Weight loss agents

AIM: The aim of our study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of orlistat and sibutramine treatment in obese hypertensive patients, with a specific attention to cardiovascular effects and to side effects because of this treatment. METHODS: Patients were enrolled, evaluated and followed at three Italian Centres of Internal Medicine. We evaluated 115 obese and hypertensive patients. (55 males and 60 females; 26 males and 29 females, aged 50 +/- 4 with orlistat; 28 males and 30 females, aged 51 +/- 5 with sibutramine). All patients took antihypertensive therapy for at least 6 months before the study. We administered orlistat or sibutramine in a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study. We evaluated anthropometric variables, blood pressure and heart rate (HR) during 12 months of this treatment. RESULTS: A total of 113 completed the 4 weeks with controlled energy diet and were randomized to double-blind treatment with orlistat (n = 55) or sibutramine (n = 58). Significant body mass index (BMI) improvement was present after 6 (p < 0.05), 9 (p < 0.02), and 12 (p < 0.01) months in both groups, and body weight (BW) improvement was obtained after 9 (p < 0.05) and 12 (p < 0.02) months in both groups. Significant waist circumference (WC), hip circumference (HC) and waist/hip ratio (W/H ratio) improvement was observed after 12 months (p < 0.05, respectively) in both groups. Significant systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) improvement (p < 0.05) was present in orlistat group after 12 months. Lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides] reduction (p < 0.05, respectively) was observed in orlistat group and triglyceride reduction (p < 0.05) in sibutramine group after 12 months. No significant change was observed in sibutramine group during the study. No significant HR variation was obtained during the study in both groups. Of the 109 patients who completed the study, 48.1% of patients in the orlistat group and 17.5% of patients in the sibutramine group had side effects (p < 0.05 vs. orlistat group). Side-effect profiles were different in the two treatment groups. All orlistat side effects were gastrointestinal events. Sibutramine caused an increase in blood pressure (both SBP and DBP) in two patients, but it has been controlled by antihypertensive treatment. The vitamin changes were small and all mean vitamin and beta-carotene values stayed within reference ranges. No patients required vitamin supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Both orlistat and sibutramine are effective on anthropometric variables during the 12-month treatment; in our sample, orlistat has been associated to a mild reduction in blood pressure, while sibutramine assumption has not be associated to any cardiovascular effect and was generically better tolerated than orlistat.

OBJECTIVE:: The aim of this study is to review the clinical and economic rationale for the reimbursement of orlistat in responding obese patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS:: Data from seven randomized controlled clinical trials of orlistat in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes were pooled. A subgroup analysis involving patients who achieved a response (defined as a weight loss of >/=5% after 12 weeks of treatment) was conducted. The outcomes of the pooled analysis were then used to construct a Markov health economic model covering an 11-y period. The incidences of diabetes-related micro- and macrovascular complications were derived from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. The effects of changes in body mass index, and the impact of micro- and macrovascular complications on utilities were derived from published sources. Publicly available cost data were used and are presented here in 2001 Euros. Discounting of 3% was applied. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the robustness of results. RESULTS:: A total of 1249 patients treated with orlistat and 1230 given placebo were eligible for the intent-to-treat analysis. At the end of the study period, 23% of orlistat patients achieved a weight reduction of >/=5%. These patients showed a mean decrease in HbA1C of 1.16%, a weight reduction of 8.6 kg, a reduction in total cholesterol of 5.3% and a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5.2 mmHg. The base-case economic analysis revealed costs per quality-adjusted life year gained of \[euro]14 000 in Sweden and \[euro]13 600 in Switzerland. CONCLUSION:: The data presented here support the utilization and reimbursement of orlistat in overweight and obese diabetic patients who respond to the treatment.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 1 March 2005; doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802925.

Orlistat has been well studied in several populations, including patients who do and do not have type 2 diabetes and in patients who have impaired glucose tolerance. Overall, modest, but significant, weight loss was seen in all three groups of patients with favorable effects on the comorbidities of obesity. Orlistat has not been associated with a serious adverse event profile, and the mild GI effects that are seen in some patients are well tolerated. In obese patients who do not have diabetes, weight loss is achieved and maintained as shown in the 2-year studies. Moreover, as was well documented in the Swedish multi-morbidity study, favorable treatment effects on the constituents of the metabolic syndrome are seen. Orlistat, together with a hypocaloric diet, was proven to be effective in preventing diabetes in patients who had impaired glucose tolerance. The addition of orlistat resulted in significant weight loss and significance decreases in levels of HbA1c in patients who had type 2 diabetes who were treated with antihyperglycemic drugs. Studies showed that it is possible to identify early which patients may respond best to treatment. Orlistat offers an attractive treatment option for obese patients who do and do not have diabetes and as a combination drug for treatment of obese patients who have type 2 diabetes.

AIM: This article provides the first comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of medications for obesity. METHOD: Based on stringent inclusionary criteria, a total of 108 studies were included in the final database. Outcomes are presented for comparisons of single and combination drugs to placebo and for comparisons of medications to one another. RESULT: Overall, the medications studied produced medium effect sizes. Four drugs produced large effect sizes (ie d>0.80; amphetamine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine and sibutramine). The placebo-subtracted weight losses for single drugs vs placebo included in the meta-analysis never exceeded 4.0 kg. No drug, or class of drugs, demonstrated clear superiority as an obesity medication. Effects of methodological factors are also presented along with suggestions for future research.

INTRODUCTION. In recent years new anti Parkinson drugs have been marketed and there has been controversy over the safety of some drugs. OBJECTIVE. To analyze the evolution of the consumption of anti Parkinson drugs and the effect of the newer drugs. PATIENTS AND METHODS. A study of the consumption of anti Parkinson drugs (1989 1998). Data were obtained from the ECOM database of the Ministry of Health and TEMPUS of the National Statistics Institute. The drugs were classified using the Anatomo Therapeutic Clinical Classification (ATC). Consumption was expressed in defined daily dosage (DDD) and the costs in euros. The drugs marketed since 1990 were classified as new drugs and the others as classical drugs. RESULTS. The total consumption of drugs increased from 1.92 DDD/1,000 inhabitants/day in 1989 to 3.64 DDD/1,000 inhabitants/day in 1998. The drugs showing the greatest increase were selegiline, pergolide and levodopa. The total pharmaceutical expenses tripled. There was a smaller increase in the consumption of new drugs (1.2% of the total in 1991 and 6.6% in 1998) than in their costs (6.7% of the total in 1991 and 38.8% in 1998). The cost per DDD of the new drugs increased five times (1989: 2.55 euros and 1998: 13.59 euros) and that of the classical drugs was similar (1989: 0.54 euros and 1998: 0.62 euros). CONCLUSIONS. The total consumption of anti Parkinson drugs has progressively increased. The consumption of selegiline has also increased in spite of controversy over its safety. The new drugs have a major economic effect.

The data obtained during the past decade in experimental and clinical pharmacology show that the GABAergic drugs, with central activity, do not ameliorate the symptoms of the Parkinson's disease (PD), but would worsen the akineto-rigid syndrome, the dyskinesias and the deteriorating mental status in the later stages of the PD. On the other hand, recent data of experimental pharmacology suggest the possibility that glycinergic or glutamatergic derivatives, with central activity, would have a beneficial effect on the syndromes of the later stages of PD (declining efficacy of L-DOPA, dyskinesias, deteriorating mental status), which constitute, with the fluctuation of the response to L-DOPA, ("on-off" effects), the major problems of the PD's treatment. Some theoretical and experimental data also suggest the possibility of a beneficial effect of the glutamatergic drugs in the treatment of the "on-off" effects.

JAMA 2000 Oct 18;284(15):1931-8
Pramipexole vs levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson disease: A randomized controlled trial. Parkinson Study Group
Parkinson Study Group

CONTEXT: Pramipexole and levodopa both ameliorate the motor symptoms of early Parkinson disease (PD), but no controlled studies have compared long-term outcomes after initiating dopaminergic therapy with pramipexole vs levodopa. OBJECTIVE: To compare the development of dopaminergic motor complications after initial treatment of early PD with pramipexole vs levodopa. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic movement disorders clinics at 22 sites in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Three hundred one patients with early PD who required dopaminergic therapy to treat emerging disability, enrolled between October 1996 and August 1997. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive pramipexole, 0.5 mg 3 times per day, with levodopa placebo (n = 151); or carbidopa/levodopa, 25/100 mg 3 times per day, with pramipexole placebo (n = 150). For patients with residual disability, the dosage was escalated during the first 10 weeks. From week 11 to month 23.5, investigators were permitted to add open-label levodopa to treat continuing or emerging disability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to the first occurrence of any of 3 dopaminergic complications: wearing off, dyskinesias, or on-off motor fluctuations; changes in scores on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), assessed at baseline and follow-up evaluations; and, in a subgroup of 82 subjects evaluated at baseline and 23.5 months, ratio of specific to nondisplaceable striatal iodine 123 2-beta-carboxymethoxy-3-beta-(4-iodophenyl)tropane (beta-CIT) uptake on single photon emission computed tomography imaging of the dopamine transporter. RESULTS: Initial pramipexole treatment resulted in significantly less development of wearing off, dyskinesias, or on-off motor fluctuations (28%) compared with levodopa (51%) (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0. 30-0.66; P<.001). The mean improvement in total UPDRS score from baseline to 23.5 months was greater in the levodopa group than in the pramipexole group (9.2 vs 4.5 points; P<.001). Somnolence was more common in pramipexole-treated patients than in levodopa-treated patients (32.4% vs 17.3%; P =.003), and the difference was seen during the escalation phase of treatment. In the subgroup study, patients treated initially with pramipexole (n = 39) showed a mean (SD) decline of 20.0% (14.2%) in striatal beta-CIT uptake compared with a 24.8% (14.4%) decline in subjects treated initially with levodopa (n = 39; P =.15). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer patients receiving initial treatment for PD with pramipexole developed dopaminergic motor complications than with levodopa therapy. Despite supplementation with open-label levodopa in both groups, the levodopa-treated group had a greater improvement in total UPDRS compared with the pramipexole group.