Obesity

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2025.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2025.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2025.

About half of US adults aged ≥ 65 years report arthritis, and of those, 44% have an arthritis-attributable activity limitation.^1,2 Arthritis is a significant health issue for veterans, with veterans reporting higher rates of disability compared with the civilian population.³

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis.⁴ Among individuals aged ≥ 40 years, the incidence of OA is nearly twice as high among veterans compared with civilians and is a leading cause of separation from military service and disability.^5,6 OA pain and disability have been shown to be associated with increases in health care and medication use, including opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and muscle relaxants.^7,8 Because OA is chronic and has no cure, safe and effective management strategies—such as exercise— are critical to minimize pain and maintain physical function.⁹

Exercise can reduce pain and disability associated with OA and is a first-line recommendation in guidelines for the treatment of knee and hip OA.⁹ Given the limited exercise and high levels of physical inactivity among veterans with OA, there is a need to identify opportunities that support veterans with OA engaging in regular exercise.

Gerofit, an outpatient clinical exercise program available at 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sites, may provide an opportunity for older veterans with arthritis to engage in exercise.¹⁰ Gerofit is specifically designed for veterans aged ≥ 65 years. It is not disease-specific and supports older veterans with multiple chronic conditions, including OA. Veterans aged ≥ 65 years with a referral from a VA clinician are eligible for Gerofit. Those who are unable to perform activities of daily living; unable to independently function without assistance; have a history of unstable angina, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, oxygen dependence, volatile behavioral issues, or are unable to work successfully in a group environment/setting; experience active substance abuse, homelessness, or uncontrolled incontinence; and have open wounds that cannot be appropriately dressed are excluded from Gerofit. Exercise sessions are held 3 times per week and last from 60 to 90 minutes. Sessions are supervised by Gerofit staff and include personalized exercise prescriptions based on functional assessments. Exercise prescriptions include aerobic, resistance, and balance/flexibility components and are modified by the Gerofit program staff as needed. Gerofit adopts a functional fitness approach and includes individual progression as appropriate according to evidence-based guidelines, using the Borg ratings of perceived exertion. ¹¹ Assessments are performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and annually thereafter. Clinical staff conduct all assessments, including physical function testing, and record them in a database. Assessments are reviewed with the veteran to chart progress and identify future goals or needs. Veterans perform personalized self-paced exercises in the Gerofit group setting. Exercise prescriptions are continuously modified to meet individualized needs and goals. Veterans may participate continuously with no end date.

Participation in supervised exercise is associated with improved physical function and individuals with arthritis can improve function even though their baseline functional status is lower than individuals without arthritis. ¹² In this analysis, we examine the impact of exercise on the status and location of arthritis (upper body, lower body, or both). Lower body arthritis is more common than upper body arthritis and lower extremity function is associated with increased ability to perform activities of daily living, resulting in independence among older adults.^13,14 We also include upper body strength measures to capture important functional movements such as reaching and pulling.¹⁵ Among those who participate in Gerofit, the greatest gains in physical function occur during the initial 3 months, which tend to be sustained over 12 months.¹⁶ For this reason, this study focused on the initial 3 months of the program.

Older adults with arthritis may have pain and functional limitations that exceed those of the general older adult population. Exercise programs for older adults that do not specifically target arthritis but are able to improve physical function among those with arthritis could potentially increase access to exercise for older adults living with arthritis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether change in physical function with participation in Gerofit for 3 months varies by arthritis status, including no arthritis, any arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both upper and lower body arthritis compared with no arthritis.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of previously collected data from 10 VHA Gerofit sites (Ann Arbor, Baltimore, Greater Los Angeles, Canandaigua, Cincinnati, Miami, Honolulu, Denver, Durham, and Pittsburgh) from 2002 to 2019. Implementation data regarding the consistency of the program delivery at Gerofit expansion sites have been previously published.¹⁶ Although the delivery of Gerofit transitioned to telehealth due to COVID-19, data for this analysis were collected from in-person exercise sessions prior to the pandemic.¹⁷ Data were collected for clinical purposes. This project was part of the Gerofit quality improvement initiative and was reviewed and approved by the Durham Institutional Review Board as quality improvement.

Participants in Gerofit who completed baseline and 3-month assessments were included to analyze the effects of exercise on physical function. At each of the time points, physical functional assessments included: (1) usual gait speed (> 10 meters [m/s], or 10- meter walk test [10MWT]); (2) lower body strength (chair stands [number completed in 30 seconds]); (3) upper body strength (number of arm curls [5-lb for females/8-lb for males] completed in 30 seconds); and (4) 6-minute walk distance [6MWD] in meters to measure aerobic endurance). These measures have been validated in older adults.^18-21 Arm curls were added to the physical function assessments after the 10MWT, chair stands, and 6MWD; therefore, fewer participants had data for this measure. Participants self-reported at baseline on 45 common medical conditions, including arthritis or rheumatism (both upper body and lower body were offered as choices). Self-reporting has been shown to be an acceptable method of identifying arthritis in adults.²²

Descriptive statistics at baseline were calculated for all participants. One-way analysis of variance and X² tests were used to determine differences in baseline characteristics across arthritis status. The primary outcomes were changes in physical function measures from baseline to 3 months by arthritis status. Arthritis status was defined as: any arthritis, which includes individuals who reported upper body arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both; and arthritis status individuals reporting either upper body arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both. Categories of arthritis for arthritis status were mutually exclusive. Two separate linear models were constructed for each of the 4 physical function measures, with change from baseline to 3 months as the outcome (dependent variable) and arthritis status, age, and body mass index (BMI) as predictors (independent variables). The first model compared any arthritis with no arthritis and the second model compared arthritis status (both upper and lower body arthritis vs lower body arthritis) with no arthritis. These models were used to obtain mean changes and 95% CIs in physical function and to test for differences in the change in physical function measures by arthritis status. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 4.0.3.

Results

Baseline and 3-month data were available for 737 Gerofit participants and included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age was 73.5 (7.1) years. A total of 707 participants were male (95.9%) and 322 (43.6%) reported some arthritis, with arthritis in both the upper and lower body being reported by 168 participants (52.2%) (Table 1). There were no differences in age, sex, or race for those with any arthritis compared with those with no arthritis, but BMI was significantly higher in those reporting any arthritis compared with no arthritis. For the baseline functional measures, statistically significant differences were observed between those with no arthritis and those reporting any arthritis for the 10MWT (P = .001), chair stands (P = .046), and 6MWD (P = .001), but not for arm curls (P = .77), with those with no arthritis performing better.

All 4 arthritis status groups showed improvements in each of the physical function measures over 3 months. For the 10MWT the mean change (95% CI) in gait speed (m/s) was 0.06 (0.04-0.08) for patients with no arthritis, 0.07 (0.05- 0.08) for any arthritis, 0.07 (0.04-0.11) for lower body arthritis, and 0.07 (0.04- 0.09) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the number of arm curls in 30 seconds the mean change (95% CI) was 2.3 (1.8-2.8) for patients with no arthritis, 2.1 (1.5-2.6) for any arthritis, 2.0 (1.1-3.0) for lower body arthritis, and 1.9 (1.1-2.7) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the number of chair stands in 30 seconds the mean change (95% CI) was 2.1 (1.7-2.4) for patients with no arthritis, 2.2 (1.8-2.6) for any arthritis, 2.3 (1.6-2.9), for lower body arthritis, and 2.0 (1.5-2.5) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the 6MWD distance in meters the mean change (95% CI) was 21.5 (15.5-27.4) for patients with no arthritis, 28.6 (21.9-35.3) for any arthritis, 30.4 (19.5-41.3) for lower body arthritis, and 28.6 (19.2-38.0) for both lower and upper body arthritis (Figure).

We used 2 models to measure the change from baseline to 3 months for each of the arthritis groups. Model 1 compared any arthritis vs no arthritis and model 2 compared lower body arthritis and both upper and lower body arthritis vs no arthritis for each physical function measure (Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences in 3-month change in physical function for any of the physical function measures between arthritis groups after adjusting for age and BMI.

Discussion

Participation in Gerofit was associated with functional gains among all participants over 3 months, regardless of arthritis status. Older veterans reporting any arthritis had significantly lower physical function scores upon enrollment into Gerofit compared with those veterans reporting no arthritis. However, compared with individuals who reported no arthritis, individuals who reported arthritis (any arthritis, lower body arthritis only, or both lower and upper body arthritis) experienced similar improvements (ie, no statistically significant differences in mean change from baseline to follow-up among those with and without arthritis). This study suggests that progressive, multicomponent exercise programs for older adults may be beneficial for those with arthritis.

Involvement of multiple sites of arthritis is associated with moderate to severe functional limitations as well as lower healthrelated quality of life.²³ While it has been found that individuals with arthritis can improve function with supervised exercise, even though their baseline functional status is lower than individuals without arthritis, it was not clear whether individuals with multiple joint involvement also would benefit.¹² The results of this study suggest that these individuals can improve across various domains of physical function despite variation in arthritis location and status. As incidence of arthritis increases with age, targeting older adults for exercise programs such as Gerofit may improve functional limitations and health-related quality of life associated with arthritis.²

We evaluated physical function using multiple measures to assess upper (arm curls) and lower (chair stands, 10MWT) extremity physical function and aerobic endurance (6MWD). Participants in this study reached clinically meaningful changes with 3 months of participation in Gerofit for most of the physical function measures. Gerofit participants had a mean gait speed improvement of 0.05 to 0.07 m/s compared with 0.10 to 0.30 m/s, which was reported previously. ^24,25 In this study, nearly all groups achieved the clinically important improvements in the chair stand in 30 seconds (2.0 to 2.6) and the 6MWD (21.8 to 59.1 m) that have been reported in the literature.^24-26

The Osteoarthritis Research Society International recommends the chair stand and 6MWD performance-based tests for individuals with hip and knee arthritis because they align with patient-reported outcomes and represent the types of activities relevant to this population.²⁷ The findings of this study suggest that improvement in these physical function measures with participation in exercise align with data from arthritis-specific exercise programs designed for wide implementation. Hughes and colleagues reported improvements in the 6MWD after the 8-week Fit and Strong exercise intervention, which included walking and lower body resistance training.²⁸ The Arthritis Foundation’s Walk With Ease program is a 6-week walking program that has shown improvements in chair stands and gait speed.²⁹ Another Arthritis Foundation program, People with Arthritis Can Exercise, is an 8-week course consisting of a variety of resistance, aerobic, and balance activities. This program has been associated with increases in chair stands but not gait speed or 6MWD.^30,31

This study found that participation in a VHA outpatient clinical supervised exercise program results in improvements in physical function that can be realized by older adults regardless of arthritis burden. Gerofit programs typically require 1.5 to 2.0 dedicated full-time equivalent employees to run the program effectively and additional administrative support, depending on size of the program.³² The cost savings generated by the program include reductions in hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, days in hospital, and medication use and provide a compelling argument for the program’s financial viability to health care systems through long-term savings and improved health outcomes for older adults.^33-36

While evidenced-based arthritis programs exist, this study illustrates that an exercise program without a focus on arthritis also improves physical function, potentially reducing the risk of disability related to arthritis. The clinical implication for these findings is that arthritis-specific exercise programs may not be needed to achieve functional improvements in individuals with arthritis. This is critical for under-resourced or exercise- limited health care systems or communities. Therefore, if exercise programming is limited, or arthritis-specific programs and interventions are not available, nonspecific exercise programs will also be beneficial to individuals with arthritis. Thus, individuals with arthritis should be encouraged to participate in any available exercise programming to achieve improvements in physical function. In addition, many older adults have multiple comorbidities, most of which improve with participation in exercise. ³⁷ Disease-specific exercise programs can offer tailored exercises and coaching related to common barriers in participation, such as joint pain for arthritis.³¹ It is unclear whether these additional programmatic components are associated with greater improvements in outcomes, such as physical function. More research is needed to explore the benefits of disease-specific tailored exercise programs compared with general exercise programs.

Strengths and Limitations

This study demonstrated the effect of participation in a clinical, supervised exercise program in a real-world setting. It suggests that even exercise programs not specifically targeted for arthritis populations can improve physical function among those with arthritis.

As a VHA clinical supervised exercise program, Gerofit may not be generalizable to all older adults or other exercise programs. In addition, this analysis only included a veteran population that was > 95% male and may not be generalizable to other populations. Arthritis status was defined by self-report and not verified in the health record. However, this approach has been shown to be acceptable in this setting and the most common type of arthritis in this population (OA) is a painful musculoskeletal condition associated with functional limitations.^4,22,38,39 Self-reported arthritis or rheumatism is associated with functional limitations.¹ Therefore, it is unlikely that the results would differ for physician-diagnosed or radiographically defined OA. Additionally, the study did not have data on the total number of joints with arthritis or arthritis severity but rather used upper body, lower body, and both upper and lower body arthritis as a proxy for arthritis status. While our models were adjusted for age and BMI, 2 known confounding factors for the association between arthritis and physical function, there are other potential confounding factors that were not included in the models. ^40,41 Finally, this study only included individuals with completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments, and the individuals who participated for longer or shorter periods may have had different physical function outcomes than individuals included in this study.

Conclusions

Participation in 3 months VHA Gerofit outpatient supervised exercise programs can improve physical function for all older adults, regardless of arthritis status. These programs may increase access to exercise programming that is beneficial for common conditions affecting older adults, such as arthritis.

About half of US adults aged ≥ 65 years report arthritis, and of those, 44% have an arthritis-attributable activity limitation.^1,2 Arthritis is a significant health issue for veterans, with veterans reporting higher rates of disability compared with the civilian population.³

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis.⁴ Among individuals aged ≥ 40 years, the incidence of OA is nearly twice as high among veterans compared with civilians and is a leading cause of separation from military service and disability.^5,6 OA pain and disability have been shown to be associated with increases in health care and medication use, including opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and muscle relaxants.^7,8 Because OA is chronic and has no cure, safe and effective management strategies—such as exercise— are critical to minimize pain and maintain physical function.⁹

Exercise can reduce pain and disability associated with OA and is a first-line recommendation in guidelines for the treatment of knee and hip OA.⁹ Given the limited exercise and high levels of physical inactivity among veterans with OA, there is a need to identify opportunities that support veterans with OA engaging in regular exercise.

Gerofit, an outpatient clinical exercise program available at 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sites, may provide an opportunity for older veterans with arthritis to engage in exercise.¹⁰ Gerofit is specifically designed for veterans aged ≥ 65 years. It is not disease-specific and supports older veterans with multiple chronic conditions, including OA. Veterans aged ≥ 65 years with a referral from a VA clinician are eligible for Gerofit. Those who are unable to perform activities of daily living; unable to independently function without assistance; have a history of unstable angina, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, oxygen dependence, volatile behavioral issues, or are unable to work successfully in a group environment/setting; experience active substance abuse, homelessness, or uncontrolled incontinence; and have open wounds that cannot be appropriately dressed are excluded from Gerofit. Exercise sessions are held 3 times per week and last from 60 to 90 minutes. Sessions are supervised by Gerofit staff and include personalized exercise prescriptions based on functional assessments. Exercise prescriptions include aerobic, resistance, and balance/flexibility components and are modified by the Gerofit program staff as needed. Gerofit adopts a functional fitness approach and includes individual progression as appropriate according to evidence-based guidelines, using the Borg ratings of perceived exertion. ¹¹ Assessments are performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and annually thereafter. Clinical staff conduct all assessments, including physical function testing, and record them in a database. Assessments are reviewed with the veteran to chart progress and identify future goals or needs. Veterans perform personalized self-paced exercises in the Gerofit group setting. Exercise prescriptions are continuously modified to meet individualized needs and goals. Veterans may participate continuously with no end date.

Participation in supervised exercise is associated with improved physical function and individuals with arthritis can improve function even though their baseline functional status is lower than individuals without arthritis. ¹² In this analysis, we examine the impact of exercise on the status and location of arthritis (upper body, lower body, or both). Lower body arthritis is more common than upper body arthritis and lower extremity function is associated with increased ability to perform activities of daily living, resulting in independence among older adults.^13,14 We also include upper body strength measures to capture important functional movements such as reaching and pulling.¹⁵ Among those who participate in Gerofit, the greatest gains in physical function occur during the initial 3 months, which tend to be sustained over 12 months.¹⁶ For this reason, this study focused on the initial 3 months of the program.

Older adults with arthritis may have pain and functional limitations that exceed those of the general older adult population. Exercise programs for older adults that do not specifically target arthritis but are able to improve physical function among those with arthritis could potentially increase access to exercise for older adults living with arthritis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether change in physical function with participation in Gerofit for 3 months varies by arthritis status, including no arthritis, any arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both upper and lower body arthritis compared with no arthritis.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of previously collected data from 10 VHA Gerofit sites (Ann Arbor, Baltimore, Greater Los Angeles, Canandaigua, Cincinnati, Miami, Honolulu, Denver, Durham, and Pittsburgh) from 2002 to 2019. Implementation data regarding the consistency of the program delivery at Gerofit expansion sites have been previously published.¹⁶ Although the delivery of Gerofit transitioned to telehealth due to COVID-19, data for this analysis were collected from in-person exercise sessions prior to the pandemic.¹⁷ Data were collected for clinical purposes. This project was part of the Gerofit quality improvement initiative and was reviewed and approved by the Durham Institutional Review Board as quality improvement.

Participants in Gerofit who completed baseline and 3-month assessments were included to analyze the effects of exercise on physical function. At each of the time points, physical functional assessments included: (1) usual gait speed (> 10 meters [m/s], or 10- meter walk test [10MWT]); (2) lower body strength (chair stands [number completed in 30 seconds]); (3) upper body strength (number of arm curls [5-lb for females/8-lb for males] completed in 30 seconds); and (4) 6-minute walk distance [6MWD] in meters to measure aerobic endurance). These measures have been validated in older adults.^18-21 Arm curls were added to the physical function assessments after the 10MWT, chair stands, and 6MWD; therefore, fewer participants had data for this measure. Participants self-reported at baseline on 45 common medical conditions, including arthritis or rheumatism (both upper body and lower body were offered as choices). Self-reporting has been shown to be an acceptable method of identifying arthritis in adults.²²

Descriptive statistics at baseline were calculated for all participants. One-way analysis of variance and X² tests were used to determine differences in baseline characteristics across arthritis status. The primary outcomes were changes in physical function measures from baseline to 3 months by arthritis status. Arthritis status was defined as: any arthritis, which includes individuals who reported upper body arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both; and arthritis status individuals reporting either upper body arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both. Categories of arthritis for arthritis status were mutually exclusive. Two separate linear models were constructed for each of the 4 physical function measures, with change from baseline to 3 months as the outcome (dependent variable) and arthritis status, age, and body mass index (BMI) as predictors (independent variables). The first model compared any arthritis with no arthritis and the second model compared arthritis status (both upper and lower body arthritis vs lower body arthritis) with no arthritis. These models were used to obtain mean changes and 95% CIs in physical function and to test for differences in the change in physical function measures by arthritis status. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 4.0.3.

Results

Baseline and 3-month data were available for 737 Gerofit participants and included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age was 73.5 (7.1) years. A total of 707 participants were male (95.9%) and 322 (43.6%) reported some arthritis, with arthritis in both the upper and lower body being reported by 168 participants (52.2%) (Table 1). There were no differences in age, sex, or race for those with any arthritis compared with those with no arthritis, but BMI was significantly higher in those reporting any arthritis compared with no arthritis. For the baseline functional measures, statistically significant differences were observed between those with no arthritis and those reporting any arthritis for the 10MWT (P = .001), chair stands (P = .046), and 6MWD (P = .001), but not for arm curls (P = .77), with those with no arthritis performing better.

All 4 arthritis status groups showed improvements in each of the physical function measures over 3 months. For the 10MWT the mean change (95% CI) in gait speed (m/s) was 0.06 (0.04-0.08) for patients with no arthritis, 0.07 (0.05- 0.08) for any arthritis, 0.07 (0.04-0.11) for lower body arthritis, and 0.07 (0.04- 0.09) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the number of arm curls in 30 seconds the mean change (95% CI) was 2.3 (1.8-2.8) for patients with no arthritis, 2.1 (1.5-2.6) for any arthritis, 2.0 (1.1-3.0) for lower body arthritis, and 1.9 (1.1-2.7) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the number of chair stands in 30 seconds the mean change (95% CI) was 2.1 (1.7-2.4) for patients with no arthritis, 2.2 (1.8-2.6) for any arthritis, 2.3 (1.6-2.9), for lower body arthritis, and 2.0 (1.5-2.5) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the 6MWD distance in meters the mean change (95% CI) was 21.5 (15.5-27.4) for patients with no arthritis, 28.6 (21.9-35.3) for any arthritis, 30.4 (19.5-41.3) for lower body arthritis, and 28.6 (19.2-38.0) for both lower and upper body arthritis (Figure).

We used 2 models to measure the change from baseline to 3 months for each of the arthritis groups. Model 1 compared any arthritis vs no arthritis and model 2 compared lower body arthritis and both upper and lower body arthritis vs no arthritis for each physical function measure (Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences in 3-month change in physical function for any of the physical function measures between arthritis groups after adjusting for age and BMI.

Discussion

Participation in Gerofit was associated with functional gains among all participants over 3 months, regardless of arthritis status. Older veterans reporting any arthritis had significantly lower physical function scores upon enrollment into Gerofit compared with those veterans reporting no arthritis. However, compared with individuals who reported no arthritis, individuals who reported arthritis (any arthritis, lower body arthritis only, or both lower and upper body arthritis) experienced similar improvements (ie, no statistically significant differences in mean change from baseline to follow-up among those with and without arthritis). This study suggests that progressive, multicomponent exercise programs for older adults may be beneficial for those with arthritis.

Involvement of multiple sites of arthritis is associated with moderate to severe functional limitations as well as lower healthrelated quality of life.²³ While it has been found that individuals with arthritis can improve function with supervised exercise, even though their baseline functional status is lower than individuals without arthritis, it was not clear whether individuals with multiple joint involvement also would benefit.¹² The results of this study suggest that these individuals can improve across various domains of physical function despite variation in arthritis location and status. As incidence of arthritis increases with age, targeting older adults for exercise programs such as Gerofit may improve functional limitations and health-related quality of life associated with arthritis.²

We evaluated physical function using multiple measures to assess upper (arm curls) and lower (chair stands, 10MWT) extremity physical function and aerobic endurance (6MWD). Participants in this study reached clinically meaningful changes with 3 months of participation in Gerofit for most of the physical function measures. Gerofit participants had a mean gait speed improvement of 0.05 to 0.07 m/s compared with 0.10 to 0.30 m/s, which was reported previously. ^24,25 In this study, nearly all groups achieved the clinically important improvements in the chair stand in 30 seconds (2.0 to 2.6) and the 6MWD (21.8 to 59.1 m) that have been reported in the literature.^24-26

The Osteoarthritis Research Society International recommends the chair stand and 6MWD performance-based tests for individuals with hip and knee arthritis because they align with patient-reported outcomes and represent the types of activities relevant to this population.²⁷ The findings of this study suggest that improvement in these physical function measures with participation in exercise align with data from arthritis-specific exercise programs designed for wide implementation. Hughes and colleagues reported improvements in the 6MWD after the 8-week Fit and Strong exercise intervention, which included walking and lower body resistance training.²⁸ The Arthritis Foundation’s Walk With Ease program is a 6-week walking program that has shown improvements in chair stands and gait speed.²⁹ Another Arthritis Foundation program, People with Arthritis Can Exercise, is an 8-week course consisting of a variety of resistance, aerobic, and balance activities. This program has been associated with increases in chair stands but not gait speed or 6MWD.^30,31

This study found that participation in a VHA outpatient clinical supervised exercise program results in improvements in physical function that can be realized by older adults regardless of arthritis burden. Gerofit programs typically require 1.5 to 2.0 dedicated full-time equivalent employees to run the program effectively and additional administrative support, depending on size of the program.³² The cost savings generated by the program include reductions in hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, days in hospital, and medication use and provide a compelling argument for the program’s financial viability to health care systems through long-term savings and improved health outcomes for older adults.^33-36

While evidenced-based arthritis programs exist, this study illustrates that an exercise program without a focus on arthritis also improves physical function, potentially reducing the risk of disability related to arthritis. The clinical implication for these findings is that arthritis-specific exercise programs may not be needed to achieve functional improvements in individuals with arthritis. This is critical for under-resourced or exercise- limited health care systems or communities. Therefore, if exercise programming is limited, or arthritis-specific programs and interventions are not available, nonspecific exercise programs will also be beneficial to individuals with arthritis. Thus, individuals with arthritis should be encouraged to participate in any available exercise programming to achieve improvements in physical function. In addition, many older adults have multiple comorbidities, most of which improve with participation in exercise. ³⁷ Disease-specific exercise programs can offer tailored exercises and coaching related to common barriers in participation, such as joint pain for arthritis.³¹ It is unclear whether these additional programmatic components are associated with greater improvements in outcomes, such as physical function. More research is needed to explore the benefits of disease-specific tailored exercise programs compared with general exercise programs.

Strengths and Limitations

This study demonstrated the effect of participation in a clinical, supervised exercise program in a real-world setting. It suggests that even exercise programs not specifically targeted for arthritis populations can improve physical function among those with arthritis.

As a VHA clinical supervised exercise program, Gerofit may not be generalizable to all older adults or other exercise programs. In addition, this analysis only included a veteran population that was > 95% male and may not be generalizable to other populations. Arthritis status was defined by self-report and not verified in the health record. However, this approach has been shown to be acceptable in this setting and the most common type of arthritis in this population (OA) is a painful musculoskeletal condition associated with functional limitations.^4,22,38,39 Self-reported arthritis or rheumatism is associated with functional limitations.¹ Therefore, it is unlikely that the results would differ for physician-diagnosed or radiographically defined OA. Additionally, the study did not have data on the total number of joints with arthritis or arthritis severity but rather used upper body, lower body, and both upper and lower body arthritis as a proxy for arthritis status. While our models were adjusted for age and BMI, 2 known confounding factors for the association between arthritis and physical function, there are other potential confounding factors that were not included in the models. ^40,41 Finally, this study only included individuals with completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments, and the individuals who participated for longer or shorter periods may have had different physical function outcomes than individuals included in this study.

Conclusions

Participation in 3 months VHA Gerofit outpatient supervised exercise programs can improve physical function for all older adults, regardless of arthritis status. These programs may increase access to exercise programming that is beneficial for common conditions affecting older adults, such as arthritis.

About half of US adults aged ≥ 65 years report arthritis, and of those, 44% have an arthritis-attributable activity limitation.^1,2 Arthritis is a significant health issue for veterans, with veterans reporting higher rates of disability compared with the civilian population.³

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis.⁴ Among individuals aged ≥ 40 years, the incidence of OA is nearly twice as high among veterans compared with civilians and is a leading cause of separation from military service and disability.^5,6 OA pain and disability have been shown to be associated with increases in health care and medication use, including opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and muscle relaxants.^7,8 Because OA is chronic and has no cure, safe and effective management strategies—such as exercise— are critical to minimize pain and maintain physical function.⁹

Exercise can reduce pain and disability associated with OA and is a first-line recommendation in guidelines for the treatment of knee and hip OA.⁹ Given the limited exercise and high levels of physical inactivity among veterans with OA, there is a need to identify opportunities that support veterans with OA engaging in regular exercise.

Gerofit, an outpatient clinical exercise program available at 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sites, may provide an opportunity for older veterans with arthritis to engage in exercise.¹⁰ Gerofit is specifically designed for veterans aged ≥ 65 years. It is not disease-specific and supports older veterans with multiple chronic conditions, including OA. Veterans aged ≥ 65 years with a referral from a VA clinician are eligible for Gerofit. Those who are unable to perform activities of daily living; unable to independently function without assistance; have a history of unstable angina, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, oxygen dependence, volatile behavioral issues, or are unable to work successfully in a group environment/setting; experience active substance abuse, homelessness, or uncontrolled incontinence; and have open wounds that cannot be appropriately dressed are excluded from Gerofit. Exercise sessions are held 3 times per week and last from 60 to 90 minutes. Sessions are supervised by Gerofit staff and include personalized exercise prescriptions based on functional assessments. Exercise prescriptions include aerobic, resistance, and balance/flexibility components and are modified by the Gerofit program staff as needed. Gerofit adopts a functional fitness approach and includes individual progression as appropriate according to evidence-based guidelines, using the Borg ratings of perceived exertion. ¹¹ Assessments are performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and annually thereafter. Clinical staff conduct all assessments, including physical function testing, and record them in a database. Assessments are reviewed with the veteran to chart progress and identify future goals or needs. Veterans perform personalized self-paced exercises in the Gerofit group setting. Exercise prescriptions are continuously modified to meet individualized needs and goals. Veterans may participate continuously with no end date.

Participation in supervised exercise is associated with improved physical function and individuals with arthritis can improve function even though their baseline functional status is lower than individuals without arthritis. ¹² In this analysis, we examine the impact of exercise on the status and location of arthritis (upper body, lower body, or both). Lower body arthritis is more common than upper body arthritis and lower extremity function is associated with increased ability to perform activities of daily living, resulting in independence among older adults.^13,14 We also include upper body strength measures to capture important functional movements such as reaching and pulling.¹⁵ Among those who participate in Gerofit, the greatest gains in physical function occur during the initial 3 months, which tend to be sustained over 12 months.¹⁶ For this reason, this study focused on the initial 3 months of the program.

Older adults with arthritis may have pain and functional limitations that exceed those of the general older adult population. Exercise programs for older adults that do not specifically target arthritis but are able to improve physical function among those with arthritis could potentially increase access to exercise for older adults living with arthritis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether change in physical function with participation in Gerofit for 3 months varies by arthritis status, including no arthritis, any arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both upper and lower body arthritis compared with no arthritis.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of previously collected data from 10 VHA Gerofit sites (Ann Arbor, Baltimore, Greater Los Angeles, Canandaigua, Cincinnati, Miami, Honolulu, Denver, Durham, and Pittsburgh) from 2002 to 2019. Implementation data regarding the consistency of the program delivery at Gerofit expansion sites have been previously published.¹⁶ Although the delivery of Gerofit transitioned to telehealth due to COVID-19, data for this analysis were collected from in-person exercise sessions prior to the pandemic.¹⁷ Data were collected for clinical purposes. This project was part of the Gerofit quality improvement initiative and was reviewed and approved by the Durham Institutional Review Board as quality improvement.

Participants in Gerofit who completed baseline and 3-month assessments were included to analyze the effects of exercise on physical function. At each of the time points, physical functional assessments included: (1) usual gait speed (> 10 meters [m/s], or 10- meter walk test [10MWT]); (2) lower body strength (chair stands [number completed in 30 seconds]); (3) upper body strength (number of arm curls [5-lb for females/8-lb for males] completed in 30 seconds); and (4) 6-minute walk distance [6MWD] in meters to measure aerobic endurance). These measures have been validated in older adults.^18-21 Arm curls were added to the physical function assessments after the 10MWT, chair stands, and 6MWD; therefore, fewer participants had data for this measure. Participants self-reported at baseline on 45 common medical conditions, including arthritis or rheumatism (both upper body and lower body were offered as choices). Self-reporting has been shown to be an acceptable method of identifying arthritis in adults.²²

Descriptive statistics at baseline were calculated for all participants. One-way analysis of variance and X² tests were used to determine differences in baseline characteristics across arthritis status. The primary outcomes were changes in physical function measures from baseline to 3 months by arthritis status. Arthritis status was defined as: any arthritis, which includes individuals who reported upper body arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both; and arthritis status individuals reporting either upper body arthritis, lower body arthritis, or both. Categories of arthritis for arthritis status were mutually exclusive. Two separate linear models were constructed for each of the 4 physical function measures, with change from baseline to 3 months as the outcome (dependent variable) and arthritis status, age, and body mass index (BMI) as predictors (independent variables). The first model compared any arthritis with no arthritis and the second model compared arthritis status (both upper and lower body arthritis vs lower body arthritis) with no arthritis. These models were used to obtain mean changes and 95% CIs in physical function and to test for differences in the change in physical function measures by arthritis status. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 4.0.3.

Results

Baseline and 3-month data were available for 737 Gerofit participants and included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age was 73.5 (7.1) years. A total of 707 participants were male (95.9%) and 322 (43.6%) reported some arthritis, with arthritis in both the upper and lower body being reported by 168 participants (52.2%) (Table 1). There were no differences in age, sex, or race for those with any arthritis compared with those with no arthritis, but BMI was significantly higher in those reporting any arthritis compared with no arthritis. For the baseline functional measures, statistically significant differences were observed between those with no arthritis and those reporting any arthritis for the 10MWT (P = .001), chair stands (P = .046), and 6MWD (P = .001), but not for arm curls (P = .77), with those with no arthritis performing better.

All 4 arthritis status groups showed improvements in each of the physical function measures over 3 months. For the 10MWT the mean change (95% CI) in gait speed (m/s) was 0.06 (0.04-0.08) for patients with no arthritis, 0.07 (0.05- 0.08) for any arthritis, 0.07 (0.04-0.11) for lower body arthritis, and 0.07 (0.04- 0.09) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the number of arm curls in 30 seconds the mean change (95% CI) was 2.3 (1.8-2.8) for patients with no arthritis, 2.1 (1.5-2.6) for any arthritis, 2.0 (1.1-3.0) for lower body arthritis, and 1.9 (1.1-2.7) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the number of chair stands in 30 seconds the mean change (95% CI) was 2.1 (1.7-2.4) for patients with no arthritis, 2.2 (1.8-2.6) for any arthritis, 2.3 (1.6-2.9), for lower body arthritis, and 2.0 (1.5-2.5) for both lower and upper body arthritis. For the 6MWD distance in meters the mean change (95% CI) was 21.5 (15.5-27.4) for patients with no arthritis, 28.6 (21.9-35.3) for any arthritis, 30.4 (19.5-41.3) for lower body arthritis, and 28.6 (19.2-38.0) for both lower and upper body arthritis (Figure).

We used 2 models to measure the change from baseline to 3 months for each of the arthritis groups. Model 1 compared any arthritis vs no arthritis and model 2 compared lower body arthritis and both upper and lower body arthritis vs no arthritis for each physical function measure (Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences in 3-month change in physical function for any of the physical function measures between arthritis groups after adjusting for age and BMI.

Discussion

Participation in Gerofit was associated with functional gains among all participants over 3 months, regardless of arthritis status. Older veterans reporting any arthritis had significantly lower physical function scores upon enrollment into Gerofit compared with those veterans reporting no arthritis. However, compared with individuals who reported no arthritis, individuals who reported arthritis (any arthritis, lower body arthritis only, or both lower and upper body arthritis) experienced similar improvements (ie, no statistically significant differences in mean change from baseline to follow-up among those with and without arthritis). This study suggests that progressive, multicomponent exercise programs for older adults may be beneficial for those with arthritis.

Involvement of multiple sites of arthritis is associated with moderate to severe functional limitations as well as lower healthrelated quality of life.²³ While it has been found that individuals with arthritis can improve function with supervised exercise, even though their baseline functional status is lower than individuals without arthritis, it was not clear whether individuals with multiple joint involvement also would benefit.¹² The results of this study suggest that these individuals can improve across various domains of physical function despite variation in arthritis location and status. As incidence of arthritis increases with age, targeting older adults for exercise programs such as Gerofit may improve functional limitations and health-related quality of life associated with arthritis.²

We evaluated physical function using multiple measures to assess upper (arm curls) and lower (chair stands, 10MWT) extremity physical function and aerobic endurance (6MWD). Participants in this study reached clinically meaningful changes with 3 months of participation in Gerofit for most of the physical function measures. Gerofit participants had a mean gait speed improvement of 0.05 to 0.07 m/s compared with 0.10 to 0.30 m/s, which was reported previously. ^24,25 In this study, nearly all groups achieved the clinically important improvements in the chair stand in 30 seconds (2.0 to 2.6) and the 6MWD (21.8 to 59.1 m) that have been reported in the literature.^24-26

The Osteoarthritis Research Society International recommends the chair stand and 6MWD performance-based tests for individuals with hip and knee arthritis because they align with patient-reported outcomes and represent the types of activities relevant to this population.²⁷ The findings of this study suggest that improvement in these physical function measures with participation in exercise align with data from arthritis-specific exercise programs designed for wide implementation. Hughes and colleagues reported improvements in the 6MWD after the 8-week Fit and Strong exercise intervention, which included walking and lower body resistance training.²⁸ The Arthritis Foundation’s Walk With Ease program is a 6-week walking program that has shown improvements in chair stands and gait speed.²⁹ Another Arthritis Foundation program, People with Arthritis Can Exercise, is an 8-week course consisting of a variety of resistance, aerobic, and balance activities. This program has been associated with increases in chair stands but not gait speed or 6MWD.^30,31

This study found that participation in a VHA outpatient clinical supervised exercise program results in improvements in physical function that can be realized by older adults regardless of arthritis burden. Gerofit programs typically require 1.5 to 2.0 dedicated full-time equivalent employees to run the program effectively and additional administrative support, depending on size of the program.³² The cost savings generated by the program include reductions in hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, days in hospital, and medication use and provide a compelling argument for the program’s financial viability to health care systems through long-term savings and improved health outcomes for older adults.^33-36

While evidenced-based arthritis programs exist, this study illustrates that an exercise program without a focus on arthritis also improves physical function, potentially reducing the risk of disability related to arthritis. The clinical implication for these findings is that arthritis-specific exercise programs may not be needed to achieve functional improvements in individuals with arthritis. This is critical for under-resourced or exercise- limited health care systems or communities. Therefore, if exercise programming is limited, or arthritis-specific programs and interventions are not available, nonspecific exercise programs will also be beneficial to individuals with arthritis. Thus, individuals with arthritis should be encouraged to participate in any available exercise programming to achieve improvements in physical function. In addition, many older adults have multiple comorbidities, most of which improve with participation in exercise. ³⁷ Disease-specific exercise programs can offer tailored exercises and coaching related to common barriers in participation, such as joint pain for arthritis.³¹ It is unclear whether these additional programmatic components are associated with greater improvements in outcomes, such as physical function. More research is needed to explore the benefits of disease-specific tailored exercise programs compared with general exercise programs.

Strengths and Limitations

This study demonstrated the effect of participation in a clinical, supervised exercise program in a real-world setting. It suggests that even exercise programs not specifically targeted for arthritis populations can improve physical function among those with arthritis.

As a VHA clinical supervised exercise program, Gerofit may not be generalizable to all older adults or other exercise programs. In addition, this analysis only included a veteran population that was > 95% male and may not be generalizable to other populations. Arthritis status was defined by self-report and not verified in the health record. However, this approach has been shown to be acceptable in this setting and the most common type of arthritis in this population (OA) is a painful musculoskeletal condition associated with functional limitations.^4,22,38,39 Self-reported arthritis or rheumatism is associated with functional limitations.¹ Therefore, it is unlikely that the results would differ for physician-diagnosed or radiographically defined OA. Additionally, the study did not have data on the total number of joints with arthritis or arthritis severity but rather used upper body, lower body, and both upper and lower body arthritis as a proxy for arthritis status. While our models were adjusted for age and BMI, 2 known confounding factors for the association between arthritis and physical function, there are other potential confounding factors that were not included in the models. ^40,41 Finally, this study only included individuals with completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments, and the individuals who participated for longer or shorter periods may have had different physical function outcomes than individuals included in this study.

Conclusions

Participation in 3 months VHA Gerofit outpatient supervised exercise programs can improve physical function for all older adults, regardless of arthritis status. These programs may increase access to exercise programming that is beneficial for common conditions affecting older adults, such as arthritis.

The impact of obesity in the United States is significant. Between August 2021 and August 2023, the prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) in US adults was 40.3%.¹ The prevalence of obesity in adults aged 40 to 59 years was 46.4%, higher than the prevalence in adults aged 20 to 39 years (35.5%) and those aged ≥ 60 years (38.9%).¹ The excess annual medical costs associated with obesity in the US are estimated at nearly $173 billion.²

The first-line treatment for obesity is lifestyle modifications, including a healthy diet and exercise. When lifestyle modifications are not enough to achieve weight-loss goals, bariatric surgery and anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are often considered. Five medications were approved for the long-term tretament of obesity by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2021 and 2023, when this study was conducted: semaglutide (Wegovy), liraglutide (Saxenda), phentermine and topiramate, naltrexone and bupropion, and orlistat. The clinically meaningful (and commonly accepted) weight-loss target for these medications is ≥ 5% from baseline by week 12 of the maximally tolerated dose of therapy. A 5% weight loss has been shown to be clinically significant in improving cardiometabolic risk factors.^3,4 These medications are intended to be used as an adjunct to healthy diet and exercise. Of note, semaglutide and liraglutide carry brand names, which are associated with different dosing for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

All 5 FDA-approved AOMs were available at the Veterans Affairs Sioux Falls Health Care System (VASFHCS) for the treatment of obesity at the time of the study. To qualify for an AOM, a veteran at VASFHCS must first work with a dietitian or be enrolled in the MOVE! clinic to participate in the weight management program, which focuses on dietary, exercise, and behavioral changes. At VASFHCS, AOMs are prescribed by primary care practitioners, clinical pharmacy providers, and advanced practitioners within the MOVE! program.

Ample data exist for the efficacy of AOMs. However, no published research has reported on AOM efficacy by age group (Appendix).^5-11 While most of the AOM clinical trials included older adults, the average age of participants was typically between 40 and 50 years. It is well-known that pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes occur as age increases. Renal and hepatic clearance is reduced while the volume distribution and sensitivities to some medications may increase. ¹² Although this study did not focus on specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes with respect to AOM, it is important to recognize that this may play a role in the efficacy and safety of AOMs in older adults.

Methods

This retrospective single-center chart review was performed using the VASFHCS Computerized Patient Record System to compare the efficacy of AOMs in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) vs adults (aged < 65 years). The primary endpoint was the percent change in body weight from baseline to 6 and 12 months after initiation of AOM therapy in the older adult vs adult population. Secondary endpoints included changes in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), and blood pressure (BP) from baseline compared to 12 months on AOM therapy. HbA_1c was assessed in patients with T2DM or prediabetes at the time of AOM initiation. Two safety endpoints were also explored to determine the incidence of medication adverse events (AEs) and subsequent discontinuation of AOM. A subset analysis was performed to determine whether there was a difference in percent change in body weight between patients in 3 age groups: 18 to 40 years, 41 to 64 years, and ≥ 65 years.

The study population included patients who were prescribed an AOM between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. Patients were excluded if they did not continue AOM therapy for ≥ 6 months after initiation or if they underwent gastric bypass surgery while undergoing AOM therapy. Patients taking semaglutide (Ozempic) or liraglutide (Victoza) for both T2DM and weight loss who were eventually switched to the weight loss formulations (Wegovy or Saxenda) were included. Patients who switched between semaglutide and liraglutide for weight loss were also included. Those taking semaglutide or liraglutide solely for T2DM treatment were excluded because they are dosed differently.

Collected data included age, gender, race, weight (baseline, 6 and 12 months after initiation of AOM), metabolic laboratory values/vital signs (HbA_1c, LDL, and BP at baseline and 12 months after initiation of AOM), diagnosis of T2DM or prediabetes, reported AEs associated with AOM therapy, and date of AOM initiation and discontinuation (if applicable). Baseline values were defined at the time of medication initiation or values documented within 6 months prior to medication initiation if true baseline data were not reported. If values were not recorded at months 6 and 12 after AOM initiation, values documented closest to those targets were used. Weights were used for baseline, 6-, and 12-month data unless they were unavailable due to use of virtual care modalities. In these cases, patient-reported weights were used. Patients were included in the 6-month data, but not the 12-month data, if they were taking AOMs for > 6 months but not for 12 months. If patients had been on multiple AOMs, baseline data were recorded at the start of the first medication that was used for 6 months or longer. Twelve-month data were recorded after subsequent medication change. Twelve-month metabolic laboratory values/vital signs were recorded for patients included in the study even if they did not complete ≥ 12 months of AOM therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Data from patients who were prescribed an AOM from January 2021 to June 2023 and who remained on the medication for ≥ 6 months were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated using the t test. The safety endpoints were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An analysis of variance test was used for the subset analysis. Results with P < .05 were statistically significant.

Results

A total of 144 participants were included in this study, 116 in the adult group (aged < 65 years) and 28 in the older adult group (aged ≥ 65 years). Sixty-seven patients were excluded due to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Other than the predetermined mean age differences (48 years vs 71 years), there were multiple differences in patient baseline characteristics. When comparing older adults and adults, average weight (283 lb vs 269 lb) and White race (89% vs 87%) were slightly higher in the older adult group. Also, a higher prevalence of T2DM (54% and 18%) and a lower prevalence of prediabetes (21% and 33%) was noted in the older adult group. HbA_1c and BP were similar between both groups at baseline, while LDL was slightly lower in the older adult group (Table 1).

Patients in the adult group lost a mean 7.0% and 8.7% of body weight at 6 and 12 months, respectively, while the older adult group lost 5.0% and 6.6% body weight at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The difference in percent change in body weight was not statistically different at 6 (P = .08) or 12 (P = .26) months between patients in the adult group vs the older adult group or in the specific age groups (18-40 years, 41-64 years, ≥ 65 years) at 6 months (P = .24) or 12 months (P = .53) (Figure).

At 12 months, the difference between the adult group vs the older adult group was not statistically significant for HbA_1c in patients with T2DM or prediabetes (P = .73), LDL (P = .95), systolic BP (P = .58), or diastolic BP (P = .51) (Table 2).

For the safety endpoint, the incidence of AEs was found to be different between groups. There were more reported AEs (61.2% vs 39.3%) and a greater increase in therapy discontinuation due to AEs (6.0% vs 0%) in the adult group compared to the older adult group (Table 3).

Discussion

Patients taking AOMs revealed no statistically significant difference in percent change in body weight at 6 or 12 months between adults aged < 65 years and older adults aged ≥ 65 years. The subset analysis also showed no statistically significant difference in change in percent body weight between more narrowly defined age groups of 18 to 40 years, 41 to 64 years, and ≥ 65 years. This suggests that AOM may have similar efficacy for weight loss in all ages of adults.

Secondary endpoint findings showed no statistically significant difference in HbA_1c (in patients with T2DM or prediabetes), LDL, or BP at 12 months between the 2 groups. Although this study did not differentiate secondary outcomes based on the individual AOM, the change in HbA_1c in both groups was expected, given that 70% of the patients included in this study were taking a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist (liraglutide and semaglutide) at some point during the study. It’s also worth noting that secondary endpoints were collected for patients who discontinued the AOM between 6 and 12 months. Therefore, the patients’ HbA_1c, LDL, and BP may not have accurately reflected the change that could have been expected if they had continued AOM therapy beyond the 12-month period.

Due to the different mechanisms and range in efficacy that AOMs have in regard to weight loss, changes in all outcomes, including weight, HbA_1c, LDL, and BP were expected to vary as patients were included even after switching AOM (collection of data started after ≥ 6 months on a single AOM). Switching of AOM after the first 6 months of therapy was recorded in 25% of the patients in the ≥ 65 years group and 330% of the patients in the < 65 years group.

The incidence of AEs and subsequent discontinuation of AOMs in this study was higher in the adult group. This study excluded patients who did not continue taking an AOM for at least 6 months. As a result, the incidence of AEs between the 2 groups within the first 6 months of AOM therapy remains unknown. It is possible that during the first 6 months of therapy, patients aged < 65 years were more willing to tolerate or had fewer severe AEs compared with the older adult group. It’s also possible that the smaller number of patients in the older adult group was due to increased AEs that led them to discontinue early (before completion of 6 months of therapy) and/or prescriber discomfort in using AOMs in the older adult population. In addition, because the specific medication(s) taken by patients in each group were not detailed, it is unknown whether the adult group was taking AOMs associated with a greater number of AEs.

Limitations

This was a retrospective study with a relatively small sample size. A larger sample size may have shown more precise differences between age groups and may be more representative of the general population. Additionally, data were reliant on appropriate documentation, and adherence to AOM therapy was not assessed due to the retrospective nature of this study. At times, the study relied on patient reported data points, such as weight, if a clinic weight was not available. Also, this study did not account for many potential confounding factors such as other medications taken by the patient, which can affect outcomes including weight, HbA_1c, LDL, blood pressure, and AEs.

Conclusions

This retrospective study of patients taking AOMs showed no statistically significant difference in weight loss at 6 or 12 months between adults aged < 65 years and older adults aged ≥ 65 years. A subset analysis found no statistically significant difference in change in body weight between specific age groups (18-40 years, 41-64 years, and ≥ 65 years). There was also no statistically significant difference in secondary outcomes, including change in HbA_1c (in patients with T2DM or prediabetes), LDL or BP between age groups. The safety endpoints showed a higher incidence of medication AEs in the adult group, with more of these adults discontinuing therapy due to AEs. This study indicates that AOM may have similar outcomes for weight loss and metabolic laboratory values/vital sign changes between adults and older adults. Also, our findings suggest that patients aged < 65 years may experience more AEs than patients aged ≥ 65 years after ≥ 6 months of AOM therapy. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these age-specific findings.

The impact of obesity in the United States is significant. Between August 2021 and August 2023, the prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) in US adults was 40.3%.¹ The prevalence of obesity in adults aged 40 to 59 years was 46.4%, higher than the prevalence in adults aged 20 to 39 years (35.5%) and those aged ≥ 60 years (38.9%).¹ The excess annual medical costs associated with obesity in the US are estimated at nearly $173 billion.²

The first-line treatment for obesity is lifestyle modifications, including a healthy diet and exercise. When lifestyle modifications are not enough to achieve weight-loss goals, bariatric surgery and anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are often considered. Five medications were approved for the long-term tretament of obesity by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2021 and 2023, when this study was conducted: semaglutide (Wegovy), liraglutide (Saxenda), phentermine and topiramate, naltrexone and bupropion, and orlistat. The clinically meaningful (and commonly accepted) weight-loss target for these medications is ≥ 5% from baseline by week 12 of the maximally tolerated dose of therapy. A 5% weight loss has been shown to be clinically significant in improving cardiometabolic risk factors.^3,4 These medications are intended to be used as an adjunct to healthy diet and exercise. Of note, semaglutide and liraglutide carry brand names, which are associated with different dosing for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

All 5 FDA-approved AOMs were available at the Veterans Affairs Sioux Falls Health Care System (VASFHCS) for the treatment of obesity at the time of the study. To qualify for an AOM, a veteran at VASFHCS must first work with a dietitian or be enrolled in the MOVE! clinic to participate in the weight management program, which focuses on dietary, exercise, and behavioral changes. At VASFHCS, AOMs are prescribed by primary care practitioners, clinical pharmacy providers, and advanced practitioners within the MOVE! program.

Ample data exist for the efficacy of AOMs. However, no published research has reported on AOM efficacy by age group (Appendix).^5-11 While most of the AOM clinical trials included older adults, the average age of participants was typically between 40 and 50 years. It is well-known that pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes occur as age increases. Renal and hepatic clearance is reduced while the volume distribution and sensitivities to some medications may increase. ¹² Although this study did not focus on specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes with respect to AOM, it is important to recognize that this may play a role in the efficacy and safety of AOMs in older adults.

Methods

This retrospective single-center chart review was performed using the VASFHCS Computerized Patient Record System to compare the efficacy of AOMs in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) vs adults (aged < 65 years). The primary endpoint was the percent change in body weight from baseline to 6 and 12 months after initiation of AOM therapy in the older adult vs adult population. Secondary endpoints included changes in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), and blood pressure (BP) from baseline compared to 12 months on AOM therapy. HbA_1c was assessed in patients with T2DM or prediabetes at the time of AOM initiation. Two safety endpoints were also explored to determine the incidence of medication adverse events (AEs) and subsequent discontinuation of AOM. A subset analysis was performed to determine whether there was a difference in percent change in body weight between patients in 3 age groups: 18 to 40 years, 41 to 64 years, and ≥ 65 years.

The study population included patients who were prescribed an AOM between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. Patients were excluded if they did not continue AOM therapy for ≥ 6 months after initiation or if they underwent gastric bypass surgery while undergoing AOM therapy. Patients taking semaglutide (Ozempic) or liraglutide (Victoza) for both T2DM and weight loss who were eventually switched to the weight loss formulations (Wegovy or Saxenda) were included. Patients who switched between semaglutide and liraglutide for weight loss were also included. Those taking semaglutide or liraglutide solely for T2DM treatment were excluded because they are dosed differently.

Collected data included age, gender, race, weight (baseline, 6 and 12 months after initiation of AOM), metabolic laboratory values/vital signs (HbA_1c, LDL, and BP at baseline and 12 months after initiation of AOM), diagnosis of T2DM or prediabetes, reported AEs associated with AOM therapy, and date of AOM initiation and discontinuation (if applicable). Baseline values were defined at the time of medication initiation or values documented within 6 months prior to medication initiation if true baseline data were not reported. If values were not recorded at months 6 and 12 after AOM initiation, values documented closest to those targets were used. Weights were used for baseline, 6-, and 12-month data unless they were unavailable due to use of virtual care modalities. In these cases, patient-reported weights were used. Patients were included in the 6-month data, but not the 12-month data, if they were taking AOMs for > 6 months but not for 12 months. If patients had been on multiple AOMs, baseline data were recorded at the start of the first medication that was used for 6 months or longer. Twelve-month data were recorded after subsequent medication change. Twelve-month metabolic laboratory values/vital signs were recorded for patients included in the study even if they did not complete ≥ 12 months of AOM therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Data from patients who were prescribed an AOM from January 2021 to June 2023 and who remained on the medication for ≥ 6 months were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated using the t test. The safety endpoints were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An analysis of variance test was used for the subset analysis. Results with P < .05 were statistically significant.

Results

A total of 144 participants were included in this study, 116 in the adult group (aged < 65 years) and 28 in the older adult group (aged ≥ 65 years). Sixty-seven patients were excluded due to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Other than the predetermined mean age differences (48 years vs 71 years), there were multiple differences in patient baseline characteristics. When comparing older adults and adults, average weight (283 lb vs 269 lb) and White race (89% vs 87%) were slightly higher in the older adult group. Also, a higher prevalence of T2DM (54% and 18%) and a lower prevalence of prediabetes (21% and 33%) was noted in the older adult group. HbA_1c and BP were similar between both groups at baseline, while LDL was slightly lower in the older adult group (Table 1).

Patients in the adult group lost a mean 7.0% and 8.7% of body weight at 6 and 12 months, respectively, while the older adult group lost 5.0% and 6.6% body weight at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The difference in percent change in body weight was not statistically different at 6 (P = .08) or 12 (P = .26) months between patients in the adult group vs the older adult group or in the specific age groups (18-40 years, 41-64 years, ≥ 65 years) at 6 months (P = .24) or 12 months (P = .53) (Figure).

At 12 months, the difference between the adult group vs the older adult group was not statistically significant for HbA_1c in patients with T2DM or prediabetes (P = .73), LDL (P = .95), systolic BP (P = .58), or diastolic BP (P = .51) (Table 2).

For the safety endpoint, the incidence of AEs was found to be different between groups. There were more reported AEs (61.2% vs 39.3%) and a greater increase in therapy discontinuation due to AEs (6.0% vs 0%) in the adult group compared to the older adult group (Table 3).

Discussion

Patients taking AOMs revealed no statistically significant difference in percent change in body weight at 6 or 12 months between adults aged < 65 years and older adults aged ≥ 65 years. The subset analysis also showed no statistically significant difference in change in percent body weight between more narrowly defined age groups of 18 to 40 years, 41 to 64 years, and ≥ 65 years. This suggests that AOM may have similar efficacy for weight loss in all ages of adults.

Secondary endpoint findings showed no statistically significant difference in HbA_1c (in patients with T2DM or prediabetes), LDL, or BP at 12 months between the 2 groups. Although this study did not differentiate secondary outcomes based on the individual AOM, the change in HbA_1c in both groups was expected, given that 70% of the patients included in this study were taking a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist (liraglutide and semaglutide) at some point during the study. It’s also worth noting that secondary endpoints were collected for patients who discontinued the AOM between 6 and 12 months. Therefore, the patients’ HbA_1c, LDL, and BP may not have accurately reflected the change that could have been expected if they had continued AOM therapy beyond the 12-month period.

Due to the different mechanisms and range in efficacy that AOMs have in regard to weight loss, changes in all outcomes, including weight, HbA_1c, LDL, and BP were expected to vary as patients were included even after switching AOM (collection of data started after ≥ 6 months on a single AOM). Switching of AOM after the first 6 months of therapy was recorded in 25% of the patients in the ≥ 65 years group and 330% of the patients in the < 65 years group.

The incidence of AEs and subsequent discontinuation of AOMs in this study was higher in the adult group. This study excluded patients who did not continue taking an AOM for at least 6 months. As a result, the incidence of AEs between the 2 groups within the first 6 months of AOM therapy remains unknown. It is possible that during the first 6 months of therapy, patients aged < 65 years were more willing to tolerate or had fewer severe AEs compared with the older adult group. It’s also possible that the smaller number of patients in the older adult group was due to increased AEs that led them to discontinue early (before completion of 6 months of therapy) and/or prescriber discomfort in using AOMs in the older adult population. In addition, because the specific medication(s) taken by patients in each group were not detailed, it is unknown whether the adult group was taking AOMs associated with a greater number of AEs.

Limitations

This was a retrospective study with a relatively small sample size. A larger sample size may have shown more precise differences between age groups and may be more representative of the general population. Additionally, data were reliant on appropriate documentation, and adherence to AOM therapy was not assessed due to the retrospective nature of this study. At times, the study relied on patient reported data points, such as weight, if a clinic weight was not available. Also, this study did not account for many potential confounding factors such as other medications taken by the patient, which can affect outcomes including weight, HbA_1c, LDL, blood pressure, and AEs.

Conclusions

This retrospective study of patients taking AOMs showed no statistically significant difference in weight loss at 6 or 12 months between adults aged < 65 years and older adults aged ≥ 65 years. A subset analysis found no statistically significant difference in change in body weight between specific age groups (18-40 years, 41-64 years, and ≥ 65 years). There was also no statistically significant difference in secondary outcomes, including change in HbA_1c (in patients with T2DM or prediabetes), LDL or BP between age groups. The safety endpoints showed a higher incidence of medication AEs in the adult group, with more of these adults discontinuing therapy due to AEs. This study indicates that AOM may have similar outcomes for weight loss and metabolic laboratory values/vital sign changes between adults and older adults. Also, our findings suggest that patients aged < 65 years may experience more AEs than patients aged ≥ 65 years after ≥ 6 months of AOM therapy. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these age-specific findings.

The impact of obesity in the United States is significant. Between August 2021 and August 2023, the prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) in US adults was 40.3%.¹ The prevalence of obesity in adults aged 40 to 59 years was 46.4%, higher than the prevalence in adults aged 20 to 39 years (35.5%) and those aged ≥ 60 years (38.9%).¹ The excess annual medical costs associated with obesity in the US are estimated at nearly $173 billion.²

The first-line treatment for obesity is lifestyle modifications, including a healthy diet and exercise. When lifestyle modifications are not enough to achieve weight-loss goals, bariatric surgery and anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are often considered. Five medications were approved for the long-term tretament of obesity by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2021 and 2023, when this study was conducted: semaglutide (Wegovy), liraglutide (Saxenda), phentermine and topiramate, naltrexone and bupropion, and orlistat. The clinically meaningful (and commonly accepted) weight-loss target for these medications is ≥ 5% from baseline by week 12 of the maximally tolerated dose of therapy. A 5% weight loss has been shown to be clinically significant in improving cardiometabolic risk factors.^3,4 These medications are intended to be used as an adjunct to healthy diet and exercise. Of note, semaglutide and liraglutide carry brand names, which are associated with different dosing for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

All 5 FDA-approved AOMs were available at the Veterans Affairs Sioux Falls Health Care System (VASFHCS) for the treatment of obesity at the time of the study. To qualify for an AOM, a veteran at VASFHCS must first work with a dietitian or be enrolled in the MOVE! clinic to participate in the weight management program, which focuses on dietary, exercise, and behavioral changes. At VASFHCS, AOMs are prescribed by primary care practitioners, clinical pharmacy providers, and advanced practitioners within the MOVE! program.

Ample data exist for the efficacy of AOMs. However, no published research has reported on AOM efficacy by age group (Appendix).^5-11 While most of the AOM clinical trials included older adults, the average age of participants was typically between 40 and 50 years. It is well-known that pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes occur as age increases. Renal and hepatic clearance is reduced while the volume distribution and sensitivities to some medications may increase. ¹² Although this study did not focus on specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes with respect to AOM, it is important to recognize that this may play a role in the efficacy and safety of AOMs in older adults.

Methods

This retrospective single-center chart review was performed using the VASFHCS Computerized Patient Record System to compare the efficacy of AOMs in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) vs adults (aged < 65 years). The primary endpoint was the percent change in body weight from baseline to 6 and 12 months after initiation of AOM therapy in the older adult vs adult population. Secondary endpoints included changes in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), and blood pressure (BP) from baseline compared to 12 months on AOM therapy. HbA_1c was assessed in patients with T2DM or prediabetes at the time of AOM initiation. Two safety endpoints were also explored to determine the incidence of medication adverse events (AEs) and subsequent discontinuation of AOM. A subset analysis was performed to determine whether there was a difference in percent change in body weight between patients in 3 age groups: 18 to 40 years, 41 to 64 years, and ≥ 65 years.

The study population included patients who were prescribed an AOM between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. Patients were excluded if they did not continue AOM therapy for ≥ 6 months after initiation or if they underwent gastric bypass surgery while undergoing AOM therapy. Patients taking semaglutide (Ozempic) or liraglutide (Victoza) for both T2DM and weight loss who were eventually switched to the weight loss formulations (Wegovy or Saxenda) were included. Patients who switched between semaglutide and liraglutide for weight loss were also included. Those taking semaglutide or liraglutide solely for T2DM treatment were excluded because they are dosed differently.

Collected data included age, gender, race, weight (baseline, 6 and 12 months after initiation of AOM), metabolic laboratory values/vital signs (HbA_1c, LDL, and BP at baseline and 12 months after initiation of AOM), diagnosis of T2DM or prediabetes, reported AEs associated with AOM therapy, and date of AOM initiation and discontinuation (if applicable). Baseline values were defined at the time of medication initiation or values documented within 6 months prior to medication initiation if true baseline data were not reported. If values were not recorded at months 6 and 12 after AOM initiation, values documented closest to those targets were used. Weights were used for baseline, 6-, and 12-month data unless they were unavailable due to use of virtual care modalities. In these cases, patient-reported weights were used. Patients were included in the 6-month data, but not the 12-month data, if they were taking AOMs for > 6 months but not for 12 months. If patients had been on multiple AOMs, baseline data were recorded at the start of the first medication that was used for 6 months or longer. Twelve-month data were recorded after subsequent medication change. Twelve-month metabolic laboratory values/vital signs were recorded for patients included in the study even if they did not complete ≥ 12 months of AOM therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Data from patients who were prescribed an AOM from January 2021 to June 2023 and who remained on the medication for ≥ 6 months were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated using the t test. The safety endpoints were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An analysis of variance test was used for the subset analysis. Results with P < .05 were statistically significant.

Results

A total of 144 participants were included in this study, 116 in the adult group (aged < 65 years) and 28 in the older adult group (aged ≥ 65 years). Sixty-seven patients were excluded due to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Other than the predetermined mean age differences (48 years vs 71 years), there were multiple differences in patient baseline characteristics. When comparing older adults and adults, average weight (283 lb vs 269 lb) and White race (89% vs 87%) were slightly higher in the older adult group. Also, a higher prevalence of T2DM (54% and 18%) and a lower prevalence of prediabetes (21% and 33%) was noted in the older adult group. HbA_1c and BP were similar between both groups at baseline, while LDL was slightly lower in the older adult group (Table 1).

Patients in the adult group lost a mean 7.0% and 8.7% of body weight at 6 and 12 months, respectively, while the older adult group lost 5.0% and 6.6% body weight at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The difference in percent change in body weight was not statistically different at 6 (P = .08) or 12 (P = .26) months between patients in the adult group vs the older adult group or in the specific age groups (18-40 years, 41-64 years, ≥ 65 years) at 6 months (P = .24) or 12 months (P = .53) (Figure).

At 12 months, the difference between the adult group vs the older adult group was not statistically significant for HbA_1c in patients with T2DM or prediabetes (P = .73), LDL (P = .95), systolic BP (P = .58), or diastolic BP (P = .51) (Table 2).

For the safety endpoint, the incidence of AEs was found to be different between groups. There were more reported AEs (61.2% vs 39.3%) and a greater increase in therapy discontinuation due to AEs (6.0% vs 0%) in the adult group compared to the older adult group (Table 3).

Discussion

Patients taking AOMs revealed no statistically significant difference in percent change in body weight at 6 or 12 months between adults aged < 65 years and older adults aged ≥ 65 years. The subset analysis also showed no statistically significant difference in change in percent body weight between more narrowly defined age groups of 18 to 40 years, 41 to 64 years, and ≥ 65 years. This suggests that AOM may have similar efficacy for weight loss in all ages of adults.

Secondary endpoint findings showed no statistically significant difference in HbA_1c (in patients with T2DM or prediabetes), LDL, or BP at 12 months between the 2 groups. Although this study did not differentiate secondary outcomes based on the individual AOM, the change in HbA_1c in both groups was expected, given that 70% of the patients included in this study were taking a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist (liraglutide and semaglutide) at some point during the study. It’s also worth noting that secondary endpoints were collected for patients who discontinued the AOM between 6 and 12 months. Therefore, the patients’ HbA_1c, LDL, and BP may not have accurately reflected the change that could have been expected if they had continued AOM therapy beyond the 12-month period.

Due to the different mechanisms and range in efficacy that AOMs have in regard to weight loss, changes in all outcomes, including weight, HbA_1c, LDL, and BP were expected to vary as patients were included even after switching AOM (collection of data started after ≥ 6 months on a single AOM). Switching of AOM after the first 6 months of therapy was recorded in 25% of the patients in the ≥ 65 years group and 330% of the patients in the < 65 years group.

The incidence of AEs and subsequent discontinuation of AOMs in this study was higher in the adult group. This study excluded patients who did not continue taking an AOM for at least 6 months. As a result, the incidence of AEs between the 2 groups within the first 6 months of AOM therapy remains unknown. It is possible that during the first 6 months of therapy, patients aged < 65 years were more willing to tolerate or had fewer severe AEs compared with the older adult group. It’s also possible that the smaller number of patients in the older adult group was due to increased AEs that led them to discontinue early (before completion of 6 months of therapy) and/or prescriber discomfort in using AOMs in the older adult population. In addition, because the specific medication(s) taken by patients in each group were not detailed, it is unknown whether the adult group was taking AOMs associated with a greater number of AEs.

Limitations

This was a retrospective study with a relatively small sample size. A larger sample size may have shown more precise differences between age groups and may be more representative of the general population. Additionally, data were reliant on appropriate documentation, and adherence to AOM therapy was not assessed due to the retrospective nature of this study. At times, the study relied on patient reported data points, such as weight, if a clinic weight was not available. Also, this study did not account for many potential confounding factors such as other medications taken by the patient, which can affect outcomes including weight, HbA_1c, LDL, blood pressure, and AEs.

Conclusions

This retrospective study of patients taking AOMs showed no statistically significant difference in weight loss at 6 or 12 months between adults aged < 65 years and older adults aged ≥ 65 years. A subset analysis found no statistically significant difference in change in body weight between specific age groups (18-40 years, 41-64 years, and ≥ 65 years). There was also no statistically significant difference in secondary outcomes, including change in HbA_1c (in patients with T2DM or prediabetes), LDL or BP between age groups. The safety endpoints showed a higher incidence of medication AEs in the adult group, with more of these adults discontinuing therapy due to AEs. This study indicates that AOM may have similar outcomes for weight loss and metabolic laboratory values/vital sign changes between adults and older adults. Also, our findings suggest that patients aged < 65 years may experience more AEs than patients aged ≥ 65 years after ≥ 6 months of AOM therapy. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these age-specific findings.

A Lancet Commission has redefined obesity by classifying it as either “clinical obesity,” a disease, or “preclinical,” a health risk factor, with the distinction based on factors beyond body mass index (BMI).

“We propose a radical overhaul of the actual diagnosis of obesity to improve global healthcare and practices and policies. The specific aims were to facilitate individualized assessment and care of people living with obesity while preserving resources by reducing overdiagnosis and unnecessary or inadequate interventions,” Professor Louise Baur, chair of Child & Adolescent Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, said during a UK Science Media Centre (SMC) news briefing.

The report calls first for a diagnosis of obesity via confirmation of excess adiposity using measures such as waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio in addition to BMI. Next, a clinical assessment of signs and symptoms of organ dysfunction due to obesity and/or functional limitations determines whether the individual has the disease “clinical obesity,” or “preclinical obesity,” a condition of health risk but not an illness itself.

Published on January 14, 2025, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, the document also provides broad guidance on management for the two obesity conditions, emphasizing a personalized and stigma-free approach. The Lancet Commission on Obesity comprised 56 experts in relevant fields including endocrinology, surgery, nutrition, and public health, along with people living with obesity.

The report has been endorsed by more than 75 medical organizations, including the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, and obesity and endocrinology societies from countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and South Africa.

In recent years, many in the field have found fault with the current BMI-based definition of obesity (> 30 for people of European descent or other cutoffs for specific ethnic groups), primarily because BMI alone doesn’t reflect a person’s fat vs lean mass, fat distribution, or overall health. The new definition aims to overcome these limitations, as well as settle the debate about whether obesity is a “disease.”

“We now have a clinical diagnosis for obesity, which has been lacking. ... The traditional classification based on BMI ... reflects simply whether or not there is excess adiposity, and sometimes not even precise in that regard, either…It has never been a classification that was meant to diagnose a specific illness with its own clinical characteristics in the same way we diagnose any other illness,” Commission Chair Francesco Rubino, MD, professor and chair of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery at King’s College London, England, said in an interview.

He added, “The fact that now we have a clinical diagnosis allows recognition of the nuance that obesity is generally a risk and for some can be an illness. There are some who have risk but don’t have the illness here and now. And it’s crucially important for clinical decision-making, but also for policies to have a distinction between those two things because the treatment strategy for one and the other are substantially different.”

Asked to comment, obesity specialist Michael A. Weintraub, MD, clinical assistant professor of endocrinology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview, “I wholeheartedly agree with modifying the definition of obesity in this more accurate way. ... There has already been a lot of talk about the fallibility of BMI and that BMI over 30 does not equal obesity. ... So a major Commission article like this I think can really move those discussions even more into the forefront and start changing practice.” 

However, Weintraub added, “I think there needs to be another step here of more practical guidance on how to actually implement this ... including how to measure waist circumference and to put it into a patient flow.” 

Asked to comment, obesity expert Luca Busetto, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at the Department of Medicine of the University of Padova, Italy, said in an interview that he agrees with the general concept of moving beyond BMI in defining obesity. That view was expressed in a proposed “framework” from the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO), for which Busetto was the lead author.

Busetto also agrees with the emphasis on the need for a complete clinical evaluation of patients to define their health status. “The precise definition of the symptoms defining clinical obesity in adults and children is extremely important, emphasizing the fact that obesity is a severe and disabling disease by itself, even without or before the occurrence of obesity-related complications,” he said.

However, he takes issue with the Commission’s designation that “preclinical” obesity is not a disease. “The critical point of disagreement for me is the message that obesity is a disease only if it is clinical or only if it presents functional impairment or clinical symptoms. This remains, in my opinion, an oversimplification, not taking into account the fact that the pathophysiological mechanisms that lead to fat accumulation and ‘adipose tissue-based chronic disease’ usually start well before the occurrence of symptoms.”

Busetto pointed to examples such as type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, both of which can be asymptomatic in their early phases yet are still considered diseases at those points. “I have no problem in accepting a distinction between preclinical and clinical stages of the disease, and I like the definition of clinical obesity, but why should this imply the fact that obesity is NOT a disease since its beginning?”

The Commission does state that preclinical obesity should be addressed, mostly with preventive approaches but in some cases with more intensive management. “This is highly relevant, but the risk of an undertreatment of obesity in its asymptomatic state remains in place. This could delay appropriate management for a progressive disease that certainly should not be treated only when presenting symptoms. It would be too late,” Busetto said.

And EASO framework coauthor Gijs Goossens, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic physiology of obesity at Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, added a concern that those with excess adiposity but lower BMI might be missed entirely, noting “Since abdominal fat accumulation better predicts chronic cardiometabolic diseases and can also be accompanied by clinical manifestations in individuals with overweight as a consequence of compromised adipose tissue function, the proposed model may lead to underdiagnosis or undertreatment in individuals with BMI 25-30 who have excess abdominal fat.”

 

Diagnosis and Management Beyond BMI

The Commission advises the use of BMI solely as a marker to screen for potential obesity. Those with a BMI > 40 can be assumed to have excess body fat. For others with a BMI at or near the threshold for obesity in a specific country or ethnic group or for whom there is the clinical judgment of the potential for clinical obesity, confirmation of excess or abnormal adiposity is needed by one of the following:

• At least one measurement of body size and BMI
• At least two measures of body size, regardless of BMI
• Direct body fat measurement, such as a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan

Measurement of body size can be assessed in three ways: 

• Waist circumference ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women
• Waist-to-hip ratio > 0.90 for men and > 0.50 for women
• Waist-to-height ratio > 0.50 for all.

Weintraub noted, “Telemedicine is a useful tool used by many patients and providers but may also make it challenging to accurately assess someone’s body size. Having technology like an iPhone app to measure body size would circumvent this challenge but this type of tool has not yet been validated.” 

If the person does not have excess adiposity, they don’t have obesity. Those with excess adiposity do have obesity. Further assessment is then needed to establish whether the person has an illness, that is, clinical obesity, indicated by signs/symptoms of organ dysfunction, and/or limitations of daily activities. If not, they have “preclinical” obesity.

The document provides a list of 18 obesity-related organ, tissue, and body system criteria for diagnosing “clinical” obesity in adults, including upper airways (eg, apneas/hypopneas), respiratory (breathlessness), cardiovascular (hypertension, heart failure), liver (fatty liver disease with hepatic fibrosis), reproductive (polycystic ovary syndrome, hypogonadism), and metabolism (hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). A list of 13 such criteria is also provided for children. “Limitations of day-to-day activities” are included on both lists.

 

Management Differs by Designation

For preclinical obesity, management should focus on risk reduction and prevention of progression to clinical obesity or other obesity-related diseases. Such approaches include health counseling for weight loss or prevention of weight gain, monitoring over time, and active weight loss interventions in people at higher risk of developing clinical obesity and other obesity-related diseases.

Management for clinical obesity focuses on improvements or reversal of the organ dysfunction. The type of evidence-based treatment and management should be informed by individual risk-benefit assessments and decided via “active discussion” with the patient. Success is determined by improvement in the signs and symptoms rather than measures of weight loss.

In response to a reporter’s question at the SMC briefing about the implications for the use of weight-loss medications, Rubino noted that this wasn’t the focus of the report, but nonetheless said that this new obesity definition could help with their targeted use. “The strategy and intent by which you use the drugs is different in clinical and preclinical obesity. ... Pharmacological interventions could be used for patients with high-risk preclinical obesity, with the intent of reducing risk, but we ... would use the same medication at a different intensity, dose, and maybe in combination therapies.”

As for clinical obesity, “It could be more or less severe and could affect more than one organ, and so clinical obesity might require drugs, might require surgery, or may require, in some cases, a combination of both of them, to achieve the best possible outcomes. ... We want to make sure that the person is restoring health ... with whatever it takes.”

Rubino believes this new definition will convince the remaining clinicians who haven’t yet accepted the concept of obesity as a disease. “When they see clinical obesity, I think it will be much harder to say that a biological process that is capable of causing a dysfunction in the heart or the lungs is less of a disease than another biological process that causes similar dysfunction in the heart of the lungs. ... It’s going to be objective. Obesity is a spectrum of different situations. ... When it’s an illness, clinical obesity, it’s not a matter of if or when. It’s a matter of fact.”

There were no industrial grants or other funding for this initiative. King’s Health Partners hosted the initiative and provided logistical and personnel support to facilitate administrative work and the Delphi-like consensus-development process. Rubino declared receiving 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. Rubino has served (unpaid) as a member of the scientific advisory board for Keyron and a member of the data safety and monitoring board for GI Metabolic Solutions; is president of the Metabolic Health Institute (non-profit); and is the sole director of Metabolic Health International and London Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (private practice). Baur declared serving on the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk (for the ACTION Teens study) and Eli Lilly and receiving speaker fees (paid to the institution) from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Lancet Commission has redefined obesity by classifying it as either “clinical obesity,” a disease, or “preclinical,” a health risk factor, with the distinction based on factors beyond body mass index (BMI).

“We propose a radical overhaul of the actual diagnosis of obesity to improve global healthcare and practices and policies. The specific aims were to facilitate individualized assessment and care of people living with obesity while preserving resources by reducing overdiagnosis and unnecessary or inadequate interventions,” Professor Louise Baur, chair of Child & Adolescent Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, said during a UK Science Media Centre (SMC) news briefing.

The report calls first for a diagnosis of obesity via confirmation of excess adiposity using measures such as waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio in addition to BMI. Next, a clinical assessment of signs and symptoms of organ dysfunction due to obesity and/or functional limitations determines whether the individual has the disease “clinical obesity,” or “preclinical obesity,” a condition of health risk but not an illness itself.

Published on January 14, 2025, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, the document also provides broad guidance on management for the two obesity conditions, emphasizing a personalized and stigma-free approach. The Lancet Commission on Obesity comprised 56 experts in relevant fields including endocrinology, surgery, nutrition, and public health, along with people living with obesity.

The report has been endorsed by more than 75 medical organizations, including the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, and obesity and endocrinology societies from countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and South Africa.

In recent years, many in the field have found fault with the current BMI-based definition of obesity (> 30 for people of European descent or other cutoffs for specific ethnic groups), primarily because BMI alone doesn’t reflect a person’s fat vs lean mass, fat distribution, or overall health. The new definition aims to overcome these limitations, as well as settle the debate about whether obesity is a “disease.”

“We now have a clinical diagnosis for obesity, which has been lacking. ... The traditional classification based on BMI ... reflects simply whether or not there is excess adiposity, and sometimes not even precise in that regard, either…It has never been a classification that was meant to diagnose a specific illness with its own clinical characteristics in the same way we diagnose any other illness,” Commission Chair Francesco Rubino, MD, professor and chair of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery at King’s College London, England, said in an interview.

He added, “The fact that now we have a clinical diagnosis allows recognition of the nuance that obesity is generally a risk and for some can be an illness. There are some who have risk but don’t have the illness here and now. And it’s crucially important for clinical decision-making, but also for policies to have a distinction between those two things because the treatment strategy for one and the other are substantially different.”

Asked to comment, obesity specialist Michael A. Weintraub, MD, clinical assistant professor of endocrinology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview, “I wholeheartedly agree with modifying the definition of obesity in this more accurate way. ... There has already been a lot of talk about the fallibility of BMI and that BMI over 30 does not equal obesity. ... So a major Commission article like this I think can really move those discussions even more into the forefront and start changing practice.” 

However, Weintraub added, “I think there needs to be another step here of more practical guidance on how to actually implement this ... including how to measure waist circumference and to put it into a patient flow.” 

Asked to comment, obesity expert Luca Busetto, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at the Department of Medicine of the University of Padova, Italy, said in an interview that he agrees with the general concept of moving beyond BMI in defining obesity. That view was expressed in a proposed “framework” from the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO), for which Busetto was the lead author.

Busetto also agrees with the emphasis on the need for a complete clinical evaluation of patients to define their health status. “The precise definition of the symptoms defining clinical obesity in adults and children is extremely important, emphasizing the fact that obesity is a severe and disabling disease by itself, even without or before the occurrence of obesity-related complications,” he said.

However, he takes issue with the Commission’s designation that “preclinical” obesity is not a disease. “The critical point of disagreement for me is the message that obesity is a disease only if it is clinical or only if it presents functional impairment or clinical symptoms. This remains, in my opinion, an oversimplification, not taking into account the fact that the pathophysiological mechanisms that lead to fat accumulation and ‘adipose tissue-based chronic disease’ usually start well before the occurrence of symptoms.”

Busetto pointed to examples such as type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, both of which can be asymptomatic in their early phases yet are still considered diseases at those points. “I have no problem in accepting a distinction between preclinical and clinical stages of the disease, and I like the definition of clinical obesity, but why should this imply the fact that obesity is NOT a disease since its beginning?”

The Commission does state that preclinical obesity should be addressed, mostly with preventive approaches but in some cases with more intensive management. “This is highly relevant, but the risk of an undertreatment of obesity in its asymptomatic state remains in place. This could delay appropriate management for a progressive disease that certainly should not be treated only when presenting symptoms. It would be too late,” Busetto said.

And EASO framework coauthor Gijs Goossens, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic physiology of obesity at Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, added a concern that those with excess adiposity but lower BMI might be missed entirely, noting “Since abdominal fat accumulation better predicts chronic cardiometabolic diseases and can also be accompanied by clinical manifestations in individuals with overweight as a consequence of compromised adipose tissue function, the proposed model may lead to underdiagnosis or undertreatment in individuals with BMI 25-30 who have excess abdominal fat.”

 

Diagnosis and Management Beyond BMI

The Commission advises the use of BMI solely as a marker to screen for potential obesity. Those with a BMI > 40 can be assumed to have excess body fat. For others with a BMI at or near the threshold for obesity in a specific country or ethnic group or for whom there is the clinical judgment of the potential for clinical obesity, confirmation of excess or abnormal adiposity is needed by one of the following:

• At least one measurement of body size and BMI
• At least two measures of body size, regardless of BMI
• Direct body fat measurement, such as a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan

Measurement of body size can be assessed in three ways: 

• Waist circumference ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women
• Waist-to-hip ratio > 0.90 for men and > 0.50 for women
• Waist-to-height ratio > 0.50 for all.

Weintraub noted, “Telemedicine is a useful tool used by many patients and providers but may also make it challenging to accurately assess someone’s body size. Having technology like an iPhone app to measure body size would circumvent this challenge but this type of tool has not yet been validated.” 

If the person does not have excess adiposity, they don’t have obesity. Those with excess adiposity do have obesity. Further assessment is then needed to establish whether the person has an illness, that is, clinical obesity, indicated by signs/symptoms of organ dysfunction, and/or limitations of daily activities. If not, they have “preclinical” obesity.

The document provides a list of 18 obesity-related organ, tissue, and body system criteria for diagnosing “clinical” obesity in adults, including upper airways (eg, apneas/hypopneas), respiratory (breathlessness), cardiovascular (hypertension, heart failure), liver (fatty liver disease with hepatic fibrosis), reproductive (polycystic ovary syndrome, hypogonadism), and metabolism (hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). A list of 13 such criteria is also provided for children. “Limitations of day-to-day activities” are included on both lists.

 

Management Differs by Designation

For preclinical obesity, management should focus on risk reduction and prevention of progression to clinical obesity or other obesity-related diseases. Such approaches include health counseling for weight loss or prevention of weight gain, monitoring over time, and active weight loss interventions in people at higher risk of developing clinical obesity and other obesity-related diseases.

Management for clinical obesity focuses on improvements or reversal of the organ dysfunction. The type of evidence-based treatment and management should be informed by individual risk-benefit assessments and decided via “active discussion” with the patient. Success is determined by improvement in the signs and symptoms rather than measures of weight loss.

In response to a reporter’s question at the SMC briefing about the implications for the use of weight-loss medications, Rubino noted that this wasn’t the focus of the report, but nonetheless said that this new obesity definition could help with their targeted use. “The strategy and intent by which you use the drugs is different in clinical and preclinical obesity. ... Pharmacological interventions could be used for patients with high-risk preclinical obesity, with the intent of reducing risk, but we ... would use the same medication at a different intensity, dose, and maybe in combination therapies.”

As for clinical obesity, “It could be more or less severe and could affect more than one organ, and so clinical obesity might require drugs, might require surgery, or may require, in some cases, a combination of both of them, to achieve the best possible outcomes. ... We want to make sure that the person is restoring health ... with whatever it takes.”

Rubino believes this new definition will convince the remaining clinicians who haven’t yet accepted the concept of obesity as a disease. “When they see clinical obesity, I think it will be much harder to say that a biological process that is capable of causing a dysfunction in the heart or the lungs is less of a disease than another biological process that causes similar dysfunction in the heart of the lungs. ... It’s going to be objective. Obesity is a spectrum of different situations. ... When it’s an illness, clinical obesity, it’s not a matter of if or when. It’s a matter of fact.”

There were no industrial grants or other funding for this initiative. King’s Health Partners hosted the initiative and provided logistical and personnel support to facilitate administrative work and the Delphi-like consensus-development process. Rubino declared receiving 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. Rubino has served (unpaid) as a member of the scientific advisory board for Keyron and a member of the data safety and monitoring board for GI Metabolic Solutions; is president of the Metabolic Health Institute (non-profit); and is the sole director of Metabolic Health International and London Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (private practice). Baur declared serving on the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk (for the ACTION Teens study) and Eli Lilly and receiving speaker fees (paid to the institution) from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Lancet Commission has redefined obesity by classifying it as either “clinical obesity,” a disease, or “preclinical,” a health risk factor, with the distinction based on factors beyond body mass index (BMI).

“We propose a radical overhaul of the actual diagnosis of obesity to improve global healthcare and practices and policies. The specific aims were to facilitate individualized assessment and care of people living with obesity while preserving resources by reducing overdiagnosis and unnecessary or inadequate interventions,” Professor Louise Baur, chair of Child & Adolescent Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, said during a UK Science Media Centre (SMC) news briefing.

The report calls first for a diagnosis of obesity via confirmation of excess adiposity using measures such as waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio in addition to BMI. Next, a clinical assessment of signs and symptoms of organ dysfunction due to obesity and/or functional limitations determines whether the individual has the disease “clinical obesity,” or “preclinical obesity,” a condition of health risk but not an illness itself.

Published on January 14, 2025, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, the document also provides broad guidance on management for the two obesity conditions, emphasizing a personalized and stigma-free approach. The Lancet Commission on Obesity comprised 56 experts in relevant fields including endocrinology, surgery, nutrition, and public health, along with people living with obesity.

The report has been endorsed by more than 75 medical organizations, including the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, and obesity and endocrinology societies from countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and South Africa.

In recent years, many in the field have found fault with the current BMI-based definition of obesity (> 30 for people of European descent or other cutoffs for specific ethnic groups), primarily because BMI alone doesn’t reflect a person’s fat vs lean mass, fat distribution, or overall health. The new definition aims to overcome these limitations, as well as settle the debate about whether obesity is a “disease.”

“We now have a clinical diagnosis for obesity, which has been lacking. ... The traditional classification based on BMI ... reflects simply whether or not there is excess adiposity, and sometimes not even precise in that regard, either…It has never been a classification that was meant to diagnose a specific illness with its own clinical characteristics in the same way we diagnose any other illness,” Commission Chair Francesco Rubino, MD, professor and chair of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery at King’s College London, England, said in an interview.

He added, “The fact that now we have a clinical diagnosis allows recognition of the nuance that obesity is generally a risk and for some can be an illness. There are some who have risk but don’t have the illness here and now. And it’s crucially important for clinical decision-making, but also for policies to have a distinction between those two things because the treatment strategy for one and the other are substantially different.”

Asked to comment, obesity specialist Michael A. Weintraub, MD, clinical assistant professor of endocrinology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview, “I wholeheartedly agree with modifying the definition of obesity in this more accurate way. ... There has already been a lot of talk about the fallibility of BMI and that BMI over 30 does not equal obesity. ... So a major Commission article like this I think can really move those discussions even more into the forefront and start changing practice.” 

However, Weintraub added, “I think there needs to be another step here of more practical guidance on how to actually implement this ... including how to measure waist circumference and to put it into a patient flow.” 

Asked to comment, obesity expert Luca Busetto, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at the Department of Medicine of the University of Padova, Italy, said in an interview that he agrees with the general concept of moving beyond BMI in defining obesity. That view was expressed in a proposed “framework” from the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO), for which Busetto was the lead author.

Busetto also agrees with the emphasis on the need for a complete clinical evaluation of patients to define their health status. “The precise definition of the symptoms defining clinical obesity in adults and children is extremely important, emphasizing the fact that obesity is a severe and disabling disease by itself, even without or before the occurrence of obesity-related complications,” he said.

However, he takes issue with the Commission’s designation that “preclinical” obesity is not a disease. “The critical point of disagreement for me is the message that obesity is a disease only if it is clinical or only if it presents functional impairment or clinical symptoms. This remains, in my opinion, an oversimplification, not taking into account the fact that the pathophysiological mechanisms that lead to fat accumulation and ‘adipose tissue-based chronic disease’ usually start well before the occurrence of symptoms.”

Busetto pointed to examples such as type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, both of which can be asymptomatic in their early phases yet are still considered diseases at those points. “I have no problem in accepting a distinction between preclinical and clinical stages of the disease, and I like the definition of clinical obesity, but why should this imply the fact that obesity is NOT a disease since its beginning?”

The Commission does state that preclinical obesity should be addressed, mostly with preventive approaches but in some cases with more intensive management. “This is highly relevant, but the risk of an undertreatment of obesity in its asymptomatic state remains in place. This could delay appropriate management for a progressive disease that certainly should not be treated only when presenting symptoms. It would be too late,” Busetto said.

And EASO framework coauthor Gijs Goossens, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic physiology of obesity at Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, added a concern that those with excess adiposity but lower BMI might be missed entirely, noting “Since abdominal fat accumulation better predicts chronic cardiometabolic diseases and can also be accompanied by clinical manifestations in individuals with overweight as a consequence of compromised adipose tissue function, the proposed model may lead to underdiagnosis or undertreatment in individuals with BMI 25-30 who have excess abdominal fat.”

 

Diagnosis and Management Beyond BMI

The Commission advises the use of BMI solely as a marker to screen for potential obesity. Those with a BMI > 40 can be assumed to have excess body fat. For others with a BMI at or near the threshold for obesity in a specific country or ethnic group or for whom there is the clinical judgment of the potential for clinical obesity, confirmation of excess or abnormal adiposity is needed by one of the following:

• At least one measurement of body size and BMI
• At least two measures of body size, regardless of BMI
• Direct body fat measurement, such as a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan

Measurement of body size can be assessed in three ways: 

• Waist circumference ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women
• Waist-to-hip ratio > 0.90 for men and > 0.50 for women
• Waist-to-height ratio > 0.50 for all.

Weintraub noted, “Telemedicine is a useful tool used by many patients and providers but may also make it challenging to accurately assess someone’s body size. Having technology like an iPhone app to measure body size would circumvent this challenge but this type of tool has not yet been validated.” 

If the person does not have excess adiposity, they don’t have obesity. Those with excess adiposity do have obesity. Further assessment is then needed to establish whether the person has an illness, that is, clinical obesity, indicated by signs/symptoms of organ dysfunction, and/or limitations of daily activities. If not, they have “preclinical” obesity.

The document provides a list of 18 obesity-related organ, tissue, and body system criteria for diagnosing “clinical” obesity in adults, including upper airways (eg, apneas/hypopneas), respiratory (breathlessness), cardiovascular (hypertension, heart failure), liver (fatty liver disease with hepatic fibrosis), reproductive (polycystic ovary syndrome, hypogonadism), and metabolism (hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). A list of 13 such criteria is also provided for children. “Limitations of day-to-day activities” are included on both lists.

 

Management Differs by Designation

For preclinical obesity, management should focus on risk reduction and prevention of progression to clinical obesity or other obesity-related diseases. Such approaches include health counseling for weight loss or prevention of weight gain, monitoring over time, and active weight loss interventions in people at higher risk of developing clinical obesity and other obesity-related diseases.

Management for clinical obesity focuses on improvements or reversal of the organ dysfunction. The type of evidence-based treatment and management should be informed by individual risk-benefit assessments and decided via “active discussion” with the patient. Success is determined by improvement in the signs and symptoms rather than measures of weight loss.

In response to a reporter’s question at the SMC briefing about the implications for the use of weight-loss medications, Rubino noted that this wasn’t the focus of the report, but nonetheless said that this new obesity definition could help with their targeted use. “The strategy and intent by which you use the drugs is different in clinical and preclinical obesity. ... Pharmacological interventions could be used for patients with high-risk preclinical obesity, with the intent of reducing risk, but we ... would use the same medication at a different intensity, dose, and maybe in combination therapies.”

As for clinical obesity, “It could be more or less severe and could affect more than one organ, and so clinical obesity might require drugs, might require surgery, or may require, in some cases, a combination of both of them, to achieve the best possible outcomes. ... We want to make sure that the person is restoring health ... with whatever it takes.”

Rubino believes this new definition will convince the remaining clinicians who haven’t yet accepted the concept of obesity as a disease. “When they see clinical obesity, I think it will be much harder to say that a biological process that is capable of causing a dysfunction in the heart or the lungs is less of a disease than another biological process that causes similar dysfunction in the heart of the lungs. ... It’s going to be objective. Obesity is a spectrum of different situations. ... When it’s an illness, clinical obesity, it’s not a matter of if or when. It’s a matter of fact.”

There were no industrial grants or other funding for this initiative. King’s Health Partners hosted the initiative and provided logistical and personnel support to facilitate administrative work and the Delphi-like consensus-development process. Rubino declared receiving 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. Rubino has served (unpaid) as a member of the scientific advisory board for Keyron and a member of the data safety and monitoring board for GI Metabolic Solutions; is president of the Metabolic Health Institute (non-profit); and is the sole director of Metabolic Health International and London Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (private practice). Baur declared serving on the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk (for the ACTION Teens study) and Eli Lilly and receiving speaker fees (paid to the institution) from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.