Kenny Lin who blogs at Common SenseFamily Doctor has a great blog about what the American Association of
Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the American College of
Endocrinology (ACE) are proposing to replace the word obesity. I
appreciate that he spoke out and discussed his thoughts about this.
The AACE and ACE want the words
"adiposity-based chronic disease," (ABCD) which does not
define accurately the one word “obesity.” The authors argued
that this new term emphasizes that most persons with obesity will
struggle with weight gain for their entire lives; encourages a
complications-centric as opposed to body mass index-based management
approach; and "avoids the stigmata [sic] and confusion"
associated with obesity in popular culture. They also asserted that
ABCD is more amenable to interventions based on the Chronic Care
Model, which explicitly recognizes that screening and office-based
management need to be adapted to the patient's unique environment.
None of these concepts should surprise
family physicians, though, and after reading through the AACE/ACE
statement, I was not sold on the benefits of the new term. Some
patients with body mass indexes above 30 don't like the obesity
label, but would they respond any more positively to the disease
acronym ABCD? There are potential harms to consider, too. One of my
American Family Physician colleagues felt that the new term was
"intimidating" and "not at all patient centered,"
while another thought that it "only hides the issue [of obesity]
instead of confronting it."
This discussion brought to mind another
medical term often associated with overweight and obese patients:
prediabetes. On one hand, being classified as "prediabetic"
or at risk for this exceptionally common diagnosis may motivate obese
patients to lose weight through improved diet and physical activity.
On the other, the term prediabetes is misleading: many of these
patients will not develop diabetes, and the diagnostic accuracy of
the most common screening tests (hemoglobin A1c and fasting glucose
levels) is poor, according to a systematic review published in
the BMJ. Due to the tests' low sensitivity and specificity, some
persons are incorrectly diagnosed with prediabetes, and others who
might actually benefit from interventions to prevent diabetes are
falsely reassured. Therefore, the review authors concluded, "'screen
and treat' policies alone are unlikely to have substantial impact on
the worsening epidemic of type 2 diabetes."
For all its limitations, obesity is a diagnosis with well-established clinical utility. It is less clear how many patients have been helped (or harmed) by being diagnosed with prediabetes. With more study, adiposity-based chronic disease might someday become a useful term, but the current case for more widespread use is unconvincing.
For all its limitations, obesity is a diagnosis with well-established clinical utility. It is less clear how many patients have been helped (or harmed) by being diagnosed with prediabetes. With more study, adiposity-based chronic disease might someday become a useful term, but the current case for more widespread use is unconvincing.
Then on January 18. 2017, Endocrinology Advisor published this article praising the new term and how it may
end the stigma obesity has with it. They also believe that the BMI
should no longer be associated with the term ABCD. To me this is
doing nothing more that obscuring the meaning for patients and using
terms, even some doctors may find confusing.
No comments:
Post a Comment