Search

Background: The uptake of obesity treatments remains disproportionally low in people living with the disease, even with the advent and availability of GLP-1 agonists in recent years. Efforts to understand this discrepancy have centred on literature syntheses and Healthcare Professionals’ (HCPs) perspectives on the barriers to obesity treatment. This study focuses on patient perspectives on the risks of obesity treatment. Method: This qualitative study consisted of online focus groups with 30 adults with obesity from Europe and North America. The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: Patients identified three risks associated with obesity treatment: (a) the risk that they can’t access treatment; (b) the risk that they would fail to meet treatment expectations – their own, their HCPs and societal expectations, and (c) the risk that the treatment would be ‘successful’ but that they would lose their sense of self, their coping mechanisms and identity along with weight. Conclusion: Understanding patient concerns about the risks of obesity treatment is essential to addressing obesity treatment inertia.

The increasing prevalence and burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has spurred the development of new treatments and a need to consider outcomes used for NASH treatment decision making. Development of a NASH core outcome set (COS) can help prioritize outcomes of highest importance by incorporating the perspectives from a variety of decision makers. coreNASH was an initiative to develop a COS for NASH using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multi‐stakeholder voting panel. A candidate outcome list was created based on a literature review and key informant interviews. The candidate outcome list was then condensed and prioritized through three rounds of online voting and through discussion at an in‐person meeting. Outcomes were retained or eliminated based on predetermined consensus criteria, which included special weighting of patients’ opinions in the first two voting rounds. The coreNASH Delphi panel included 53 participants (7 patients, 10 clinicians and researchers, 7 health technology assessors, 22 industry representatives, 2 regulators, and 5 payers) who considered outcomes for two NASH‐related COS: one for NASH without cirrhosis (F2‐F3) and one for NASH with cirrhosis (F4). The initial candidate outcome list for both disease stages included 86 outcomes. The panel agreed on including two core outcomes for NASH without cirrhosis and nine core outcomes for NASH with cirrhosis in the COS. Conclusion: A consensus‐based COS has been developed that can be used across the life cycle of NASH treatments. Outcomes included can contribute to decision making for regulatory, market access, and on‐market decision making. Including the coreNASH COS in clinical development programs will facilitate improved comparisons and help decision makers assess the value of new products.