-
JAMA Jun 2016Five medications have been approved for the management of obesity, but data on comparative effectiveness are limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Five medications have been approved for the management of obesity, but data on comparative effectiveness are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To compare weight loss and adverse events among drug treatments for obesity using a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central from inception to March 23, 2016; clinical trial registries.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials conducted among overweight and obese adults treated with US Food and Drug Administration-approved long-term weight loss agents (orlistat, lorcaserin, naltrexone-bupropion, phentermine-topiramate, or liraglutide) for at least 1 year compared with another active agent or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators identified studies and independently abstracted data using a predefined protocol. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Proportions of patients with at least 5% weight loss and at least 10% weight loss, magnitude of decrease in weight, and discontinuation of therapy because of adverse events at 1 year.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials with 29 018 patients (median age, 46 years; 74% women; median baseline body weight, 100.5 kg; median baseline body mass index, 36.1) were included. A median 23% of placebo participants had at least 5% weight loss vs 75% of participants taking phentermine-topiramate (odds ratio [OR], 9.22; 95% credible interval [CrI], 6.63-12.85; SUCRA, 0.95), 63% of participants taking liraglutide (OR, 5.54; 95% CrI, 4.16-7.78; SUCRA, 0.83), 55% taking naltrexone-bupropion (OR, 3.96; 95% CrI, 3.03-5.11; SUCRA, 0.60), 49% taking lorcaserin (OR, 3.10; 95% CrI, 2.38-4.05; SUCRA, 0.39), and 44% taking orlistat (OR, 2.70; 95% CrI, 2.34-3.09; SUCRA, 0.22). All active agents were associated with significant excess weight loss compared with placebo at 1 year-phentermine-topiramate, 8.8 kg (95% CrI, -10.20 to -7.42 kg); liraglutide, 5.3 kg (95% CrI, -6.06 to -4.52 kg); naltrexone-bupropion, 5.0 kg (95% CrI, -5.94 to -3.96 kg); lorcaserin, 3.2 kg (95% CrI, -3.97 to -2.46 kg); and orlistat, 2.6 kg (95% CrI, -3.04 to -2.16 kg). Compared with placebo, liraglutide (OR, 2.95; 95% CrI, 2.11-4.23) and naltrexone-bupropion (OR, 2.64; 95% CrI, 2.10-3.35) were associated with the highest odds of adverse event-related treatment discontinuation. High attrition rates (30%-45% in all trials) were associated with lower confidence in estimates.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among overweight or obese adults, orlistat, lorcaserin, naltrexone-bupropion, phentermine-topiramate, and liraglutide, compared with placebo, were each associated with achieving at least 5% weight loss at 52 weeks. Phentermine-topiramate and liraglutide were associated with the highest odds of achieving at least 5% weight loss.
Topics: Anti-Obesity Agents; Bayes Theorem; Benzazepines; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Lactones; Liraglutide; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Obesity; Orlistat; Phentermine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate; Weight Loss
PubMed: 27299618
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.7602 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Child and adolescent obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with significant short- and long-term health consequences. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Child and adolescent obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with significant short- and long-term health consequences.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of drug interventions for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed (subsets not available on Ovid), LILACS as well as the trial registers ICTRP (WHO) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Searches were undertaken from inception to March 2016. We checked references and applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for treating obesity (licensed and unlicensed for this indication) in children and adolescents (mean age under 18 years) with or without support of family members, with a minimum of three months' pharmacological intervention and six months' follow-up from baseline. We excluded interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders or type 2 diabetes, or included participants with a secondary or syndromic cause of obesity. In addition, we excluded trials which included growth hormone therapies and pregnant participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data following standard Cochrane methodology. Where necessary we contacted authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 trials and identified eight ongoing trials. The included trials evaluated metformin (11 trials), sibutramine (six trials), orlistat (four trials), and one trial arm investigated the combination of metformin and fluoxetine. The ongoing trials evaluated metformin (four trials), topiramate (two trials) and exenatide (two trials). A total of 2484 people participated in the included trials, 1478 participants were randomised to drug intervention and 904 to comparator groups (91 participants took part in two cross-over trials; 11 participants not specified). Eighteen trials used a placebo in the comparator group. Two trials had a cross-over design while the remaining 19 trials were parallel RCTs. The length of the intervention period ranged from 12 weeks to 48 weeks, and the length of follow-up from baseline ranged from six months to 100 weeks.Trials generally had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding (participants, personnel and assessors) for subjective and objective outcomes. We judged approximately half of the trials as having a high risk of bias in one or more domain such as selective reporting.The primary outcomes of this review were change in body mass index (BMI), change in weight and adverse events. All 21 trials measured these outcomes. The secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (only one trial reported results showing no marked differences; very low certainty evidence), body fat distribution (measured in 18 trials), behaviour change (measured in six trials), participants' views of the intervention (not reported), morbidity associated with the intervention (measured in one orlistat trial only reporting more new gallstones following the intervention; very low certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (one suicide in the orlistat intervention group; low certainty evidence) and socioeconomic effects (not reported).Intervention versus comparator for mean difference (MD) in BMI change was -1.3 kg/m (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.9 to -0.8; P < 0.00001; 16 trials; 1884 participants; low certainty evidence). When split by drug type, sibutramine, metformin and orlistat all showed reductions in BMI in favour of the intervention.Intervention versus comparator for change in weight showed a MD of -3.9 kg (95% CI -5.9 to -1.9; P < 0.00001; 11 trials; 1180 participants; low certainty evidence). As with BMI, when the trials were split by drug type, sibutramine, metformin and orlistat all showed reductions in weight in favour of the intervention.Five trials reported serious adverse events: 24/878 (2.7%) participants in the intervention groups versus 8/469 (1.7%) participants in the comparator groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.25; 1347 participants; low certainty evidence). A total 52/1043 (5.0%) participants in the intervention groups versus 17/621 (2.7%) in the comparator groups discontinued the trial because of adverse events (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.52; 10 trials; 1664 participants; low certainty evidence). The most common adverse events in orlistat and metformin trials were gastrointestinal (such as diarrhoea, mild abdominal pain or discomfort, fatty stools). The most frequent adverse events in sibutramine trials included tachycardia, constipation and hypertension. The single fluoxetine trial reported dry mouth and loose stools. No trial investigated drug treatment for overweight children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review is part of a series of associated Cochrane reviews on interventions for obese children and adolescents and has shown that pharmacological interventions (metformin, sibutramine, orlistat and fluoxetine) may have small effects in reduction in BMI and bodyweight in obese children and adolescents. However, many of these drugs are not licensed for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents, or have been withdrawn. Trials were generally of low quality with many having a short or no post-intervention follow-up period and high dropout rates (overall dropout of 25%). Future research should focus on conducting trials with sufficient power and long-term follow-up, to ensure the long-term effects of any pharmacological intervention are comprehensively assessed. Adverse events should be reported in a more standardised manner specifying amongst other things the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event. The requirement of regulatory authorities (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) for trials of all new medications to be used in children and adolescents should drive an increase in the number of high quality trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Obesity Agents; Body Mass Index; Child; Cyclobutanes; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lactones; Metformin; Orlistat; Pediatric Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27899001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012436 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Nov 2021Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice.... (Review)
Review
Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice. This systematic literature review aimed to identify real-world (RW) evidence for AOMs to treat adults ( ≥ 18 years) with obesity or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m ). Searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of relevant FDA-approved AOMs yielded 41 publications. Weight loss (WL) was consistently observed, with 14% to 58.6% of patients achieving ≥ 5% WL on orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, phentermine, or liraglutide in studies of 3-6 months' duration where this was measured. When cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed, AOMs reduced or had no impact on blood pressure, lipids, or glycemia. RW data on the impact of AOMs on existing obesity-related comorbidities and mortality were generally lacking. AOMs were associated with various adverse events, but these were of mild to moderate severity and no unexpected safety signals were reported. A pattern of poor adherence and persistence with AOMs was observed across studies. Overall, the review confirmed the effectiveness of AOMs in RW settings but demonstrated large gaps in the evidence base.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Humans; Orlistat; Phentermine; State Medicine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34423889
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13326 -
BMC Endocrine Disorders Jul 2023Childhood obesity is one of the main concerns of public health. Considering its long-term adverse health effect, various studies investigated the effect of drug therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Childhood obesity is one of the main concerns of public health. Considering its long-term adverse health effect, various studies investigated the effect of drug therapy on anthropometric parameters and provided mixed results. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of Orlistat on anthropometrics and biochemical parameters in children and adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until September 2022. Experimental and semi-experimental studies were included if they evaluated the effect of Orlistat on obesity-related parameters in children and reported the before and after anthropometric values. A revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (Rob2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality. STATA software version 16.0 was used for the meta-analysis of the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Of 810 articles retrieved in the initial search, four experimental and two semi-experimental studies were selected for systematic review. The result of the meta-analysis of experimental studies indicated the significant effect of Orlistat on waist circumference (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.47, -0.07) and serum insulin level (SMD: -0.89, 95% CI: -1.52, 0.26). However, there were no significant effects of orlistat on body weight, body mass index, lipid profile, and serum glucose level.
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis showed the significant effect of Orlistat on the reduction of waist circumference and insulin level in overweight and obese adolescents. However, due to the paucity of studies included in the meta-analysis, more prospective studies with longer duration and more sample sizes will be needed in this age group.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Orlistat; Anti-Obesity Agents; Prospective Studies; Pediatric Obesity; Lactones; Insulins
PubMed: 37420181
DOI: 10.1186/s12902-023-01390-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Bias; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Bupropion; Diet, Reducing; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate
PubMed: 33454957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub5 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Pharmacological therapy is recommended as a second-line alternative to reverse obesity. Currently, five anti-obesity drugs (AODs) have been approved by the U.S. Food and...
INTRODUCTION
Pharmacological therapy is recommended as a second-line alternative to reverse obesity. Currently, five anti-obesity drugs (AODs) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for chronic weight management. The aim of this paper is to investigate the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of AODs through a systematic review with a special focus on methodological considerations.
METHODS
We searched the general and specific databases to identify the primary pharmacoeconomic evaluation of AODs.
RESULTS
A total of 18 full-text articles and three conference abstracts were included in this review. Most of the economic assessments were still about Orlistat. And the observations we could make were consistent with the previous systematic review. A few studies were on the combined therapies (i.e. PHEN/TPM ER and NB ER) compared to different comparators, which could hardly lead to a generalized summary of the cost-effectiveness. Most recently, pharmacoeconomic evidence on the newest GLP 1 RA approved for the indication of obesity or obesity with at least one comorbidity emerged gradually. Modelling-based cost-utility analysis is the major type of assessment method. In the modelling studies, a manageable number of the key health states and the state transitions were structured to capture the disease progression. In particular, the principal structure of the decision model adopted in the three studies on the newly approved drug was nearly the same, which enables more in-depth comparisons and generalizations of the findings.
CONCLUSION
This study provided an up-to-date overview of the strengths and areas for improvement in the methodological design of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the licensed drugs for chronic weight management. Future modelling evaluations would benefit from a better understanding of the long-term weight loss effects of the current therapeutic options and the weight rebound process after the discontinuation of treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022302648, identifier CRD42022302648.
Topics: United States; Humans; Anti-Obesity Agents; Economics, Pharmaceutical; Obesity; Orlistat; Comorbidity
PubMed: 38027186
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1254398 -
Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) Sep 2014To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of clinically proven nonsurgical commercial weight loss strategies for those with BMIs between 25 and 40. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of clinically proven nonsurgical commercial weight loss strategies for those with BMIs between 25 and 40.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review to identify randomized controlled trials of commercially available weight loss studies of at least 1 year in duration. Using the results of these trials and publicly available cost data, we quantified the incremental cost per kilogram of weight loss and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We then use probabilistic sensitivity analyses to quantify uncertainty in our results.
RESULTS
Based on the literature review, two lifestyle programs (Weight Watchers and Vtrim), one meal replacement program (Jenny Craig), and three pharmaceutical products (Qsymia, Lorcaserin, and Orlistat) were included in the analysis. Average cost per kilogram of weight lost ranged from $155 (95% CI: $110-$218) for Weight Watchers to $546 (95% CI: $390-$736) for Orlistat. The incremental cost per QALY gained for Weight Watchers and Qsymia was $34,630 and $54,130, respectively. All other interventions were prohibitively expensive or inferior in that weight loss could be achieved at a lower cost through one or a combination of the other strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest that, in the absence of other considerations and at current market prices, Weight Watchers and Qsymia represent the two most cost-effective strategies for nonsurgical weight loss.
Topics: Body Weight; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Obesity; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Weight Loss
PubMed: 24962106
DOI: 10.1002/oby.20824 -
Medicine May 2024The aim of this study is to examine the impact of the Orlistat on glucose levels and glucose tolerance in individuals with prediabetes, as well as assess its efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of the Orlistat on glucose levels and glucose tolerance in individuals with prediabetes, as well as assess its efficacy and safety in preventing the progression to diabetes.
METHODS
For achieving the appropriate randomized controlled trials, we enrolled the public datas from the following electronic databases: The Cochrane library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wan-Fang, and China Biology Medicine disc. The article focused on the orlistat intervention of glucose tolerance and glycemic status in prediabetic patients. We restricted the publication time from the creation to May 2023.
RESULTS
Six subjects were included in the study, with a total of 1076 participants (532 in the control group vs 544 in the experimental group). The results indicated that the orlistat can reduce the fasting blood glucose [relative risk (RR) = -2.18, 95% confidence intervals (CI) (-2.471, -1.886)], as well as the 2 hour postprandial blood glucose [RR = -1.497, 95% CI (-1.811, -1.183)]. Furthermore, it can prevent the impaired glucose tolerance patients to type 2 diabetes mellitus [RR = 0.605, 95% CI (0.462, 0.791)], and reversal the impaired glucose tolerance [RR = 2.092, 95% CI (1.249, 3.503)].
CONCLUSIONS
In prediabetic people, the orlistat can control weight, reduce the fasting blood glucose and the 2 hour postprandial blood glucose, and then delay the progression of diabetes. However, due to the quantitative restrictions, additional high-quality study needs to be conducted to improve the reliability of the results.
Topics: Humans; Orlistat; Prediabetic State; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Blood Glucose; Disease Progression; Anti-Obesity Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Lactones
PubMed: 38787971
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038354 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology May 2016To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to ascertain the effect size of orlistat in modulating plasma levels of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to ascertain the effect size of orlistat in modulating plasma levels of adipokines, ghrelin and C-reactive protein (CRP).
METHODS
Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched. A random-effects model and the generic inverse variance method were used for quantitative data synthesis. Heterogeneity was quantitatively assessed using I(2) index. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the one-study remove approach. Random-effects meta-regression was performed using unrestricted maximum likelihood method to evaluate the impact of duration of treatment, percentage change in body mass index (BMI) and baseline BMI values as potential confounders of the estimated effect size.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis suggested a significant increase in plasma levels of adiponectin [weighted mean difference (WMD): 19.18%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.80, 32.57, p = 0.005] and significant reductions in plasma levels of leptin (WMD: -13.24%, 95% CI: -20.69, -5.78, p = 0.001) and CRP (WMD: -11.52%, 95% CI: -16.55, -6.49, p < 0.001) following treatment with orlistat. In meta-regression, changes in plasma concentrations of adiponectin, leptin and CRP were associated with duration of treatment, but not with either change in BMI or baseline BMI values.
CONCLUSION
Orlistat is effective in increasing plasma concentrations of adiponectin and decreasing those of leptin and CRP.
Topics: Adiponectin; Anti-Obesity Agents; Body Weight; C-Reactive Protein; Ghrelin; Humans; Lactones; Leptin; Metabolic Syndrome; Orlistat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26717446
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12874