Search

Neuroadrenergic function in type 2 diabetic (T2D) patients without neuropathy is poorly characterized. We therefore compared sympathetic nervous system activity at rest and during an oral glucose tolerance test in obese metabolic syndrome (MetS) subjects classified as glucose intolerant (impaired glucose tolerance [IGT]; n = 17) or treatment-naive T2D (n = 17). Untreated subjects, matched for age (mean 59 ± 1 year), sex, BMI (32.4 ± 0.6 kg/m(2)), and family history of diabetes were studied. We measured resting muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) by microneurography, whole-body norepinephrine kinetics by isotope dilution, insulin sensitivity by euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp (steady-state glucose utilization adjusted for fat-free mass and steady-state insulin concentration [M/I]), and MetS components. T2D subjects had higher resting MSNA burst incidence (67 ± 4 versus 55 ± 3 bursts per 100 heartbeats; P = 0.05) and arterial norepinephrine levels (264 ± 33 versus 167 ± 16 pg/mL; P = 0.02), lower plasma norepinephrine clearance (by 17%; P = 0.03), and reduced neuronal reuptake compared with IGT subjects (by 46%; P = 0.04). Moreover, norepinephrine spillover responses to glucose ingestion were blunted in T2D subjects. The M/I value independently predicted whole-body norepinephrine spillover (r = -0.47; P = 0.008), whereas fasting insulin level related to neuronal norepinephrine reuptake (r = -0.35, P = 0.047). These findings demonstrate that progression to T2D is associated with increased central sympathetic drive, blunted sympathetic responsiveness, and altered norepinephrine disposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is strongly related to obesity. Weight loss is recommended as part of the overall management plan for obese patients diagnosed with OSA.Objective: To determine whether surgically induced weight loss is more effective than conventional weight loss therapy in the management of OSA.Design, Setting, and Patients: A randomized controlled trial of 60 obese patients (body mass index: >35 and <55) with recently diagnosed (<6 months) OSA and an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 20 events/hour or more. These patients had been prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy to manage OSA and were identified via accredited community sleep clinics. The trial was conducted between September 2006 and March 2009 by university- and teaching hospital-based clinical researchers in Melbourne, Australia. Patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome, previous bariatric surgery, contraindications to bariatric surgery, or significant cardiopulmonary, neurological, vascular, gastrointestinal, or neoplastic disease were excluded.Interventions: Patients were randomized to a conventional weight loss program that included regular consultations with a dietitian and physician, and the use of very low-calorie diets as necessary (n = 30) or to bariatric surgery (laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; n = 30).Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was baseline to 2-year change in AHI on diagnostic polysomnography scored by staff blinded to randomization. Secondary outcomes were changes in weight, CPAP adherence, and functional status.Results: Patients lost a mean of 5.1 kg (95% CI, 0.8 to 9.3 kg) in the conventional weight loss program compared with 27.8 kg (95% CI, 20.9 to 34.7 kg) in the bariatric surgery group (P < .001). The AHI decreased by 14.0 events/hour (95% CI, 3.3 to 24.6 events/hour) in the conventional weight loss group and by 25.5 events/hour (95% CI, 14.2 to 36.7 events/hour) in the bariatric surgery group. The between-group difference was -11.5 events/hour (95% CI, -28.3 to 5.3 events/hour; P = .18). CPAP adherence did not differ between the groups. The bariatric surgery group had greater improvement in the Short Form 36 physical component summary score (mean, 9.3 [95% CI, 0.5 to 18.0]; P = .04).Conclusion: Among a group of obese patients with OSA, the use of bariatric surgery compared with conventional weight loss therapy did not result in a statistically greater reduction in AHI despite major differences in weight loss.Trial Registration: anzctr.org Identifier: 12605000161628. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Adolescent obesity is a common and serious health problem affecting more than 5 million young people in the United States alone. Bariatric surgery is being evaluated as a possible treatment option. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (gastric banding) has the potential to provide a safe and effective treatment.Objective: To compare the outcomes of gastric banding with an optimal lifestyle program on adolescent obesity.Design, Setting, and Patients: A prospective, randomized controlled trial of 50 adolescents between 14 and 18 years with a body mass index (BMI) higher than 35, recruited from the Melbourne, Australia, community, assigned either to a supervised lifestyle intervention or to undergo gastric banding, and followed up for 2 years. The study was performed between May 2005 and September 2008.Main Outcome Measures: Weight loss. Secondary outcomes included change in metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, quality of life, and adverse outcomes.Results: Twenty-four of 25 patients in the gastric banding group and 18 of 25 in lifestyle group completed the study. Twenty-one (84%) in the gastric banding and 3 (12%) in the lifestyle groups lost more than 50% of excess weight, corrected for age. Overall, the mean changes in the gastric banding group were a weight loss of 34.6 kg (95% CI, 30.2-39.0), representing an excess weight loss of 78.8% (95% CI, 66.6%-91.0%), 12.7 BMI units (95% CI, 11.3-14.2), and a BMI z score change from 2.39 (95% CI, 2.05-2.73) to 1.32 (95% CI, 0.98-1.66). The mean losses in the lifestyle group were 3.0 kg (95% CI, 2.1-8.1), representing excess weight loss of 13.2% (95% CI, 2.6%-21.0%), 1.3 BMI units (95% CI, 0.4-2.9), and a BMI z score change from 2.41 (95% CI, 2.21-2.66) to 2.26 (95% CI, 1.91-2.43). At entry, 9 participants (36%) in the gastric banding group and 10 (40%) in the lifestyle group had the metabolic syndrome. At 24 months, none of the gastric banding group had the metabolic syndrome (P = .008; McNemar chi(2)) compared with 4 of the 18 completers (22%) in the lifestyle group (P = .13). The gastric banding group experienced improved quality of life with no perioperative adverse events. However, 8 operations (33%) were required in 7 patients for revisional procedures either for proximal pouch dilatation or tubing injury during follow-up.Conclusions: Among obese adolescent participants, use of gastric banding compared with lifestyle intervention resulted in a greater percentage achieving a loss of 50% of excess weight, corrected for age. There were associated benefits to health and quality of life.Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: 12605000160639. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the within-trial cost-efficacy of surgical therapy relative to conventional therapy for achieving remission of recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in class I and II obese patients.Research Design and Methods: Efficacy results were derived from a 2-year randomized controlled trial. A health sector perspective was adopted, and within-trial intervention costs included gastric banding surgery, mitigation of complications, outpatient medical consultations, medical investigations, pathology, weight loss therapies, and medication. Resource use was measured based on data drawn from a trial database and patient medical records and valued based on private hospital costs and government schedules in 2006 Australian dollars (AUD). An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken.Results: Mean 2-year intervention costs per patient were 13,400 AUD for surgical therapy and 3,400 AUD for conventional therapy, with laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) surgery accounting for 85% of the difference. Outpatient medical consultation costs were three times higher for surgical patients, whereas medication costs were 1.5 times higher for conventional patients. The cost differences were primarily in the first 6 months of the trial. Relative to conventional therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for surgical therapy was 16,600 AUD per case of diabetes remitted (currency exchange: 1 AUD = 0.74 USD).Conclusions: Surgical therapy appears to be a cost-effective option for managing type 2 diabetes in class I and II obese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Observational studies suggest that surgically induced loss of weight may be effective therapy for type 2 diabetes.Objective: To determine if surgically induced weight loss results in better glycemic control and less need for diabetes medications than conventional approaches to weight loss and diabetes control.Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized controlled trial conducted from December 2002 through December 2006 at the University Obesity Research Center in Australia, with general community recruitment to established treatment programs. Participants were 60 obese patients (BMI >30 and <40) with recently diagnosed (<2 years) type 2 diabetes.Interventions: Conventional diabetes therapy with a focus on weight loss by lifestyle change vs laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with conventional diabetes care.Main Outcome Measures: Remission of type 2 diabetes (fasting glucose level <126 mg/dL [7.0 mmol/L] and glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] value <6.2% while taking no glycemic therapy). Secondary measures included weight and components of the metabolic syndrome. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.Results: Of the 60 patients enrolled, 55 (92%) completed the 2-year follow-up. Remission of type 2 diabetes was achieved by 22 (73%) in the surgical group and 4 (13%) in the conventional-therapy group. Relative risk of remission for the surgical group was 5.5 (95% confidence interval, 2.2-14.0). Surgical and conventional-therapy groups lost a mean (SD) of 20.7% (8.6%) and 1.7% (5.2%) of weight, respectively, at 2 years (P < .001). Remission of type 2 diabetes was related to weight loss (R2 = 0.46, P < .001) and lower baseline HbA1c levels (combined R2 = 0.52, P < .001). There were no serious complications in either group.Conclusions: Participants randomized to surgical therapy were more likely to achieve remission of type 2 diabetes through greater weight loss. These results need to be confirmed in a larger, more diverse population and have long-term efficacy assessed.Trial Registration: actr.org Identifier: ACTRN012605000159651. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is a major, growing health problem. Observational studies suggest that bariatric surgery is more effective than nonsurgical therapy, but no randomized, controlled trials have confirmed this.Objective: To ascertain whether surgical therapy for obesity achieves better weight loss, health, and quality of life than nonsurgical therapy.Design: Randomized, controlled trial.Setting: University departments of medicine and surgery and an affiliated private hospital.Patients: 80 adults with mild to moderate obesity (body mass index, 30 kg/m2 to 35 kg/m2) from the general community.Interventions: Patients were assigned to a program of very-low-calorie diets, pharmacotherapy, and lifestyle change for 24 months (nonsurgical group) or to placement of a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAP-BAND System, INAMED Health, Santa Barbara, California) (surgical group).Measurements: Outcome measures were weight change, presence of the metabolic syndrome, and change in quality of life at 2 years.Results: At 2 years, the surgical group had greater weight loss, with a mean of 21.6% (95% CI, 19.3% to 23.9%) of initial weight lost and 87.2% (CI, 77.7% to 96.6%) of excess weight lost, while the nonsurgical group had a loss of 5.5% (CI, 3.2% to 7.9%) of initial weight and 21.8% (CI, 11.9% to 31.6%) of excess weight (P < 0.001). The metabolic syndrome was initially present in 15 (38%) patients in each group and was present in 8 (24%) nonsurgical patients and 1 (3%) surgical patient at the completion of the study (P < 0.002). Quality of life improved statistically significantly more in the surgical group (8 of 8 subscores of Short Form-36) than in the nonsurgical group (3 of 8 subscores).Limitations: The study included mildly and moderately obese participants, was not powered for comparison of adverse events, and examined outcomes only for 24 months.Conclusions: Surgical treatment using laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was statistically significantly more effective than nonsurgical therapy in reducing weight, resolving the metabolic syndrome, and improving quality of life during a 24-month treatment program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in severely obese subjects (body mass index [BMI] > 35). Overnight polysomnography (OPS) is the "gold standard" method of evaluating this condition; however, it is time-consuming, inconvenient, and expensive. Selection of patients for OPS would be enhanced if we could better predict those likely to have clinically significant OSA.Study Objective: To look for clinical and biochemical predictors of OSA in symptomatic patients presenting for obesity surgery.Design and Patients: Symptoms suggestive of OSA were sought in a structured interview. We report OPS results of 99 consecutive subjects in whom OSA was clinically suspected. Predictors of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) were sought from an extensive preoperative data collection. Multivariate linear and logistic analysis was used to identify independent predictors of AHI.Results: Symptoms were poor predictors of AHI, with observed sleep apnea the only positive predictor. Four clinical and two biochemical factors independently predicted AHI: observed sleep apnea, male sex, higher BMI, age, fasting insulin, and glycosylated hemoglobin A(Ic) (r(2) = 0.42). Neck circumference (the best single measure) could replace BMI and sex in the analysis (r(2) = 0.43). With cutoffs selected, a simple scoring system using these six factors provides a method of predicting those with moderate or severe OSA. A score > or = 3 provides a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 81%, and 96% and 71% for AHIs of > or = 15 and > or = 30, respectively. None of the 31 subjects with scores of 0 or 1 were found to have an AHI > or = 15.Conclusion: We explore sleep disturbance and report a simple method of predicting OSA in severely obese symptomatic subjects. This should assist in limiting the use of OPS to those with greater risk and provide a method of assessing risk in those not presenting primarily with a sleep problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obesity, linked to chronic disease, and global warming, linked to climate change, may be indicators of serious problems with our consumption-based economic system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The lack of standardization in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has made measurement and comparison of quality of life (QoL) outcomes in research focused on obesity treatment challenging. This study reports on the results of the second and third global multidisciplinary Standardizing Quality of life measures in Obesity Treatment (S.Q.O.T.) consensus meetings, where a core set of PROMs to measure nine previously selected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in obesity treatment research was established. The S.Q.O.T. II online and S.Q.O.T. III face-to-face hybrid consensus meetings were held in October 2021 and May 2022. The meetings were led by an independent moderator specializing in PRO measurement. Nominal group techniques, Delphi exercises, and anonymous voting were used to select the most suitable PROMs by consensus. The meetings were attended by 28 and 27 participants, respectively, including a geographically diverse selection of people living with obesity (PLWO) and experts from various disciplines. Out of 24 PROs and 16 PROMs identified in the first S.Q.O.T. consensus meeting, the following nine PROs and three PROMs were selected via consensus: BODY-Q (physical function, physical symptoms, psychological function, social function, eating behavior, and body image), IWQOL-Lite (self-esteem), and QOLOS (excess skin). No PROM was selected to measure stigma as existing PROMs deemed to be inadequate. A core set of PROMs to measure QoL in research focused on obesity treatment has been selected incorporating patients' and experts' opinions. This core set should serve as a minimum to use in obesity research studies and can be combined with clinical parameters., (© 2024 World Obesity Federation.)

The lymphatic system plays complex, often contradictory, roles in many cancers, including melanoma; these roles include contributions to tumor cell metastasis and immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment as well as generation of antitumor immunity. Advancing our understanding of lymphatic vessel involvement in regulating tumor growth and immune response may provide new therapeutic targets or treatment plans to enhance the efficacy of existing therapies. We utilized a syngeneic murine melanoma model in which we surgically disrupted the lymphatic vessel network draining from the tumor to the tumor-draining lymph node (TDLN) while leaving the TDLN intact. Although transport of lymphatic-specific molecular weight tracers to the TDLN remains present after surgery, disruption of the tumor-draining lymphatic vessels results in decreased local tumor control, as reflected in an increase in the rate of tumor growth and reduction in effector-like T cell infiltration into the tumor. Our findings suggest that preservation of the functional tumor-draining lymphatic network may be essential in promoting a robust antitumor immune response., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

The lymphatic vasculature plays critical roles in maintaining fluid homeostasis, transporting lipid, and facilitating immune surveillance. A growing body of work has identified lymphatic dysfunction as contributing to the severity of myriad diseases and to systemic inflammation, as well as modulating drug responses. Here, we review efforts to reconstruct lymphatic vessels in vitro toward establishing humanized, functional models to advance understanding of lymphatic biology and pathophysiology. We first review lymphatic endothelial cell biology and the biophysical lymphatic microenvironment, with a focus on features that are unique to the lymphatics and that have been used as design parameters for lymphatic-on-chip devices. We then discuss the state of the art for recapitulating lymphatic function in vitro, and we acknowledge limitations and challenges to current approaches. Finally, we discuss opportunities and the need for further development of microphysiological lymphatic systems to bridge the gap in model systems between lymphatic cell culture and animal physiology.

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FR declares research grants from Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson), Novo Nordisk, and Medtronic; consulting fees from Morphic Medical; speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Amgen; has served (unpaid) as a member of the scientific advisory board for Keyron, and a member of data safety and monitoring board for GI Metabolic Solutions; is president of the Metabolic Health Institute (non-profit); and is sole director of Metabolic Health International and London Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (private practice). JRLF declares personal consulting or speaker fees from Novo Nordisk, IFA Celtics, Eli Lilly, and Merck. PS declares research grants (paid to institution) from the National Health and Medical Research Council; coauthorship of manuscripts with medical writing assistance from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly; and an unpaid position in the leadership group of the Obesity Collective. WAB declares research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Gore, Applied Medical, Novo Nordisk, National Health and Medical Research Council, Myerton, and the Australian Commonwealth Government; and personal consulting fees for lectures and advisory boards from Johnson & Johnson, Gore, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Medtronic, Eli Lily, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. GM declares consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Fractyl, and Recor; and is a scientific advisor for Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and Jemyll. MB declares personal honoraria as a consultant and speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. ML declares personal consulting fees from, and has served on scientific boards for, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. LMSC declares consultancy fees from Antaros Medical. MTvdM declares past consulting fees from Netcare PTY and Novo Nordisk. RVC declares research grants from Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic; honoraria for lectures and presentations from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, and Novo Nordisk; and serving on scientific advisory boards for Morphic Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. AM declares research grants from USV (India) and AstraZeneca; honoraria for lectures from USV (India), Eli Lilly, Lupin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Cipla, AstraZeneca, Glenmark, Zydus, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Danone, Abbott, and the Almond Board of California; support for attending meetings or travel from USV (India), Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Lupin, and the Almond Board of California. KC is a primary investigator for Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Bioprojects, and Integrative Phenomic (SME) trials; declares support for attending meetings or travel from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals and Novo Nordisk; and received research grants or support from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals to conduct research or deliver lectures via Institutions (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne Université). RFK declares consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Weight Watchers, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Altimmune, Structure, and Regeneron. JN has no personal relationships with industry; is an employee of the Obesity Action Coalition, which receives unrestricted support from a wide variety of companies and organisations interested in obesity care including, from the pharmaceutical industry (NovoNordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Amgen, Genentech, Regeneron, Wave Life Sciences, Zealand Pharma, KVKTech, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Structure Therapeutics, Biohaen Pharmaceuticals, and Currax), surgical industry (Intuitive, Ethicon, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific), behavioural care (WW International and WondrHealth), and not-for-profit medical societies (American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Society, and the Obesity Medicine Association); and is president and chief executive officer for the Obesity Action Coalition. NS declares consulting or speaker honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi; and grants (paid to institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. WTG declares consulting fees as a member of advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, Zealand Pharma, Allurion, Carmot Therapeutics (Roche), Regeneron, and Merck; research grants as a site principal investigator for multicentre clinical trials sponsored by his university and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer; has served as a consultant on an advisory board for the non-profit Milken Foundation; and is a member of the data monitoring committee for phase 3 clinical trials conducted by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. BL declares research grants from US National Institutes of Health (not related to this Commission); and personal consulting fees from UpToDate. RHE declares consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, The Healthy Aging Co, and WW International. AK declares research grants from Novo Nordisk, ELPEN Pharma, and Pharmaserve–Lilly; serving on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Pharmaserve–Lilly, Sanofi, and Boehringher Ingelheim; and honoraria for lectures by Novo Nordisk, Pharmaserve–Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Sanofi, Bausch Health, Ethicon, Galenica Pharma, Epsilon Health, and Winmedica. J-PD declares grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; and personal consulting fees from INVERSAGO Pharma as a member of the advisory board. KWT declares speaker honoraria or consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Eurodrug Laboratories, iNova Pharmaceuticals, and DKSH; travel support from Novo Nordisk; and serving on advisory boards of Novo Nordisk, DKSH (representing Eli Lilly), Abbott Nutrition, and Boehringer Ingelheim. ER declares research grants from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk; and consulting fees from Energesis Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Amway, Kintai Therapeutics, YSOPIA Bioscience (previously LNC Therapeutics), CINFINA Pharmaceuticals, and Boehringer Ingelheim. JBD declares personal consulting fees from Reshape Lifescience, and Nestle Health Science Australia; serving on advisory boards and speaker panels for Reshape Lifescience, Nestle Health Science Australia, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and I-nova; and speaker fees from HealthED and Eurodrug Laboratories. FP declares personal consulting fees from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly. DEC declares serving on scientific advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Gila Therapeutics, and Endogenex. TK declares research grants from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and Sumitomo Pharma; consulting fees from Taisho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly Japan, and Novo Nordisk; and honoraria for lectures from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Sumitomo Pharma, Teijin Pharma, MSD, Eli Lilly Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Taisho Pharmaceutical, and Novo Nordisk. NBAB declares research grants from NovoNordisk and AstraZeneca; and honoraria for lectures and presentations from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Merck, MSD, Sanofi, and Servier. JV was national clinical director for diabetes and obesity at NHS England from April, 2013, to September, 2023; declares funding support from the North West London National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration, CW+ (the official charity of Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust), European Commission Horizon Europe 2022, and UK Research and Innovation Horizon Europe. CWlR declares grants from the Irish Research Council, Science Foundation Ireland, Anabio, and the Health Research Board; serving on advisory boards and speakers panels for Novo Nordisk, Herbalife, GI Dynamics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Glia, Irish Life Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Currax, Zealand Pharma, Keyron, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; was the chief medical officer and director (unpaid) of the Medical Device Division of Keyron in 2021; was a previous investor in Keyron, which develops endoscopically implantable medical devices intended to mimic the surgical procedures of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass (no patients have been included in any of Keyron's studies and they are not listed on the stock market); was gifted stock holdings in September, 2021, and divested all stock holdings in Keyron in September, 2021; continues to provide scientific advice (unpaid) to Keyron; and provides (unpaid) obesity clinical care in the Beyond BMI clinic (Dublin, Ireland), and is a shareholder in the clinic. NJF-L declares personal consulting fees from WHO and the European Commission (Best Re-MaP joint action [a project aimed to develop and implement policy proposals in nutrition for children]). NFA declares personal consulting fees from Ethicon and Eli Lilly; and serving on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. ISF declares personal consulting fees from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, SV Health, Nodthera Therapeutics, and Goldman Sachs. VMM declares personal consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk. JPK declares research grants from the US National Institutes of Health (grants U54, U01, and U54 GM104940 that could be indirectly linked to the work of this Commission); and honoraria for serving on scientific advisory boards of Novo Nordisk and the Annual Reviews of Nutrition. KMM reports serving on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; and is a member of a drug safety and monitoring board for Novartis. PRS declares research grants from Ethicon and Medtronic; personal consulting fees or honoraria from GI Dynamics, Keyron, Persona, Mediflix, Metabolic Health International, Eli Lilly, Heron, Novo Nordisk, and Klens; serving on scientific advisory boards for SE Healthcare Board of Directors, GI Dynamics, Keyron, Persona, and Mediflix; and has ownership interest in SE Healthcare, Mediflix, and Metabolic Health International. HT declares research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk; serving on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Daiichi Sankyo, and Novartis; and speakers fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. MHT declares participation in a scientific advisory board meeting of ERX Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA, USA) in 2019; was a member of the Research Cluster Advisory Panel of the Novo Nordisk Foundation between 2017 and 2019; funding for research projects from Novo Nordisk (2016–20) and Sanofi-Aventis (2012–19); consulted twice for Boehringer Ingelheim (2020 and 2021); delivered scientific lectures for Sanofi-Aventis (2020), Boehringer Ingelheim (2024), and AstraZeneca (2024); is cofounder of the biotech startups Ghrelco and Bluewater Biotech (2024); is chief executive officer and chief scientific officer of Helmholtz Munich, and is co-responsible for countless collaborations of the employees with a multitude of companies and institutions worldwide (in this capacity, discusses potential projects with and signs contracts for the centres institutes related to research collaborations worldwide, including, but not limited to, pharmaceutical corporations such as Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Arbormed, Eli Lilly, and SCG Cell Therapy, and as chief scientific officer is responsible for commercial technology transfer activities); and is a former member of the scientific advisory board of ERX, which is developing the drug celastrol, but has no current competing interests. JPHW declares consultancy or advisory board work for the pharmaceutical industry contracted via the University of Liverpool (no personal payment) for Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Napp, Novo Nordisk, Menarini, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Saniona, Tern, Shionogi, and YSOPIA Bioscience; research grants for clinical trials from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk; personal honoraria or lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medscape, Napp, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; is past president of the World Obesity Federation; and was national lead for the Metabolic and Endocrine Speciality Group of the National Institute of Health and Reasearch Clinical Research Network from 2010–24; and is a member of the Rank Prize Funds Nutrition Committee and a past member of the RCP committee on nutrition, weight, and health. FCS declares personal consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gelesis, Currax, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; and has served on scientific advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. LAB declares serving on scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk (for the ACTION Teens study) and Eli Lilly; and speaker fees (paid to institution) from Novo Nordisk. LMK declares participation on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; and consulting fees from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytoki, Ethicon, Glyscend, Kallyope, Eli Lilly, Neurogastrx, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Perspectum, Pfizer, Sidekick Health, Xeno Biosciences, and Zealand Pharma. RLB declares research grants from the Sir Jules Thorn Trust, National Institutes for Health and Care Research, Rosetrees Trust, and Novo Nordisk; personal consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Gila Therapeutics, Epitomee Medical, Medscape, ViiV, and International Medical Press; serving on scientific advisory boards for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, ViiV, and International Medical Press; leadership or fiduciary roles (unpaid) in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups for the Royal College of Physicians; is a committee member of the British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society and the National Bariatric Surgery Registry; is scientific chair of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity, European Chapter; is a trustee for the Association for the Study of Obesity and the Obesity Empowerment Network UK; is a member of the Obesity Guideline Update Committee for the National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence; and, since May 15, 2023, is senior vice president for Eli Lilly and holds shares in Eli Lilly, and as a result has had no active involvement in this Commission since May 1, 2023 (however, to comply with authorship requirements, RLB read and approved the final draft [see Acknowledgements for details]). RV declares research grants from Pfizer; fees for educational purposes from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly; and serving on scientific advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. MO-G declares research grants from Adamed Poland; personal consulting fees from Baush Health, Novo Nordisk, and Promed Poland; and serving on scientific advisory boards for Baush Health, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. HJG declares consulting fees from Gila Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. SL declares research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, and LG Chem; and honoraria as a consultant or speaker for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, LG Chem, Daewoong Pharmaceutical, Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical, and Novo Nordisk. All other authors have no competing interests.

Objective: Obesity is a disease with severe health impacts on individuals and economic impacts on society, yet healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and policy makers often fail to address it. This survey was conducted to examine current global obesity care and perceptions influencing care delivery among HCPs and healthcare decision makers (HC DMs)., Methods: A survey with a cross-sectional design was conducted among 1200 HCPs (primary care providers, endocrinologists, cardiologists, and nurses) and 414 HC DMs from eight countries across five continents. Respondents' perceptions of obesity, characteristics of patient populations, obesity management practices, and obesity-related healthcare policies were collected. Surveys were administered online from June-July 2023. All respondent data were anonymized., Results: Among HCPs, 26.4% and 29.0% of HC DMs considered obesity a chronic disease, and 44.6% of HCPs reported that obesity was recorded as a chronic disease in patients' medical records. The pattern of responses was consistent across countries and professional roles. Obesity care approaches focused on lifestyle concerns. HCPs and HC DMs appeared to overestimate the provision of obesity-related medical care for affected patients., Conclusion: These results corroborate prior findings that many HCPs do not consider obesity a disease, which hinders initiation of appropriate treatment, and also highlight challenges in obesity management, including gaps in obesity guidelines and accessibility to healthcare. These findings may help guide education and outreach by health authorities as well as HCPs., Competing Interests: J.B.D. reports consulting fees from Reshape Lifescience and Nestle Health Science; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novo Nordisk, Lilly, INova, Eurodrug Laboratories, HealthED, and Nestle Health Science Australia; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novo Nordisk, Lilly, INova, Eurodrug Laboratories, and HealthED; participation on an Advisory Board for Reshape Lifescience, Nestle Health Science, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk; and service as vice president of NACOS, a leader of the Obesity Collective, and a member of WIN. R.A.G reports service as editor‐in‐chief of the Journal of Clinical and Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). P.B. reports receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bruno Farmaceutici, and Amryt (Chiesi); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Bruno Farmaceutici, and Amryt (Chiesi); support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Bruno Farmaceutici; and participation on an Advisory Board for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bruno Farmaceutici, and Amryt (Chiesi)., (© 2025 The Author(s). Obesity Science & Practice published by World Obesity and The Obesity Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Reducing weight stigma in healthcare is critical to supporting and improving the health of people living with overweight or obesity and decreasing the risk of adverse patient outcomes. We were invited as stigma researchers to participate in an online workshop alongside community members, healthcare professionals and policymakers to codesign guidance for reducing weight stigma in healthcare. This workshop prompted us to reflect on why and how weight stigma should be addressed in healthcare, and to provide recommendations for healthcare professionals and policymakers to reduce weight stigma in healthcare., Objective: This paper presents our reflections and recommendations for addressing weight stigma in healthcare following the codesign workshop., Discussion: Recommendations include targeting individual healthcare professionals and involving clear, practical guidelines and training that leverage the notions of 'do no harm', improving practice and recognising biases. Importantly, such strategies must be couched in broader structural approaches to weight stigma reduction.

Purpose: The focus of measuring success in obesity treatment is shifting from weight loss to patients' health and quality of life. The objective of this study was to select a core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures to be used in clinical obesity care., Materials and Methods: The Standardizing Quality of Life in Obesity Treatment III, face-to-face hybrid consensus meeting, including people living with obesity as well as healthcare providers, was held in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 2022. It was preceded by two prior multinational consensus meetings and a systematic review., Results: The meeting was attended by 27 participants, representing twelve countries from five continents. The participants included healthcare providers, such as surgeons, endocrinologists, dietitians, psychologists, researchers, and people living with obesity, most of whom were involved in patient representative networks. Three patient-reported outcome measures (patient-reported outcomes) were selected: the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (self-esteem) measure, the BODY-Q (physical function, physical symptoms, psychological function, social function, eating behavior, and body image), and the Quality of Life for Obesity Surgery questionnaire (excess skin). No patient-reported outcome measure was selected for stigma., Conclusion: A core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures for measuring quality of life in clinical obesity care is established incorporating patients' and experts' opinions. This set should be used as a minimum for measuring quality of life in routine clinical practice. It is essential that individual patient-reported outcome measure scores are shared with people living with obesity in order to enhance patient engagement and shared decision-making., (© 2024. The Author(s).)