of obesity diagnoses, respectively, if (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]): they recorded an obesity diagnosis in their patient's medical notes (1.59, [1.43-1.76] and 2.16 [1.94-2.40], respectively); and they were comfortable discussing weight with their patients (1.53 [1.39-1.69] and 1.15 [1.04-1.27]). HCPs who reported feeling motivated to help their patients lose weight were also more likely to initiate discussions (1.36 [1.21-1.53]) and schedule follow-up appointments (1.21 [1.06-1.38]). By contrast, HCPs who lacked advanced formal training in obesity management were less likely to inform patients of obesity diagnoses (0.83 [0.74-0.92]) or schedule follow-up appointments (0.69 [0.62-0.78]). CONCLUSION: Specific actions that could improve obesity care through the 3D approach include: encouraging HCPs to record an obesity diagnosis; providing tools to help HCPs feel more comfortable initiating weight discussions; and provision of training in obesity management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03584191.

Delays in healthcare consultations about obesity - Barriers and implications.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity continues to rise, affecting nearly a third of Australian adults in 2017-18. The stigma and bias people with obesity (PwO) experience is one of the barriers hindering the dialogue between PwO and their Health Care Professionals (HCPs). The results from the ACTION IO Australian cohort are reported here. Identification of local barriers can inform strategies to improve access to quality obesity care within Australia. METHODS: The ACTION-IO study was an online cross-sectional survey conducted in 11 countries during June-October 2018. In Australia 1,000 community based adult PwO (body mass index ≥30 kg/m based on self-reported height and weight) and 200 HCPs involved with direct patient care (seeing ≥10 patients with obesity/month) completed the survey. RESULTS: There was a mean delay of 8.9 years from when a PwO first started to struggle with their weight, and the initial discussion with an HCP about this. HCPs acknowledged weight loss efforts in only 38.5% of their patients, although 74.6% of PwO had attempted weight loss. Most PwO (82.0%) assumed full responsibility for their weight loss. HCPs identified short appointment times (60.5%) and the cost of obesity medication, programmes and services (58.5%) as barriers to weight management conversations and weight loss, respectively. Most PwO want their HCP to raise the issue of weight with 64 % reporting finding such conversations positive and helpful. CONCLUSION: Compared to global results, Australian PwO took 3 years longer to seek medical care about their weight. Better recognition of obesity's impact and targeting barriers to care are needed.

Gaps to bridge: Misalignment between perception, reality and actions in obesity.

AIMS: Despite increased recognition as a chronic disease, obesity remains greatly underdiagnosed and undertreated. We aimed to identify international perceptions, attitudes, behaviours and barriers to effective obesity care in people with obesity (PwO) and healthcare professionals (HCPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted in 11 countries. Participants were adults with obesity and HCPs who were primarily concerned with direct patient care. RESULTS: A total of 14 502 PwO and 2785 HCPs completed the survey. Most PwO (68%) and HCPs (88%) agreed that obesity is a disease. However, 81% of PwO assumed complete responsibility for their own weight loss and only 44% of HCPs agreed that genetics were a barrier. There was a median of three (mean, six) years between the time PwO began struggling with excess weight or obesity and when they first discussed their weight with an HCP. Many PwO were concerned about the impact of excess weight on health (46%) and were motivated to lose weight (48%). Most PwO (68%) would like their HCP to initiate a conversation about weight and only 3% were offended by such a conversation. Among HCPs, belief that patients have little interest in or motivation for weight management may constitute a barrier for weight management conversations. When discussed, HCPs typically recommended lifestyle changes; however, more referrals and follow-up appointments are required. CONCLUSIONS: Our international dataset reveals a need to increase understanding of obesity and improve education concerning its physiological basis and clinical management. Realization that PwO are motivated to lose weight offers an opportunity for HCPs to initiate earlier weight management conversations.

Managing Obesity in Primary Care: Breaking Down the Barriers.

Several Australian obesity management guidelines have been developed for general practice but, to date, implementation of these guidelines has been shown to be inadequate. In this review, we explore the barriers to obesity treatment and propose a four-stage plan to manage individuals with obesity in general practice using a framework of a multidisciplinary team. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Energy Adaptations Persist 2 Years After Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass.

Non-surgical weight loss induces a greater than expected decrease in energy expenditure, a phenomenon known as 'metabolic adaptation'. The effects of different bariatric surgery procedures on metabolic adaptation are not yet known and may partially contribute to weight loss success. We compared resting energy expenditure (REE) in 35 subjects (nine males; age = 46 ± 11 years; BMI = 42.1 ± 6.5 kg/m(2)) undergoing gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) up to 2 years after surgery. We found a greater than expected reduction of 130-300 kcal/day at 6 weeks after sleeve and bypass surgery which was not explained by changes in body composition; this change was not seen in the band group. The suppression in REE after sleeve and RYGB remained up to 2 years, even after weight loss had plateaued. Our findings suggest that energy adaptation is not a contributing mechanism to medium-term weight maintenance after sleeve and RYGB bariatric surgeries.

Predictors of weight loss 2 years after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the rapidly increasing popularity of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), there is limited data examining weight loss more than 1 year after the procedure. There have also been few studies examining baseline predictors of weight loss after LSG. We aimed to examine the percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) in patients 2 years after LSG and identify baseline predictors of %EWL. METHODS: Electronic records from university hospitals were available for 292 patients who underwent LSG (205 women; mean age, 41.5 ± 11.1 years; mean weight, 126.5 ± 27.5 kg; mean BMI, 45.5 ± 7.5 kg/m(2) ). Variables assessed for predictive effect were baseline age, sex, BMI, presence of comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, or obstructive sleep apnea), the amount of weight loss induced by a very low-calorie diet before surgery, and the number of clinic appointments attended over the 2 years. We performed linear regression and mixed model analyses between predictor variables and %EWL at 2 years. RESULTS: Adjusted %EWL was 31% at 2 weeks, 49% at 3 months, 64% at 6 months, 70% at 9 months, 76% at 12 months, 79% at 18 months, and 79% at 2 years. Multivariate analysis showed that lower baseline BMI, absence of hypertension, and greater clinic attendance predicted better %EWL (r(2) = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Longer-term follow-up studies of weight loss post LSG are required to assist with patient care and management.