Xylocopa

Tales of an academic prole

Patrick D Hahn

Patrick D Hahn
Location
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Birthday
June 07
Bio
I used to wash trucks for a living.

MY RECENT POSTS

Patrick D Hahn's Links

The Gold Coast
The Holy Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia
The Land of Burnt Faces
The Medical-Industrial Complex
The Psycho-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex
Anatomy of an epidemic
Big fat lies
Is screening for cancer a giant con job?
The War On Drugs
The Nutritional-Industrial Complex
Personal Reminiscences
Personal Essays
Scientific Articles
Books of Interest
DECEMBER 2, 2010 10:16AM

Big fat lies Part 5 UPDATED

Rate: 3 Flag

the unkindest cut 

Here’s an article in the New York Times which describes efforts to expand the pool of people eligible for bariatric surgery.

Current guidelines restrict the surgery to individuals with a Body Mass Index in excess of 40, or in excess of 35 for individuals with at least one complication judged to be related to their excess weight, such as Type II Diabetes, hypertension, or high serum cholesterol levels.

(Body Mass Index, or BMI, is equal to in individual’s weight in kilograms, divided by his height in meters squared. To convert English units into BMI, multiply an individual’s weight in pounds by 705 and divide the product by his height in inches squared.)

Allergan, a manufacturer of medical devices, has petitioned the FDA to approve gastric banding surgery for individuals with a BMI of 30, provided they have at least one serious complication, or a BMI of 35 for individuals with no complications. To use the hypothetical example given in the article, an individual who stands five feet six inches tall and has at least one major complication would be eligible for surgery provided she weighed at least 186 pounds. A study funded by Allergan showed that 80% of these less-obese people lost at least 30% of their excess body mass one year after lap-band surgery.

Under the proposed revised guidelines, millions of individuals would be newly eligible for the surgery, at an estimated cost of $12,000-20,000 a shot. That could easily run into hundreds of billions of dollars. And that’s not even counting after-care. Where are we going to get the money from? We’re not paying for the medical interventions we’re getting now.

It’s true that many patients experience reductions in blood pressure and blood sugar levels after bariatric surgery. It’s not a foregone conclusion that any of this results in a clinically meaningful long-term outcome for the patient. The medical literature is rife with examples of interventions which produce “favorable” results in terms of blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, and bone density, but which had unfortunate side effects for the people who took them, like killing them.

Where are the studies that show that the long-term benefits of this kind of mutilation outweigh the harms? Remember that the effects of this procedure are intended to last a lifetime -- although, in fairness, I should note that unlike gastric bypass, the lap band is a reversible operation. In fact, the NYT article I linked to above claims that studies have shown that up to one-third of the patients who get the lap band later have it removed, either because of side effects and/or because they find the resulting weight loss underwhelming. That doesn’t bode very well for efforts to extend the procedure to those who are less obese.

There’s only been one study which has tracked outcomes for bariatric surgery patients for more than two years – the Swedish Obese Subjects Study. And what did they find? They found that gastric banding surgery resulted in a long-term weight loss of 15% of total body mass, and that weight loss surgery of all kinds was correlated with a one per cent reduction in all-cause mortality over ten years. That means one fewer death per thousand patients, per year.

Do you really think such a tiny reduction in risk can even be measured reliably? Given that there are so many ways for investigators to skew the results short of engaging in provable fraud, I submit that there is no convincing evidence that this type of mutilation produces any long-term health benefits, beyond a modest weight loss. And that’s in a country with a very different social organization from ours. There’s no reason to assume that even these underwhelming results would be forthcoming here.

The advocates of treating obesity as a medical problem requiring surgery like to imagine that their approach is more compassionate. You might try asking someone who has suffered complications from weight loss surgery how much compassion she got from her surgeon, after he’d extracted his pound of flesh (so to speak). But that’s a subject for another essay, another day.

They’ve been performing these surgeries for decades now. Why aren’t there more long-term studies? The fact is they don’t know what the long-term effects of these interventions are. And they don’t want to know. They just want to foist upon patients as many expensive and invasive procedures as they will stand for.

To return to the hypothetical example given in the article: according to the geniuses who make up these guidelines, a woman who stands five feet six inches tall and weighs 186 pounds is 32 pounds overweight. Thirty percent of 32 pounds is, uh, ten pounds.

Are they serious? They want to do major surgery on someone so she can lose ten pounds? If the FDA rolls over and plays dead for them on this one, we’re in trouble.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

UPDATE 4 DECEMBER 2010: An advisory committee to the FDA voted yesterday to approve the new guidelines, which would expand the pool of those considered eligible for lap-band surgery by an estimated 27 million. After the vote as announced, shares of Allergan, Inc. rose in value by three percent.












Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Remember, this sort of thing originally was touted as a desparate last-ditch remedy for intractable morbid obesity. Bariatric surgery for the slghtly pudgy? I may throw up.
Patrick, You are right to question the drug and device companies. They are in it for themselves, and not for the overall good. Gastric bypass surgery is a drastic step and appropriate ONLY for those morbidly obese with no other option. It is very risky when done in a normal hospital setting as opposed to a dedicated bypass facility. I studied results and complications before I committed to such a radical surgery five years ago. I was to the point that I thought I was better off dead than obese. After the fact, not so much. I am doing well and am healthier than I ever have been. I am one of the lucky ones. I have been able to maintain over 100 lb. loss. I take excellent quality vitamins and iron daily to make up for the loss of intestine, but otherwise have very few problems. But I have good protoplasm...I have always healed quickly, and tolerated pain well. But, I would not recommend the FDA approve any less strengent rules. It would be better for everyone to switch to organic foods, eliminating manufactured processed foods, corn syrup, sugar and white flour. Then the US would gradually become thinner because our bodies would not have to eat so much to glean the few nutrients found in our highly processed food. Of course, that won't make the drug companies a forture. But we will feel tons better.

Thanks for bringing this topic to our attention.
To C. Berg:

I am glad you have decided to take charge of your health and eat sensibly, and I am glad we are agreed that bariatric surgery for the slghtly pudgy is INSANE. But that's the way they always work, isn't it? They begin with an intervention which -- arguably -- has the potential to benefit a small number of patients, and then they work to broaden the definition of illness in order to foist the remedy on as many patients as possible. Cf. appendectomies, tonsilectomies, coronary artery bypass grafts, antidepressants... the list goes on and on. Evem lobotomy was -- arguably -- a humane choice for patients who otherwise had to be tied down to a bed all day long. But before you know it, they're lobotomizing a twelve-year-old boy for crimes such as leaving the lights on when it's broad daylight outide.

Thanks for reading and commenting.
In the meantime, I read this morning in the NYT about a 32-year-old father in Arizona, who was all lined up for liver transplant, but then the state withdrew funding for it, hospital said cough up 200,000 down payment up front or go home and die...
To Myriad:

I'm not sure that's such a good example. Cf.my essay, "Why do people say heart transplasts save lives?"

http://open.salon.com/blog/xylocopa/2009/03/02/why_do_people_say_heart_transplants_save_lives

But what I assume to be your main point, that every dollar we spend on medical interventions of dubious value is a dollar that cannot be spent on necessary medical interventions, is well taken.

And as I noted in my update, it looks like the FDA is indeed going to roll over and play dead for the manufacturers of medical devices on this one.

Thanks for reading and commenting.
To Myriad:

I'm not sure that's such a good example. Cf. my essay, "Why do people say heart transplants save lives?"

http://open.salon.com/blog/xylocopa/2009/03/02/why_do_people_say_heart_transplants_save_lives

But what I assume to be your main point, that every dollar we spend on medical interventions of dubious value is a dollar that cannot be spent on necessary medical interventions, is well taken.

And as I noted in my update, it looks like the FDA is indeed going to roll over and play dead for the manufacturers of medical devices on this one.

Thanks for reading and commenting.