Designation of obesity as a disease: lessons learned from alcohol and tobacco

Benefits managers' attitudes toward obesity treatment coverage

Despite the existence of effective treatments, obesity continues to present a severe public health crisis. Limited access to treatments works against efforts to reduce obesity prevalence. A major barrier to treatment access is a lack of insurance coverage. This study focused on an important population of stakeholders: benefits managers. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between attitudes about insurance coverage of obesity treatments and obesity stigma. Benefits managers have the ability to advocate for insurance coverage of medical interventions. We assessed whether attitudes toward covering obesity benefits for employees could be modified by receiving targeted information or were associated with particular factors. We recruited participants from Dun & Bradstreet's employer database using emails. Participants were randomized to one of three conditions that provided written information about: (1) prevalence of obesity (control), (2) prevalence + financial implications of obesity, and (3) prevalence + physiology of obesity. Questionnaires were self-administered online. The response rate was 4.8%, with 404 participants meeting eligibility criteria. While attitudes toward coverage of obesity interventions did not differ significantly based on condition (p > 0.05), gender, history of previous obesity treatment, and an individual's likelihood to attribute obesity to biological and environmental factors showed significant associations with supporting coverage of obesity treatment (p < 0.05). Findings suggest that understanding obesity as a condition caused by biological factors as opposed to personal responsibility and behavior is associated with greater support for coverage of all its treatments.

Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage

Purpose

To assess public attitudes towards fertility treatment coverage and whether attitudes are influenced by infertility labels.

Methods

Cross-sectional, web survey-based experiment using a national sample of 1226 United States adults. Participants read identical descriptions about infertility, with the exception of random assignment to infertility being labeled as a “condition,” “disease,” or “disability.” Participants then responded to questions measuring their beliefs and attitudes towards policies related to the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. We measured public support for infertility policies, public preference for infertility labels, and whether support differed by the randomly assigned label used. We also queried associations between demographic data and support for infertility policies.

Results

Support was higher for insurance coverage of infertility treatments (p=.014) and fertility preservation (p=.017), and infertility public assistance programs (p=.036) when infertility was described as a “disease” or “disability” compared to “condition.” Participants who were younger, were planning or trying to conceive, had a family member or friend with infertility, and/or had a more liberal political outlook were more likely to support infertility policies. A majority of participants (78%) felt the term “condition” was the best label to describe infertility, followed by “disability” (12%). The least popular label was “disease” (10%). Those preferring “condition” were older (p<.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p=.046), and less likely to have an infertility diagnosis (p<.001).

Conclusion

While less commonly identified as the best descriptors of infertility, labeling infertility as a “disease” or “disability” may increase support for policies that improve access to infertility care

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10815-021-02231-z.

Meeting of Minds around Food Addiction: Insights from Addiction Medicine, Nutrition, Psychology, and Neurosciences

This review, focused on food addiction (FA), considers opinions from specialists with different expertise in addiction medicine, nutrition, health psychology, and behavioral neurosciences. The concept of FA is a recurring issue in the clinical description of abnormal eating. Even though some tools have been developed to diagnose FA, such as the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) questionnaire, the FA concept is not recognized as an eating disorder (ED) so far and is even not mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders version 5 (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Disease (ICD-11). Its triggering mechanisms and relationships with other substance use disorders (SUD) need to be further explored. Food addiction (FA) is frequent in the overweight or obese population, but it remains unclear whether it could articulate with obesity-related comorbidities. As there is currently no validated therapy against FA in obese patients, FA is often underdiagnosed and untreated, so that FA may partly explain failure of obesity treatment, addiction transfer, and weight regain after obesity surgery. Future studies should assess whether a dedicated management of FA is associated with better outcomes, especially after obesity surgery. For prevention and treatment purposes, it is necessary to promote a comprehensive psychological approach to FA. Understanding the developmental process of FA and identifying precociously some high-risk profiles can be achieved via the exploration of the environmental, emotional, and cognitive components of eating, as well as their relationships with emotion management, some personality traits, and internalized weight stigma. Under the light of behavioral neurosciences and neuroimaging, FA reveals a specific brain phenotype that is characterized by anomalies in the reward and inhibitory control processes. These anomalies are likely to disrupt the emotional, cognitive, and attentional spheres, but further research is needed to disentangle their complex relationship and overlap with obesity and other forms of SUD. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment must rely on a multidisciplinary coherence to adapt existing strategies to FA management and to provide social and emotional support to these patients suffering from highly stigmatized medical conditions, namely overweight and addiction. Multi-level interventions could combine motivational interviews, cognitive behavioral therapies, and self-help groups, while benefiting from modern exploratory and interventional tools to target specific neurocognitive processes.

A Role for GLP-1 in Treating Hyperphagia and Obesity

Obesity is a chronic recurring disease whose prevalence has almost tripled over the past 40 years. In individuals with obesity, there is significant increased risk of morbidity and mortality, along with decreased quality of life. Increased obesity prevalence results, at least partly, from the increased global food supply that provides ubiquitous access to tasty, energy-dense foods. These hedonic foods and the nonfood cues that through association become reward predictive cues activate brain appetitive control circuits that drive hyperphagia and weight gain by enhancing food-seeking, motivation, and reward. Behavioral therapy (diet and lifestyle modifications) is the recommended initial treatment for obesity, yet it often fails to achieve meaningful weight loss. Furthermore, those who lose weight regain it over time through biological regulation. The need to effectively treat the pathophysiology of obesity thus centers on biologically based approaches such as bariatric surgery and more recently developed drug therapies. This review highlights neurobiological aspects relevant to obesity causation and treatment by emphasizing the common aspects of the feeding-inhibitory effects of multiple signals. We focus on glucagon like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) signaling as a promising obesity treatment target by discussing the activation of intestinal- and brain-derived GLP-1 and GLP-1R expressing central nervous system circuits resulting from normal eating, bariatric surgery, and GLP-1R agonist drug therapy. Given the increased availability of energy-dense foods and frequent encounters with cues that drive hyperphagia, this review also describes how bariatric surgery and GLP-1R agonist therapies influence food reward and the motivational drive to overeat.

Should Europe follow the US and declare obesity a disease?: a discussion of the so-called utilitarian argument

In 2013, the American Medical Association (AMA) decided to recognize obesity as a disease. One of the main arguments presented in favor of this was broadly 'utilitarian': the disease label would, it was claimed, provide more benefits than harms and thereby serve the general good. Several individuals and groups have argued that this reasoning is just as powerful in the European context. Drawing mainly on a review of relevant social science research, we discuss the validity of this argument. Our conclusion is that in a Western European welfare state, defining obesity as a disease will not on balance serve the general good, and that it is therefore more appropriate to continue to treat obesity as a risk factor. The main reasons presented in favor of this conclusion are: It is debatable whether a disease label would lead to better access to care and preventive measures and provide better legal protection in Europe. Medicalization and overtreatment are possible negative effects of a disease label. There is no evidence to support the claim that declaring obesity a disease would reduce discrimination or stigmatization. In fact, the contrary is more likely, since a disease label would categorically define the obese body as deviant.

Phenotypes of Obesity: How it Impacts Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The worldwide prevalence of obesity is increasing. Obesity is strongly associated with many chronic health conditions that have been shown to improve with weight loss. However, counseling patients on weight loss can be challenging. Identifying specific aspects of weight management may personalize the conversation about weight loss and better address the individual patient's health goals and perceived barriers to change.

RECENT FINDINGS

Physical and behavioral phenotypes are being identified to better tailor treatment recommendations, given lack of efficacy of currently available interventions. The current review provides a summary of the evidence behind the management of several recognized clinical phenotypes, to include body fat distribution (e.g., central obesity), muscle mass (e.g., sarcopenic obesity of the elderly), and problematic eating behaviors (e.g., cravings). Identifying specific aspects of weight management may personalize the conversation about weight loss and better address the individual patient's health goals and perceived barriers to change.

The muddle of medicalization: pathologizing or medicalizing?

Medicalization appears to be an issue that is both ubiquitous and unquestionably problematic as it seems to signal at once a social and existential threat. This perception of medicalization, however, is nothing new. Since the first main writings in the 1960s and 1970s, it has consistently been used to describe inappropriate or abusive instances of medical authority. Yet, while this standard approach claims that medicalization is a growing problem, it assumes that there is simply one "medical model" and that the expanding realm of "the medical" can be more or less clearly delineated. Moreover, while intended to establish the reality of this growing threat, this research often requires making arbitrary or unjustified distinctions between different practices. To better clarify the concept of medicalization, I will focus more on capturing the variety of medical practices than on the sociological aspects of medical discourse. In doing so, I will explore the distinction between medicalization and pathologization, a distinction that is often overlooked and that brings with it many conceptual and practical implications. After defining these terms, I will use some examples to show that while pathologizing is closely tied to medicalizing, both can occur independently. I will then further develop this distinction in terms of the different individual and social effects of these practices.

Novel Nonsurgical Endoscopic Approaches for the Treatment of Obesity

Globally, obesity is a leading cause of preventable death and is associated with >60 comorbid medical conditions, including 10 types of cancer that are strongly associated with body mass index. There are a number of traditional obesity treatments-for example, lifestyle management (eg, decreased caloric intake and increased expenditure), pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. Recently, endoscopic approaches have emerged as a viable alternative for weight loss. Endoscopically placed intragastric balloons were introduced in the early 1980s for the treatment of medically complicated obesity but, unfortunately, had high rates of complications, such as premature deflation leading to obstruction. Despite these shortcomings, these devices have experienced a renewal, with a second generation of improved devices being approved for clinical use in 2015. In addition to the intragastric balloons, there are a number of other endoscopic approaches to weight loss that are either Food and Drug Administration approved or undergoing evaluation (aspiration therapy, duodenal jejunal bypass sleeve). The current review examines the literature available and discusses the practical clinical considerations involved.

Obesity as a Socially Defined Disease: Philosophical Considerations and Implications for Policy and Care

Obesity has generated significant worries amongst health policy makers and has obtained increased attention in health care. Obesity is unanimously defined as a disease in the health care and health policy literature. However, there are pragmatic and not principled reasons for this. This warrants an analysis of obesity according to standard conceptions of disease in the literature of philosophy of medicine. According to theories and definitions of disease referring to (abnormal functioning of) internal processes, obesity is not a disease. Obesity undoubtedly can result in disease, making it a risk factor for disease, but not a disease per se. According to several social conceptions of disease, however, obesity clearly is a disease. Obesity can conflict with aesthetic, moral, or other social norms. Making obesity a "social disease" may very well be a wise health policy, assuring and improving population health, especially if we address the social determinants of obesity, such as the food supply and marketing system. However, applying biomedical solutions to social problems may also have severe side effects. It can result in medicalization and enhance stigmatization and discrimination of persons based on appearance or behavior. Approaching social problems with biomedical means may also serve commercial and professionals' interests more than the health and welfare of individuals; it may make quick fix medical solutions halt more sustainable structural solutions. This urges health insurers, health care professionals, and health policy makers to be cautious. Especially if we want to help and respect persons that we classify and treat as obese.

Type 2 Diabetes Treatment in the Patient with Obesity

Lifestyle modification is the cornerstone treatment of type 2 diabetes in the obese patient, and is highly effective at promoting glucose regulation. However, many individuals struggle over time to maintain optimal glycemic control and/or body weight with lifestyle modification. Therefore, additional therapeutic approaches are needed. Pharmacologic interventions have shown promising results for obesity-related diabetes complications. Not surprisingly though lifestyle modification and pharmacology may become ineffective for treating diabetes over time. Bariatric surgery is considered by some, but not all, to be the most effective and durable treatment for combating obesity. In fact many patients with type 2 diabetes have normalized glucose concentrations within days postoperation. Taken together, treatment of obesity in the patient with type 2 diabetes requires a multi-faceted approach.

A national survey of public views about the classification of obesity as a disease

OBJECTIVE

In 2013, the American Medical Association classified obesity as a disease. This study assessed public opinions about this disease classification.

METHODS

In January 2014, a national sample of 1118 adults completed surveys assessing their agreement with 33 statements in support of and against the disease classification of obesity, as well as measures assessing sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (51-61.7%) agreed with 11 of 17 statements in support of the disease classification of obesity (average agreement across all statements = 51%), including views that it will help people gain access to obesity treatment. A minority of participants (31-47.3%) agreed with 15 of 16 statements against the disease classification (average agreement across statements = 39.5%), including views that it will increase overreliance on medications or surgery to treat obesity (47.3%). Participants' attitudes were unaffected by sex, income, education, or health status but were related to causal beliefs about obesity. The disease classification received more support from African Americans and more opposition by individuals with higher weight stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found more public agreement supporting the disease classification of obesity than opposing it. Further work should identify whether this classification affects health behaviors among individuals with obesity or societal weight stigmatization.