Effects of taspoglutide on glycemic control and body weight in obese patients with type 2 diabetes (T‐emerge 7 study)

Objective:

Therapies that lower blood glucose and provide weight loss may provide meaningful benefits for obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study assessed the efficacy of taspoglutide compared with placebo on glycemic control and weight in obese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Design and Methods:

In a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicenter trial, obese adults with T2DM were randomized (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous taspoglutide 20 mg (10 mg for first 4 weeks) (n = 154) or placebo (n = 151) for 24 weeks. Efficacy measures included hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, body weight, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5 and ≤7.0%, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed.

Results:

Mean baseline HbA1c was 7.55% and mean baseline BMI was 36.7 kg/m². HbA1c reductions from baseline were significantly greater with taspoglutide than placebo (least square mean [LSMean], ?0.81% vs. ?0.09%; P < 0.0001). Weight loss at week 24 was significantly greater with taspoglutide than placebo (LSMean, ?3.16 vs. ?1.85 kg; P < 0.01). In the taspoglutide and placebo groups, target HbA1c levels (≤6.5%) were achieved by 49 and 16% of patients, respectively, while 72 and 36% achieved HbA1c levels ≤7%. Decreases in FPG were significantly greater with taspoglutide than placebo (?23.59 vs. 0.09 mg/dl; P < 0.0001). Nausea and vomiting were the most common AEs associated with taspoglutide, but tended to be transient and generally mild or moderate.

Conclusions:

In obese patients with T2DM, once‐weekly taspoglutide provided the combined benefits of glycemic control and weight loss.

     

Effect of Orlistat in Obese Patients with Binge Eating Disorder

Objective: Binge eating disorder represents a significant public health problem, with up to 50% of weight loss program participants displaying this disorder. In previous studies with orlistat, patients with binge eating disorder were excluded. The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of orlistat in obese patients with binge eating disorder. Research Methods and Procedures: Eighty‐nine patients with clinically diagnosed binge eating disorder and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² were randomized in double‐blind fashion to 24 weeks of treatment with 120 mg of orlistat or placebo three times daily, in combination with a mildly reduced‐calorie diet. Results: After 24 weeks, the mean weight loss from baseline for orlistat‐treated patients was significantly greater than for patients receiving placebo (?7.4% vs. ?2.3%; p = 0.0001) (intent‐to‐treat analysis). The overall Eating Disorder Inventory 2 score at week 24 was significantly lower in patients treated with orlistat than in those in the placebo group (p = 0.011) Discussion: Orlistat may be considered as part of the management for patients with obesity and binge eating disorder.     

A randomized,phase 3 trial of naltrexone SR/bupropion SR on weight and obesity‐related risk factors (COR‐II)

Objective:

To examine the effects of naltrexone/bupropion (NB) combination therapy on weight and weight‐related risk factors in overweight and obese participants.

Design and Methods:

CONTRAVE Obesity Research‐II (COR‐II) was a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of 1,496 obese (BMI 30‐45 kg/m²) or overweight (27‐45 kg/m² with dyslipidemia and/or hypertension) participants randomized 2:1 to combined naltrexone sustained‐release (SR) (32 mg/day) plus bupropion SR (360 mg/day) (NB32) or placebo for up to 56 weeks. The co‐primary endpoints were percent weight change and proportion achieving ≥5% weight loss at week 28.

Results:

Significantly (P < 0.001) greater weight loss was observed with NB32 versus placebo at week 28 (?6.5% vs. ?1.9%) and week 56 (?6.4% vs. ?1.2%). More NB32‐treated participants (P < 0.001) experienced ≥5% weight loss versus placebo at week 28 (55.6% vs. 17.5%) and week 56 (50.5% vs. 17.1%). NB32 produced greater improvements in various cardiometabolic risk markers, participant‐reported weight‐related quality of life, and control of eating. The most common adverse event with NB was nausea, which was generally mild to moderate and transient. NB was not associated with increased events of depression or suicidality versus placebo.

Conclusion:

NB represents a novel pharmacological approach to the treatment of obesity, and may become a valuable new therapeutic option.

     

Basal Endothelial Nitric Oxide Release Is Preserved in Overweight and Obese Adults

Objective: Impaired basal nitric oxide release is associated with a number of cardiovascular disorders including hypertension, arterial spasm, and myocardial infarction. We determined whether basal endothelial nitric oxide release is reduced in otherwise healthy overweight and obese adult humans. Research Methods and Procedures: Seventy sedentary adults were studied: 32 normal weight (BMI <25 kg/m²), 24 overweight (BMI ≥ 25 < 30 kg/m²), and 14 obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²). Forearm blood flow (FBF) responses to intra‐arterial infusions of N^g‐monomethyl‐l ‐arginine (5 mg/min), a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, were used as an index of basal nitric oxide release. Results: N^g‐monomethyl‐l ‐arginine elicited significant reductions in FBF in the normal weight (from 4.1 ± 0.2 to 2.7 ± 0.2 mL/100 mL tissue/min), overweight (4.1 ± 0.1 to 2.8 ± 0.2 mL/100 mL tissue/min), and obese (3.9 ± 0.3 to 2.7 ± 0.2 mL/100 mL tissue/min) subjects. Importantly, the magnitude of reduction in FBF (～30%) was similar among the groups. Discussion: These results indicate that the capacity of the endothelium to release nitric oxide under basal conditions is not compromised in overweight and obese adults.     

NPY5R antagonism does not augment the weight loss efficacy of orlistat or sibutramine

Objective: Central counter‐regulatory mechanisms, including those related to the orexigenic hormone neuropeptide Y (NPY), may limit the weight loss observed with conventional pharmacological monotherapy. This study evaluated whether blockade of the NPY Y5 receptor (NPY5R) with the selective antagonist MK‐0557 potentiates sibutramine and orlistat weight loss effects. Research Methods and Procedures: Obese patients (497, BMI 30 to 43 kg/m²) were randomized to 1 of 5 treatment arms [placebo, n = 101; sibutramine 10 mg/d, n = 100; MK‐0557 1 mg/d plus sibutramine 10 mg/d, n = 98; orlistat 120 mg TID, n = 99; MK‐0557 1 mg/d plus orlistat 120 mg TID, n = 99] in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet for 24 weeks. The all‐patients‐treated population, imputing missing data using last observation carried forward, was used to assess weight loss from baseline. Results: The study was completed by 71% of patients in placebo, 76% in sibutramine alone, 79% in MK‐0557 + sibutramine, 69% in orlistat alone, and 76% in MK‐0557 + orlistat groups. Least squares (LS) mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] in weight change from baseline between MK‐0557 + sibutramine and sibutramine alone was ?0.1 (?1.6, 1.4) kg (p = 0.892) and between MK‐0557 + orlistat and orlistat alone was ?0.9 (?2.4, 0.6) kg (p = 0.250). Sibutramine alone induced a LS mean weight loss of ?5.9 (?6.9, ?4.9) kg vs. ?4.6 (?5.7, ?3.6) kg for orlistat (p = 0.097). There were no serious drug‐related adverse events and MK‐0557 was well tolerated. Discussion: Blockade of the NPY5R with the potent antagonist MK‐0557 did not significantly increase the weight loss efficacy of either orlistat or sibutramine monotherapy.     

Enhanced Weight Loss With Pramlintide/Metreleptin: An Integrated Neurohormonal Approach to Obesity Pharmacotherapy

The neurohormonal control of body weight involves a complex interplay between long‐term adiposity signals (e.g., leptin), and short‐term satiation signals (e.g., amylin). In diet‐induced obese (DIO) rodents, amylin/leptin combination treatment led to marked, synergistic, fat‐specific weight loss. To evaluate the weight‐lowering effect of combined amylin/leptin agonism (with pramlintide/metreleptin) in human obesity, a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, active‐drug‐controlled, proof‐of‐concept study was conducted in obese or overweight subjects (N = 177; 63% female; 39 ± 8 years; BMI 32.0 ± 2.1 kg/m²; 93.3 ± 13.2 kg; mean ± s.d.). After a 4‐week lead‐in period with pramlintide (180 µg b.i.d. for 2 weeks, 360 µg b.i.d. thereafter) and diet (40% calorie deficit), subjects achieving 2–8% weight loss were randomized 1:2:2 to 20 weeks of treatment with metreleptin (5 mg b.i.d.), pramlintide (360 µg b.i.d.), or pramlintide/metreleptin (360 µg/5 mg b.i.d.). Combination treatment with pramlintide/metreleptin led to significantly greater weight loss from enrollment to week 20 (?12.7 ± 0.9%; least squares mean ± s.e.) than treatment with pramlintide (?8.4 ± 0.9%; P < 0.001) or metreleptin (?8.2 ± 1.3%; P < 0.01) alone (evaluable, N = 93). The greater reduction in body weight was significant as early as week 4, and weight loss continued throughout the study, without evidence of a plateau. The most common adverse events with pramlintide/metreleptin were injection site events and nausea, which were mostly mild to moderate and decreased over time. These results support further development of pramlintide/metreleptin as a novel, integrated neurohormonal approach to obesity pharmacotherapy.     

Leptin Levels Are Associated with Fat Oxidation and Dietary‐Induced Weight Loss in Obesity

Objective: To examine the relationship between fasting plasma leptin and 24‐hour energy expenditure (EE), substrate oxidation, and spontaneous physical activity (SPA) in obese subjects before and after a major weight reduction compared with normal weight controls. To test fasting plasma leptin, substrate oxidations, and SPA as predictive markers of success during a standardized weight loss intervention. Research Methods and Procedures: Twenty‐one nondiabetic obese (body mass index: 33.9 to 43.8 kg/m²) and 13 lean (body mass index: 20.4 to 24.7 kg/m²) men matched for age and height were included in the study. All obese subjects were reexamined after a mean weight loss of 19.2 kg (95% confidence interval: 15.1–23.4 kg) achieved by 16 weeks of dietary intervention followed by 8 weeks of weight stability. Twenty‐four‐hour EE and substrate oxidations were measured by whole‐body indirect calorimetry. SPA was assessed by microwave radar. Results: In lean subjects, leptin adjusted for fat mass (FM) was correlated to 24‐hour EE before (r = ?0.56, p < 0.05) but not after adjustment for fat free mass. In obese subjects, leptin correlated inversely with 24‐hour and resting nonprotein respiratory quotient (r = ?0.47, p < 0.05 and r = ?0.50, p < 0.05) both before and after adjustments for energy balance. Baseline plasma leptin concentration, adjusted for differences in FM, was inversely related to the size of weight loss after 8 weeks (r = ?0.41, p = 0.07), 16 weeks (r = ?0.51, p < 0.05), and 24 weeks (r = ?0.50, p < 0.05). Discussion: The present study suggests that leptin may have a stimulating effect on fat oxidation in obese subjects. A low leptin level for a given FM was associated with a greater weight loss, suggesting that obese subjects with greater leptin sensitivities are more successful in reducing weight.     

Six‐Month Treatment of Obesity with Sibutramine 15 mg; A Double‐Blind,Placebo‐Controlled Monocenter Clinical Trial in a Hispanic Population

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sibutramine 15 mg by mouth once per day in obese patients over a period of 6 months. Research Methods and Procedures: A monocenter, double‐blind, placebo controlled, parallel, prospective clinical trial was carried out. Sixty‐nine male and female obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg/m²) aged 16 to 65 years entered the trial. Results: 22 of 35 patients in the sibutramine group and 9 of 34 patients in the placebo group completed the trial. The high dropout rate in the sibutramine group was due to adverse events in 3 cases, lack of efficacy (as judged by patients) in 7, loss to follow‐up in 2, and an orthopedic device being worn in 1; in the placebo group the dropouts were ascribed to lack of efficacy (as judged by patients) in 17 cases and to loss to follow‐up in 8 cases. Using the method of last observation carried forward, the weight loss in the sibutramine group was 10.27 kg (95% confidence intervals [95% CI] 7.66; 13.07) and 1.26 kg (95% CI 0.3; 2.23) in the placebo group. The BMI loss was 4.17 kg/m² (95% CI 3.11; 5.22) in the sibutramine group and 0.53 kg/m² (95% CI 0.13; 0.92) in the placebo group. The waist circumference reduction was 12.51 cm (95% CI 9.25; 15.77) in the sibutramine group and 3.26 cm (95% CI 1.38; 5.14) in the control group (p < 0.05 by paired Student's t test for all the intragroup comparisons). Twenty‐three sibutramine patients had 34 adverse events, the most frequent adverse events in the sibutramine group were upper respiratory tract infections (n = 6) and constipation (n = 6); 16 placebo patients had 21 adverse events. Three sibutramine patients withdrew their informed consent when they had adverse events. Discussion: The results show that sibutramine induces significant loss of body weight and waist circumference. Cardiovascular function was not significantly affected by sibutramine. Sibutramine was well tolerated by most of the patients.     

Weight loss produced by tesofensine in patients with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease

Objective: Tesofensine (TE) is a norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin reuptake inhibitor. We conducted a meta‐analysis of TE's effect on body weight in trials investigating its potential for treatment of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. Methods and Procedures: Four randomized, double‐blind, multicenter trials compared TE (n = 740) and placebo (n = 228), two in each disease. Patients received oral TE or placebo once daily for 14 weeks without any weight loss program. Results were adjusted for baseline values, age, and study. Results: In the placebo group, 14% were obese and 21% were in the TE group. In the total cohort, weight change after 14 weeks was +0.5, ?0.5, ?0.9, ?1.8, ?2.8% in the placebo, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 mg in the TE groups, respectively (P = 0.015 for dose effect). In the obese subgroup, weight changes were ?0.2, ?1.7, ?1.6, ?1.5, ?3.7%, and 2.1, 8.2, 14.1, 20.9, 32.1% of the obese patients achieved ≥5% weight loss (P < 0.001 for 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 mg vs. placebo for both end points). Changes in heart rate were ?0.4, 2.1, 4.2, 6.0, and 6.8 bpm after 14 weeks (TE vs. placebo: P < 0.001 from 0.25 mg), but no effect on blood pressure was observed. Discussion: TE produced a placebo‐subtracted weight loss of ～4% for >14 weeks without any diet and lifestyle therapy, which is similar to that of sibutramine, but with no effect on blood pressure. On the basis of these results, TE is now being developed for obesity management.     

Enhanced Weight Loss Following Coadministration of Pramlintide With Sibutramine or Phentermine in a Multicenter Trial

Preclinical evidence suggests that pharmacotherapy for obesity using combinations of agents targeted at distinct regulatory pathways may produce robust additive or synergistic effects on weight loss. This randomized placebo‐controlled trial examined the safety and efficacy of the amylin analogue pramlintide alone or in combination with either phentermine or sibutramine. All patients also received lifestyle intervention. Following a 1‐week placebo lead‐in, 244 obese or overweight, nondiabetic subjects (88% female; 41 ± 11 years; BMI 37.7 ± 5.4 kg/m²; weight 103 ± 19 kg; mean ± s.d.) received placebo subcutaneously (sc) t.i.d., pramlintide sc (120 µg t.i.d.), pramlintide sc (120 µg t.i.d.) + oral sibutramine (10 mg q.a.m.), or pramlintide sc (120 µg t.i.d.) + oral phentermine (37.5 mg q.a.m.) for 24 weeks. Treatment was single‐blind for subjects receiving subcutaneous medication only and open‐label for subjects in the combination arms. Weight loss achieved at week 24 with either combination treatment was greater than with pramlintide alone or placebo (P < 0.001; 11.1 ± 1.1% with pramlintide + sibutramine, 11.3 ± 0.9% with pramlintide + phentermine, ?3.7 ± 0.7% with pramlintide; ?2.2 ± 0.7% with placebo; mean ± s.e.). Elevations from baseline in heart rate and diastolic blood pressure were demonstrated with both pramlintide + sibutramine (3.1 ± 1.2 beats/min, P < 0.05; 2.7 ± 0.9 mm Hg, P < 0.01) and pramlintide + phentermine (4.5 ± 1.3 beats/min, P < 0.01; 3.5 ± 1.2 mm Hg, P < 0.001) using 24‐h ambulatory monitoring. However, the majority of subjects receiving these treatments remained within normal blood pressure ranges. These results support the potential of pramlintide‐containing combination treatments for obesity.     

Bupropion for Weight Loss: An Investigation of Efficacy and Tolerability in Overweight and Obese Women

Objective: On the basis of the clinical observations that bupropion facilitated weight loss, we investigated the efficacy and tolerability of this drug in overweight and obese adult women. Research Methods and Procedures: A total of 50 overweight and obese (body mass index: 28.0 to 52.6 kg/m²) women were included. The core component of the study was a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled comparison for 8 weeks. Bupropion or placebo was started at 100 mg/d with gradual dose increase to a maximum of 200 mg twice daily. All subjects were prescribed a 1600 kcal/d balanced diet and compliance was monitored with food diaries. Responders continued the same treatment in a double‐blind manner for an additional 16 weeks to a total of 24 weeks. There was additional single‐blind follow‐up treatment for a total of 2 years. Results: Subjects receiving bupropion achieved greater mean weight loss (last‐observation‐carried‐forward analysis) over the first 8 weeks of the study (p = 0.0001): 4.9% ± 3.4% (n = 25) for bupropion treatment compared with 1.3% ± 2.4% (n = 25) for placebo treatment. For those who completed the 8 weeks, the comparison was 6.2% ± 3.1% (n = 18) vs. 1.6% ± 2.9% (n = 13), respectively(p = 0.0002), with 12 of 18 of the bupropion subjects (67%) losing over 5% of baseline body weight compared with 2 of 13 in the placebo group (15%; p = 0.0094). In the continuation phase, 14 bupropion responders who completed 24 weeks achieved weight loss of 12.9% ± 5.6% with fat accounting for 73.5% ± 3.7% of the weight lost and no change in bone mineral density as assessed by DXA. Bupropion was generally well‐tolerated in this sample. Discussion: Bupropion was more effective than placebo in achieving weight loss at 8 weeks in overweight and obese adult women in this preliminary study. Initial responders to bupropion benefited further in the continuation phase.     

Effect of Pramlintide on Weight in Overweight and Obese Insulin‐Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients

Objective: Several randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind trials in insulin‐treated patients with type 2 diabetes have shown that adjunctive therapy with pramlintide reduces hemoglobin (Hb)A_1c with concomitant weight loss. This analysis further characterizes the weight‐lowering effect of pramlintide in this patient population. Research Methods and Procedures: This pooled post hoc analysis of two long‐term trials included all patients who were overweight/obese at baseline (BMI > 25 kg/m²), and who were treated with either 120 μg pramlintide BID (n = 254; HbA_1c 9.2%; weight, 96.1 kg) or placebo (n = 244; HbA_1c 9.4%; weight, 95.0 kg). Statistical endpoints included changes from baseline to week 26 in HbA_1c, body weight, and insulin use. Results: Pramlintide treatment resulted in significant reductions from baseline to week 26, compared with placebo, in HbA_1c and body weight (both, p < 0.0001), for placebo‐corrected reductions of ?0.41% and ?1.8 kg, respectively. Approximately three times the number of patients using pramlintide experienced a ≥5% reduction of body weight than with placebo (9% vs. 3%, p = 0.0005). Patients using pramlintide also experienced a proportionate decrease in total daily insulin use (r = 0.39, p < 0.0001). The greatest placebo‐corrected reductions in weight at week 26 were observed in pramlintide‐treated patients with a BMI >40 kg/m² and in those concomitantly treated with metformin (both, p < 0.001), for placebo‐corrected reductions of ?3.2 kg and ?2.5 kg, respectively. Discussion: These findings support further evaluation of the weight‐lowering potential of pramlintide in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Sibutramine plus meal replacement therapy for body weight loss and maintenance in obese patients

Objective: Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of sibutramine with a low‐calorie diet (LCD) and commercial meal‐replacement product in achieving weight loss and weight‐loss maintenance in obese patients. Research Methods and Procedures: Eight U.S. centers recruited 148 obese patients for a 3‐month comprehensive weight‐loss therapy (Phase I) comprising daily sibutramine 10 mg + LCD (two Slim‐Fast meal‐replacement shakes, one low‐calorie meal; total kcal/d = 1200–1500). Patients (N = 113) who lost ≥5% of initial body weight during Phase I were randomized for a 9‐month period (Phase II) to daily sibutramine 15 mg + LCD (one meal‐replacement shake; two low‐calorie meals: total kcal/d ～1200–1500) or daily placebo + three low‐calorie meals (total kcal/d ～1200–1500). Both phases included behavior modification. Efficacy was assessed by body weight change during each phase and by the number of patients at endpoint maintaining ≥80% of the weight they had lost by the end of Phase I. Other outcomes included changes in cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors, adverse events, and vital signs. Results: Mean body weight change during Phase I was ?8.3 kg (p < 0.001). Patients randomized to sibutramine in Phase II had an additional ?2.5 kg mean weight loss vs. a 2.8‐kg increase in the placebo group (p < 0.001). More sibutramine patients maintained ≥80% of their Phase I weight loss at the end of Phase II (85.5% vs. placebo 36.7%, p < 0.001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and all serious adverse events were unrelated to sibutramine. Discussion: Sibutramine plus LCD with meal replacements and behavior modification is a safe and effective strategy for achieving and sustaining weight loss in obese patients.     

Lipoprotein Oxidation and Plasma Vitamin E in Nondiabetic Normotensive Obese Patients

Objective: To correlate the susceptibility of low‐(LDL) and very‐low‐density lipoprotein to oxidation in vitro and the concentrations of serum antibodies against malondialdehyde‐modified LDL and plasma vitamin E with the anthropometric and laboratory characteristics of obesity. Research Methods and Procedures: A total of 75 nondiabetic, normotensive obese patients were assigned to one of four groups according to their body mass index (BMI): moderately obese (30 ≤ BMI ≤ 34.9 kg/m², n = 11), severely obese (35 ≤ BMI ≤ 39.9 kg/m², n = 20), morbidly obese (40 ≤ BMI ≤ 50 kg/m², n = 29), and very severely obese (BMI > 50 kg/m², n = 15). Results: The oxidation lag time for LDL from patients with a BMI ≥35 kg/m² was shorter than that for LDL from non‐obese controls (n = 13), whereas very‐low‐density lipoprotein oxidation lag times were not significantly different. The serum antibodies against modified LDL were similar in all groups, whereas the plasma vitamin E concentrations of obese patients were decreased (p ≤ 0.01). There was a negative correlation between LDL oxidation lag time and BMI (r = ?0.35, p = 0.0008), and between plasma vitamin E and BMI (r = ?0.53, p < 0.0001) and waist‐to‐hip ratio (r = ?0.40, p = 0.0003). Discussion: The LDL of nondiabetic, normotensive obese patients is more readily oxidized, and plasma vitamin E concentrations are low. These are both risk factors for coronary heart disease.     

The Feet of Overweight and Obese Young Children: Are They Flat or Fat?

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the flat feet displayed by young obese and overweight children are attributable to the presence of a thicker midfoot plantar fat pad or a lowering of the longitudinal arch relative to that in non‐overweight children. Research Methods and Procedures: Foot anthropometry, an arch index derived from plantar footprints, and midfoot plantar fat pad thickness measured by ultrasound were obtained for 19 overweight/obese preschool children (mean age, 4.3 ± 0.9 years; mean height, 1.07 ± 0.1 m; mean BMI, 18.6 ± 1.2 kg/m²) and 19 non‐overweight children matched for age, height, and sex (mean age, 4.3 ± 0.7 years; mean height, 1.05 ± 0.1 m; mean BMI, 15.7 ± 0.7 kg/m²). Results: Independent t tests revealed no significant between‐subject group differences (p = 0.39) in the thickness of the midfoot plantar fat pad. However, the overweight/obese children had a significantly lower plantar arch height (0.9 ± 0.3 cm) than their non‐overweight counterparts (1.1 ± 0.2 cm; p = 0.04). Discussion: The lower plantar arch height found in the overweight/obese children suggests that the flatter feet characteristic of overweight/obese preschool children may be caused by structural changes in their foot anatomy. It is postulated that these structural changes, which may adversely affect the functional capacity of the medial longitudinal arch, might be exacerbated if excess weight bearing continues throughout childhood and into adulthood.     

Skeletal muscle fat oxidation is increased in African-American and white women after 10 days of endurance exercise training

Objective: Obesity is associated with lower rates of skeletal muscle fatty acid oxidation (FAO), which is linked to insulin resistance. FAO is reduced further in obese African‐American (AAW) vs. white women (CW) and may also be lower in lean AAW vs. CW. In lean CW, endurance exercise training (EET) elevates the oxidative capacity of skeletal muscle. Therefore, we determined whether EET would elevate skeletal muscle FAO similarly in AAW and CW with a lower lipid oxidative capacity. Research Methods and Procedures: In vitro rates of FAO were assessed in rectus abdominus muscle strips using [1‐¹⁴C] palmitate (Pal) from lean AAW [BMI = 24.2 ± 0.9 (standard error) kg/m²] and CW (23.6 ± 0.8 kg/m²) undergoing voluntary abdominal surgery. Lean AAW (22 ± 0.9 kg/m²) and CW (24 ± 0.8 kg/m²) and obese AAW (36 ± 1.2 kg/m²) and CW (40 ± 1.3 kg/m²) underwent 10 consecutive days of EET on a cycle ergometer (60 min/d, 75% peak oxygen uptake). FAO was measured in vastus lateralis homogenates as captured ¹⁴CO₂ using [1‐¹⁴C] Pal, palmitoyl‐CoA (Pal‐CoA), and palmityl‐carnitine (Pal‐Car). Results: Muscle strip experiments showed suppressed rates of FAO (p = 0.03) in lean AAW vs. CW. EET increased the rates of skeletal muscle Pal oxidation (p = 0.05) in both lean AAW and CW. In obese subjects, Pre‐EET Pal (but not Pal‐CoA or Pal‐Car) oxidation was lower (p = 0.05) in AAW vs. CW. EET increased Pal oxidation 100% in obese AAW (p < 0.05) and 59% (p < 0.05) in obese CW. Similar increases (p < 0.05) in post‐EET FAO were observed for Pal‐CoA and Pal‐Car in both groups. Discussion: Both lean and obese AAW possess a lower capacity for skeletal muscle FAO, but EET increases FAO similarly in both AAW and CW. These data suggest the use of EET for treatment against obesity and diabetes for both AAW and CW.     

Effect of a Dietary Herbal Supplement Containing Caffeine and Ephedra on Weight,Metabolic Rate,and Body Composition*

Objective: To evaluate the effect of a dietary supplement containing herbal caffeine (70 mg/dose) and ephedra (24 mg/dose; C&E) on metabolic rate, weight loss, body composition, and safety parameters. Research Methods and Procedures: In phase I, 12 healthy subjects with a BMI of 25 to 35 kg/m² had resting metabolic rate (RMR) measured for 2 hours after ingesting C&E or a placebo on two occasions 1 week apart, followed by a 1‐week washout before phase II. In phase II, these 12 and 28 additional subjects were randomized to a 12‐week, double‐blind trial comparing C&E (3 times/day) to placebo. In phase III, the C&E group was given open‐label C&E for 3 months, and the placebo group was given C&E for 6 months. Results: In phase I, C&E gave an average 8 ± 0.1% (SE) rise in RMR over 2 hours compared with placebo (p < 0.01). In phase II, weight loss at 12 weeks was 3.5 ± 0.6 kg with C&E compared with 0.8 ± 0.5 kg with placebo (p < 0.02). The percentage fat lost, shown by DXA, was 7.9 ± 2.9% with C&E and 1.9 ± 1.1% with placebo (p < 0.05). Pulse decreased more in the placebo group that in the C&E group (p < 0.03). There were no differences in lipid levels or blood pressure. In phase III, there was a 6‐month loss of 7.3% and 7.8% of initial body weight for the groups on placebo and C&E during phase II, respectively. There were no serious adverse events. Discussion: C&E increased RMR significantly by 8% compared with placebo, promoted more weight and fat loss than placebo, and was well tolerated.     

A 6‐Month Randomized,Placebo‐Controlled,Dose‐Ranging Trial of Topiramate for Weight Loss in Obesity

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate (TPM) for weight loss in healthy obese subjects. Research Methods and Procedures: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, dose‐ranging trial was conducted. Three hundred eighty‐five subjects, 18 and 75 years of age, were randomized to receive either placebo or TPM at 64, 96, 192, or 384 mg daily. Dosing began at 16 mg once daily. In week 2, the dose was increased to 16 mg twice daily. Thereafter, the dose was raised every week by 32 mg/d (16 mg twice daily) until subjects reached their target dose. Twenty‐four weeks after beginning treatment, all subjects were tapered off treatment by a dose reduction of 50% per week. All participants received the same lifestyle program. Results: Mean percent weight loss from baseline to week 24 was ?2.6% in placebo‐treated patients vs. ?5.0%, ?4.8%, ?6.3%, and ?6.3% in the 64, 96, 192, and 384 mg/d TPM groups, respectively. Greater percentages of TPM‐treated patients lost at least 5% or 10% of body weight compared with placebo. The most frequent adverse events were related to the central or peripheral nervous system, including paresthesia, somnolence, and difficulty with memory, concentration, and attention. Most events were dose‐related, occurred early in treatment, and usually resolved spontaneously; only 21% receiving TPM withdrew due to adverse events compared with 11% on placebo. Discussion: TPM produced significantly greater weight loss than placebo at all doses.     

The effect of pioglitazone and resistance training on body composition in older men and women undergoing hypocaloric weight loss

Age‐related increases in ectopic fat accumulation are associated with greater risk for metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, and physical disability. Reducing skeletal muscle fat and preserving lean tissue are associated with improved physical function in older adults. PPARγ‐agonist treatment decreases abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and resistance training preserves lean tissue, but their effect on ectopic fat depots in nondiabetic overweight adults is unclear. We examined the influence of pioglitazone and resistance training on body composition in older (65–79 years) nondiabetic overweight/obese men (n = 48, BMI = 32.3 ± 3.8 kg/m²) and women (n = 40, BMI = 33.3 ± 4.9 kg/m²) during weight loss. All participants underwent a 16‐week hypocaloric weight‐loss program and were randomized to receive pioglitazone (30 mg/day) or no pioglitazone with or without resistance training, following a 2 × 2 factorial design. Regional body composition was measured at baseline and follow‐up using computed tomography (CT). Lean mass was measured using dual X‐ray absorptiometry. Men lost 6.6% and women lost 6.5% of initial body mass. The percent of fat loss varied across individual compartments. Men who were given pioglitazone lost more visceral abdominal fat than men who were not given pioglitazone (?1,160 vs. ?647 cm³, P = 0.007). Women who were given pioglitazone lost less thigh subcutaneous fat (?104 vs. ?298 cm³, P = 0.002). Pioglitazone did not affect any other outcomes. Resistance training diminished thigh muscle loss in men and women (resistance training vs. no resistance training men: ?43 vs. ?88 cm³, P = 0.005; women: ?34 vs. ?59 cm³, P = 0.04). In overweight/obese older men undergoing weight loss, pioglitazone increased visceral fat loss and resistance training reduced skeletal muscle loss. Additional studies are needed to clarify the observed gender differences and evaluate how these changes in body composition influence functional status.     

Lorcaserin (APD356), a Selective 5‐HT2C Agonist,Reduces Body Weight in Obese Men and Women

Lorcaserin (APD356) is a potent, selective 5‐HT_2C agonist with ∼15‐fold and 100‐fold selectivity vs. 5‐HT_2A and 5‐HT_2B receptors, respectively. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of lorcaserin for weight reduction in obese patients during a 12‐week period. The randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐arm study enrolled 469 men and women between ages 18 and 65 and with BMI 30–45 kg/m². Patients received placebo, lorcaserin 10 mg q.d., lorcaserin 15 mg q.d., or lorcaserin 10 mg b.i.d. for 12 weeks, and were counseled to maintain their usual diet and activity. The primary end point was change in weight from baseline to day 85 by completer analysis. Safety analyses included echocardiograms at Screening and day 85/study exit. Lorcaserin was associated with progressive weight loss of 1.8 kg, 2.6 kg, and 3.6 kg at 10 mg q.d., 15 mg q.d., and 10 mg b.i.d., respectively, compared to placebo weight loss of 0.3 kg (P < 0.001 for each group). Similar results were seen by intent‐to‐treat last observation‐carried forward (ITT‐LOCF) analysis. The proportions of completers achieving ≥5% of initial body weight were 12.8, 19.5, 31.2, and 2.3% in the 10 mg q.d., 15 mg q.d., 10 mg b.i.d., and placebo groups, respectively. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were transient headache, nausea, and dizziness. Echocardiograms showed no apparent drug‐related effects on heart valves or pulmonary artery pressure (PAP). Lorcaserin was well tolerated and efficacious for weight reduction in this 12‐week study. Longer‐term trials employing behavior modification will be needed to more fully assess its safety and efficacy.