Who wants weight loss? What do they need? Time to re‐think non‐surgical approaches in obesity management

G. Thom,Michael E. J. Lean

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12172

2016-12-01

Clinical Obesity

Abstract:Mahawar and Small (1) have argued that access and provision of bariatric surgery (BS) is being restricted in the UK because of obstructive national clinical guidelines, which currently require prior engagement (and failure) with local medical weight management services (MWMS). Their view is that weight loss outcomes with MWMS are minimal, poorly sustained and lack cost effectiveness, that the pathway promoted by NICE and NIH is not evidence-based, and that surgical intervention is being rationed for reasons other than clinical effectiveness. It is true that the current model for obesity management is not evidence-based, but lack of evidence does not automatically imply that the pathway is inappropriate. It may be wrong, but possibly not for the reasons set out by Mahawar and Small. Many share their frustration that services are not offering people the best possible chance to overcome their obesity. Health Services are poorly directed, poorly coordinated and ill-equipped to deal with an epidemic that is overwhelming our healthcare system. Compared with the colossal budgets which have been, and continue to be, applied to tackling the chronic disease consequences of obesity (type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], cardiovascular disease [CVD], cancers, depression, etc.), mainly with drugs, the investment into treatment and prevention of obesity has been minimal. Lack of opportunity for financial profit by commercial companies has relegated, into nearoblivion, investment to develop diet and lifestyle interventions which could tackle the causes of the 21st century’s most expensive and debilitating disease. The one exception, where large commercial profits can currently be made is BS. It is very curious, indeed an anomaly among disease treatments, that Health Services and guidelines have promoted a surgical treatment with so little research attention to non-surgical interventions. The normal approach to any disease is first to establish the optimal non-surgical management, in terms of safety and efficacy, and only then to consider whether surgery offers better results, with its certainty of immediate hazard (however rare), frequent complications and high costs. There are examples, such as coronary artery bypass grafting for angina, or gastric surgery for peptic ulceration, where effective medical interventions were lacking, but improved non-surgical interventions have gradually replaced previously dominant surgery, to the great benefit of patients. Massive investment, and experience over a long period, was needed to establish those non-surgical treatments. There is no doubt that BS can ‘work’, as did gastric surgery for peptic ulcers, but the investment into non-surgical alternative approaches to obesity has been minimal and very mixed values have been applied. Effective anti-obesity drugs have been developed, but most have been drummed out of the market because of rare side-effects – orders of magnitude less frequent than the complications of BS. Mahawar and Small suggest a cost of £5000 for BS in the UK. Others have estimated the cost to be almost double that (2). In addition to the cost of the procedure, there are very substantial added costs from consultations and preparation for surgery, post-operative follow-up and management of complications. The argument that BS essentially ‘pays for itself’ within a few years does not stand up to scrutiny. There appears little doubt that BS reduces T2DM, CVD events and depression and improves mobility, and it is ‘cost-effective’ if one accepts the notion that a qualityadjusted life year is worth £30 000, but this should not be mistaken for it being ‘cost-saving’. Patients use more inpatient and out-patient care in the years following BS, although drug costs are reduced (3). Reduced obesityrelated disease and consequent increase in life expectancy mean that life-time healthcare costs may actually rise (2). It would be more accurate to say that it provides improved health at a cost which some, but not all, consider acceptable. There is no good reference for the costs attributable to complications of BS. Through surgical complications, inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain, a further surgical procedure, including reversal, is needed in 10–25% of cases (4). After the initial surgical and media frenzy, gastric bands proved to have very high failure rates, up to 50% (3,5). Sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass have rapidly become the more fashionable approaches but re-operation is still required in 10–20% of