BMI out, body fat in: Diagnosing obesity needs a change

Publicly released:
International
CC:0
CC:0

International researchers say that the method that we use for diagnosing and managing obesity can no longer be about body mass indexes (BMI) and instead we should be taking account of how body fat is distributed. This method would mean many more people could benefit from obesity treatment, even when they fall below the BMI cut-off of 30, they say. They add that a build-up of abdominal fat is an important risk factor for many issues, and can be present in people with lower BMIs. The researchers suggest that the use of obesity medications should be considered for people who have a higher waist-to-height ratio of 0.5, or the if the person has medical, functional or psychological impairments that would benefit from them.

Media release

From: Springer Nature

Diagnosing and managing obesity – no longer just about BMI 

Taking account of how body fat is distributed in individuals means they many more could benefit from obesity treatment even though they fall below the obesity BMI cut-off level of 30

The system for diagnosing and managing obesity can no longer be about just body mass index (BMI), which is excluding many people who would benefit from obesity treatment. A new framework for the diagnosis, staging and management of obesity in adults, launched today by the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) and published in Nature Medicine, will propose modernising obesity diagnosis and treatment to take account of all the latest developments in the field, including the new generation of obesity medications.

Despite the wide recognition of obesity as a multifactorial, chronic, relapsing, non-communicable disease marked by an abnormal and/or excessive accumulation of body fat - in many settings, the diagnosis of obesity is still based solely on BMI cut-off values, and does not reflect the role of adipose tissue distribution and function in the severity of the disease.

The EASO Steering Group, comprised of experts including current and former Association Presidents, have put together a series of statements on obesity diagnosis, staging and treatment that will move management of the condition in line with the latest scientific knowledge and developments.

The authors say: “An important novelty of our framework regards the anthropometric component of the diagnosis. The basis for this change is the recognition that BMI alone is insufficient as a diagnostic criterion, and that body fat distribution has a substantial effect on health. More specifically, the accumulation of abdominal fat is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiometabolic complications and is a stronger determinant of disease development than BMI, even in individuals with a BMI level below the standard cut-off values for obesity diagnosis (BMI of 30).”

The new framework makes explicit that abdominal (visceral) fat accumulation is an important risk factor for health deterioration, also in people with low BMI and still free of overt clinical manifestations; and the new framework includes people with lower BMI (≥25–30 kg/m2) but increased abdominal fat accumulation and the presence of any medical, functional or psychological impairments of complications in the definition of obesity, hence reducing the risk of undertreatment in this particular group of patients in comparison to the current BMI-based definition of obesity.

The authors make clear the pillars of treatment of people with obesity in their recommendations substantially adhere to current available guidelines. Behavioural modifications, including nutritional therapy, physical activity, stress reduction and sleep improvement, were agreed as main cornerstones of obesity management, with the possible addition of psychological therapy, obesity medications and metabolic or bariatric (surgical and endoscopic) procedures.

However, for the latter two options, the steering committee discussed the fact that current guidelines are based on clinical evidence derived from clinical trials, in which inclusion criteria were mostly based on anthropometric cut-off values rather than on a complete clinical evaluation. In current practice, the strict application of these evidence-based criteria precludes the use of obesity medications or metabolic/bariatric procedures in patients with a substantial burden of obesity disease but low BMI values.

Therefore, members of the steering committee proposed that, in particular, the use of obesity medications should be considered in patients with BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher and a waist-to-height ratio of above 0.5 and the presence of medical, functional or psychological impairments or complications, independently from current BMI cut-off values.

The authors say: “This statement may also be seen as a call to pharmacological companies and regulatory authorities to use inclusion criteria that are more adherent to the clinical staging of obesity and less to traditional BMI cut-offs when designing future clinical trials with obesity medications.”

They conclude: “This statement will move obesity management closer to the management of other non-communicable chronic diseases, in which the goal is not represented by short-term intermediate outcomes, but by long-term health benefits. Defining long-term personalised therapeutic goals should inform the discussion with the patients from the beginning of the treatment, considering the stage and severity of the disease, the available therapeutic options and possible concomitant side effects and risks, patient preferences, individual drivers of obesity and possible barriers to treatment. Emphasis on the need for a long-term or life-long comprehensive treatment plan rather than short-term body weight reduction is warranted.”

Attachments

Note: Not all attachments are visible to the general public. Research URLs will go live after the embargo ends.

Research Web page Please link to the article in online versions of your report (the URL will go live after the embargo ends).
Journal/
conference:
Nature Medicine
Research:Paper
Organisation/s: University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Funder: No specific funding information listed, but the authors declare the following competing interests: L.B. received personal funding from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bruno Farmaceutici as a member of advisory boards, and from Rythms Pharmaceuticals and Pronokal as a speaker. D.D. received personal funding from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly as a member of advisory boards, and from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly as a speaker. G.F. received payment of honoraria from Lilly and Novo Nordisk as a member of advisory boards, and payment of honoraria for lectures as member of the OPEN Spain Initiative. The University of Leeds received funding from Novo Nordisk for J.C.G.H.’s participation in the ACTION-Teens study. P.S. received payment of honoraria and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Bruno Farmaceutici as a member of advisory boards. V.Y. received personal funding from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly as a member of advisory boards and from Novo Nordisk as a speaker. G.H.G. received research funding from the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, the Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
Media Contact/s
Contact details are only visible to registered journalists.