Changing guards: time to move beyond body mass index for population monitoring of excess adiposity

With the obesity epidemic, and the effects of aging populations, human phenotypes have changed over two generations, possibly more dramatically than in other species previously. As obesity is an important and growing hazard for population health, we recommend a systematic evaluation of the optimal measure(s) for population-level excess body fat. Ideal measure(s) for monitoring body composition and obesity should be simple, as accurate and sensitive as possible, and provide good categorization of related health risks. Combinations of anthropometric markers or predictive equations may facilitate better use of anthropometric data than single measures to estimate body composition for populations. Here, we provide new evidence that increasing proportions of aging populations are at high health-risk according to waist circumference, but not body mass index (BMI), so continued use of BMI as the principal population-level measure substantially underestimates the health-burden from excess adiposity.

Pitfall trapping does not reliably index the diet or prey resources of Masked Lapwings

Vertebrate ecologists often assess invertebrate prey resources using techniques which sample invertebrate assemblages, and assume such sampling reflects the diet of their focal species. We compare the invertebrate assemblages as recorded by pitfall traps for Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles breeding territories in Phillip Island, Australia, and show that these differ from assemblages recorded in the stomach contents of local Masked Lapwings. Pitfalls traps did not reveal any difference in assemblages between sites where Masked Lapwings bred, and sites where they did not. Thus, pitfall trapping alone is unlikely to adequately index prey availability for Masked Lapwings.

A new industry concentration index

We propose and analyse a new concentration index alternative to the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). This new index emphasises the concept of competitive balance. It is designed to preserve the convexity property of the HHI when a merger involves one of the m largest firms, but to decrease and thus to indicate an increase in competition when a merger is purely among the (n − m) smallest firms.

The Counterweight Programme: prevalence of CVD risk factors by body mass index and impact of a 10% weight change

Objectives

To examine relationships between body mass index (BMI), prevalence of physician-recorded cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in primary care, and changes in risk with 10% weight change.

Methods

The Counterweight Project conducted a baseline cross-sectional survey of medical records of 6150 obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), 1150 age- and sex-matched overweight (BMI 25 to <30 kg/m2), and 1150 age- and sex-matched normal weight (BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m2) controls, in primary care. Data were collected for the previous 18 months to examine BMI and disease prevalence, and then modelled to show the potential effect of 10% weight loss or gain on risk.

Results

Obese patients develop more CVD risk factors than normal weight controls. BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 exhibits increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), odds ratio (OR) men: 6.16 (p < 0.001); women: 7.82 (p < 0.001) and hypertension OR men: 5.51 (p < 0.001); women: 4.16 (p < 0.001). Dyslipidaemia peaked around BMI 35 to <37.5 kg/m2, OR men: 3.26 (p < 0.001); women 3.76 (p < 0.001) and CVD at BMI 37.5 to <40 kg/m2 in men, OR 4.48 (p < 0.001) and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 in women, OR 3.98 (p < 0.001).

A 10% weight loss from the sample mean of 32.5 kg/m2 reduced the OR for type 2 DM by 30% and CVD by 20%, while 10% weight gain increased type 2 DM risk by more than 35% and CVD by 20%.

Conclusion

Obesity plays a fundamental role in CVD risk, which is reduced with weight loss. Weight management intervention strategies should be a public health priority to reduce the burden of disease in the population.

Influence of body mass index on prescribing costs and potential cost savings of a weight management programme in primary care

Objectives Prescribed medications represent a high and increasing proportion of UK health care funds. Our aim was to quantify the influence of body mass index (BMI) on prescribing costs, and then the potential savings attached to implementing a weight management intervention.

Methods Paper and computer-based medical records were reviewed for all drug prescriptions over an 18-month period for 3400 randomly selected adult patients (18–75 years) stratified by BMI, from 23 primary care practices in seven UK regions. Drug costs from the British National Formulary at the time of the review were used. Multivariate regression analysis was applied to estimate the cost for all drugs and the ‘top ten’ drugs at each BMI point. This allowed the total and attributable prescribing costs to be estimated at any BMI. Weight loss outcomes achieved in a weight management programme (Counterweight) were used to model potential effects of weight change on drug costs. Anticipated savings were then compared with the cost programme delivery. Analysis was carried out on patients with follow-up data at 12 and 24 months as well as on an intention-to-treat basis. Outcomes from Counterweight were based on the observed lost to follow-up rate of 50%, and the assumption that those patients would continue a generally observed weight gain of 1 kg per year from baseline.

Results The minimum annual cost of all drug prescriptions at BMI 20 kg/m2 was £50.71 for men and £62.59 for women. Costs were greater by £5.27 (men) and £4.20 (women) for each unit increase in BMI, to a BMI of 25 (men £77.04, women £78.91), then by £7.78 and £5.53, respectively, to BMI 30 (men £115.93 women £111.23), then by £8.27 and £4.95 to BMI 40 (men £198.66, women £160.73). The relationship between increasing BMI and costs for the top ten drugs was more pronounced. Minimum costs were at a BMI of 20 (men £8.45, women £7.80), substantially greater at BMI 30 (men £23.98, women £16.72) and highest at BMI 40 (men £63.59, women £27.16). Attributable cost of overweight and obesity accounted for 23% of spending on all drugs with 16% attributable to obesity. The cost of the programme was estimated to be approximately £60 per patient entered. Modelling weight reductions achieved by the Counterweight weight management programme would potentially reduce prescribing costs by £6.35 (men) and £3.75 (women) or around 8% of programme costs at one year, and by £12.58 and £8.70, respectively, or 18% of programme costs after two years of intervention. Potential savings would be increased to around 22% of the cost of the programme at year one with full patient retention and follow-up.

Conclusion Drug prescriptions rise from a minimum at BMI of 20 kg/m2 and steeply above BMI 30 kg/m2. An effective weight management programme in primary care could potentially reduce prescription costs and lead to substantial cost avoidance, such that at least 8% of the programme delivery cost would be recouped from prescribing savings alone in the first year.