-
Acta Pharmaceutica (Zagreb, Croatia) Jun 2021The current study investigates the anorectic interaction and safety of the mazindol-metformin combination in rats. Isobologram and interaction index were used to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
The current study investigates the anorectic interaction and safety of the mazindol-metformin combination in rats. Isobologram and interaction index were used to determine anorectic interaction between mazindol and metformin in the sweetened milk model. The safety profile of the mazindol-metformin combination was determined by measuring anxiety, blood pressure, hematic biometry and blood chemistry. An acute dose of mazindol and metformin administered per os, individually or as a mixture, has reduced the milk consumption in rats in a dose-dependent manner. Theoretical effective dose 40 (ED40t) did not differ from the experimental effective dose 40 (ED40e) obtained with the mazindol-metformin mixture in the anorexia experiments, by Student's t-test. In addition, the interaction index confirmed the additive anorectic effect between both drugs. A single oral dose of ED40e mazindol-metformin mixture induced anxiolysis in the elevated plus-maze test. Moreover, oral administration of mazindol-metformin combination for 3 months significantly decreased glycemia, but not blood pressure nor other parameters of hematic biometry and blood chemistry. Results suggest that mazindol-metformin combination exerts an additive anorectic effect, as well as anxiolytic and hypoglycemic properties. Mazindol-metformin combination might be useful in obese patients with anxiety disorders or diabetes risk factors.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Appetite Depressants; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hypoglycemic Agents; Male; Maze Learning; Mazindol; Metformin; Rats; Rats, Wistar
PubMed: 33151165
DOI: 10.2478/acph-2021-0019 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2011About one third of the US population and one quarter of the UK population are obese, with increased risks of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, cardiovascular... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About one third of the US population and one quarter of the UK population are obese, with increased risks of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, and some cancers. Fewer than 10% of overweight or obese adults aged 40 to 49 years revert to a normal body weight after 4 years. Nearly 5 million US adults used prescription weight-loss medication between 1996 and 1998, but one quarter of all users were not overweight.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments in adults with obesity? What are the effects of bariatric surgery in adults with morbid obesity? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 39 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bariatric surgery versus medical interventions, biliopancreatic diversion, diethylpropion, gastric bypass, gastric banding, mazindol, orlistat (alone and in combination with sibutramine), phentermine, sibutramine (alone and in combination with orlistat), sleeve gastrectomy, and vertical banded gastroplasty.
Topics: Adult; Diethylpropion; Gastric Bypass; Gastroplasty; Humans; Obesity; Obesity, Morbid; Phentermine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 21411021
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) May 2017The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of amfepramone, fenproporex and mazindol as a monotherapy for the treatment of obese or overweight patients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of amfepramone, fenproporex and mazindol as a monotherapy for the treatment of obese or overweight patients. A systematic review of primary studies was conducted, followed by a direct meta-analysis (random effect) and mixed treatment comparison. Medline and other databases were searched. Heterogeneity was explored through I2 associated with a p-value. Of 739 identified publications, 25 were included in the meta-analysis. The global evaluation of Cochrane resulted in 19 studies with a high level of bias and six with unclear risk. Due to the lack of information in primary studies, direct meta-analyses were conducted only for amfepramone and mazindol. Compared to placebo, amfepramone resulted in higher weight loss in the short-term (<180 days; mean difference (MD) -1.281 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.0%; p=0.379) and long-term (≥180 days; MD -6.518 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.0%; p=0.719). Only studies with long-term follow up reported efficacy in terms of abdominal circumference and 5-10% weight reduction. These results corroborated the finding that the efficacy of amfepramone is greater than that of placebo. Treatment with mazindol showed greater short-term weight loss than that with placebo (MD -1.721 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.9%; p=0.388). However, metabolic outcomes were poorly described, preventing a meta-analysis. A mixed treatment comparison corroborated the direct meta-analysis. Considering the high level of risk of bias and the absence of important published outcomes for anti-obesity therapy assessments, this study found that the evaluated drugs showed poor evidence of efficacy in the treatment of overweight and obese patients. Robust safety data were not identified to suggest changes in their regulatory status.
Topics: Appetite Depressants; Diethylpropion; Humans; Mazindol; Obesity; Overweight; Publication Bias; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss
PubMed: 28591345
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2017(05)10 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.
PubMed: 27670244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007380.pub4 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Mar 2017Antiobesity pharmacotherapy remains the main point of disagreement among both scientists and regulators. This is probably due to small sample sizes, high levels of...
Antiobesity pharmacotherapy remains the main point of disagreement among both scientists and regulators. This is probably due to small sample sizes, high levels of heterogeneity, and low methodological quality. For many years, Brazil was one of the largest consumers of appetite suppressants worldwide, with evidence of irrational use of this drug class. Therefore, the country was the scene of a debate that divided the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa - Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) and medical societies over the maintenance record of diethylpropion, mazindol and fenproporex. In this context, this commentary presents new arguments to contribute to the discussion, as well as recommendations for future studies.
Topics: Amphetamines; Appetite Depressants; Brazil; Cyclobutanes; Diethylpropion; Drug Approval; Humans; Mazindol; Obesity; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28489121
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.63.03.203 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Sep 2013Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disorder characterised by progressive obliteration of the pulmonary microvasculature resulting in elevated pulmonary... (Review)
Review
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disorder characterised by progressive obliteration of the pulmonary microvasculature resulting in elevated pulmonary vascular resistance and premature death. According to the current classification PAH can be associated with exposure to certain drugs or toxins, particularly to appetite suppressant intake drugs, such as aminorex, fenfluramine derivatives and benfluorex. These drugs have been confirmed to be risk factors for PAH and were withdrawn from the market. The supposed mechanism is an increase in serotonin levels, which was demonstrated to act as a growth factor for the pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells. Amphetamines, phentermine and mazindol were less frequently used, but are considered possible risk factors, for PAH. Dasatinib, dual Src/Abl kinase inhibitor, used in the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukaemia was associated with cases of severe PAH, potentially in part reversible after dasatinib withdrawal. Recently, several studies have raised the issue of potential endothelial dysfunction that could be induced by interferon, and a few cases of PAH have been reported with interferon therapy. PAH remains a rare complication of these drugs, suggesting possible individual susceptibility, and further studies are needed to identify patients at risk of drug-induced PAH.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Arterial Pressure; Disease Outbreaks; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Familial Primary Pulmonary Hypertension; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Pulmonary Artery; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23997051
DOI: 10.1183/09059180.00003313 -
Obesity Research Nov 1995An anoerxiant, mazindol suppresses food intake by 1) stimulating beta-adrenergic receptors, 2) inhibiting the feeding center and, 3) stimulating the satiety center in... (Review)
Review
An anoerxiant, mazindol suppresses food intake by 1) stimulating beta-adrenergic receptors, 2) inhibiting the feeding center and, 3) stimulating the satiety center in the hypothalamus. In Japan, mazindol is available for clinical use. We examined the effects of mazindol on 1) body weight, appetite, and abnormalities of obesity-related diseases in long-term use 2) maintenance of the reduced body weight after very-low-calorie diet (VLCD) therapy 3) combined use with VLCD therapy and, 4) inhibition of body weight gain in Prader-Willi syndrome. In long-term effects of mazindol, the average reduction of individual body weight was around 6.8 kg. The appetite of 59% of obese subjects was moderately suppressed. Systolic blood pressure, serum GOT, serum triglyceride, serum cholesterol, and glucose tolerance were also improved. With mazindol, 53.3% of obese subjects kept the reduced body weight after VLCD, in contrast, 20.0% of them kept it without mazindol. Combined use of mazindol with VLCD made the VLCD therapy more effective in outpatients. Two of 3 patients with Prader-Willi syndrome inhibited their body weight gain with mazindol. Thus, mazindol produced positive effects in these studies, although the effects were limited.
Topics: Appetite Depressants; Diet, Reducing; Humans; Japan; Mazindol; Obesity
PubMed: 8697057
DOI: 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1995.tb00226.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes resulting in decreased food intake and normalisation of unusual eating behaviours. However, the benefit-risk ratio of this off-label medication is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of fluoxetine for overweight or obese adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP Search Portal. The last date of the search was December 2018 for all databases, to which we applied no language restrictions .
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of fluoxetine versus placebo, other anti-obesity agents, non-pharmacological therapy or no treatment in overweight or obese adults without depression, mental illness or abnormal eating patterns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles for relevance. Screening for inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by one author and checked by the second. We assessed trials for the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. For additional information we contacted trial authors by email. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1036 records, scrutinized 52 full-text articles and included 19 completed RCTs (one trial is awaiting assessment). A total of 2216 participants entered the trials, 1280 participants were randomly assigned to fluoxetine (60 mg/d, 40 mg/d, 20 mg/d and 10 mg/d) and 936 participants were randomly assigned to various comparison groups (placebo; the anti-obesity agents diethylpropion, fenproporex, mazindol, sibutramine, metformin, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, fluvoxamine, 5-hydroxy-tryptophan; no treatment; and omega-3 gel). Within the 19 RCTs there were 56 trial arms. Fifteen trials were parallel RCTs and four were cross-over RCTs. The participants in the included trials were followed up for periods between three weeks and one year. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low: the majority of trials had a high risk of bias in one or more of the risk of bias domains.For our main comparison group - fluoxetine versus placebo - and across all fluoxetine dosages and durations of treatment, the MD was -2.7 kg (95% CI -4 to -1.4; P < 0.001; 10 trials, 956 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -7.1 kg and 1.7 kg. The MD in body mass index (BMI) reduction across all fluoxetine dosages compared with placebo was -1.1 kg/m² (95% CI -3.7 to 1.4; 3 trials, 97 participants; very low certainty evidence). Only nine placebo-controlled trials reported adverse events. A total of 399 out of 627 participants (63.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 352 out of 626 participants (56.2%) receiving placebo experienced an adverse event. Random-effects meta-analysis showed an increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of any type in the fluoxetine groups compared with placebo (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42; P = 0.07; 9 trials, 1253 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.74 and 1.88. Following fluoxetine treatment the adverse events of dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea were observed approximately twice as often compared to placebo. A total of 15 out of 197 participants (7.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 12 out of 196 participants (6.1%) receiving placebo experienced depression. The RR across all fluoxetine doses compared with placebo was 1.20 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.52; P = 0.62; 3 trials, 393 participants; very low certainty evidence). All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects were not reported.The comparisons of fluoxetine with other anti-obesity agents (3 trials, 234 participants), omega-3 gel (1 trial, 48 participants) and no treatment (1 trial, 60 participants) showed inconclusive results (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that off-label fluoxetine may decrease weight compared with placebo. However, low-certainty evidence suggests an increase in the risk for dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea following fluoxetine treatment.
PubMed: 31613390
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011688.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2022The weight loss response to anti-obesity drugs is highly variable and poorly understood, which does not allow us to know, in advance, in which subjects the drug will be...
The weight loss response to anti-obesity drugs is highly variable and poorly understood, which does not allow us to know, in advance, in which subjects the drug will be effective and in which it will not. The objective of this study was to explore the body weight reduction in kilograms in the first month (1mo-BWRkg) and the development of tolerance as predictors of 6-month efficacy for treatment with 1 mg mazindol twice a day. One hundred ninety-six obese subjects were individually or jointly analyzed. Approximately 60% of subjects developed tolerance to mazindol and achieved increasing proportional levels of 6-month efficacy according to 1mo-BWRkg intervals (<1 kg, 1 to <2 kg, 2 to <4 kg and ≥4 kg). Both moT and 1mo-BWRkg were significantly correlated with the mean percentage body weight reduction (BWR%) after 6-months of treatment. The qualitative analysis of both predictors on the progressive efficacy of mazindol was used to classify patients according to expected efficacy (inefficient, slightly effective, partially effective, or fully effective), based on the mean percentage efficacy and the number of subjects reaching a BWR% of <5%, 5 to <10%, 10 to <15% or ≥15%. In conclusion, combined 1mo-BWRkg and moT were early predictors for the progressive efficacy of 6-month mazindol anti-obesity therapy. This finding represents progress in predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine which could serve for estimating the expectations of individual efficacy with the use of the drug. and highlights the basic principle of personalized medicine, “one size does not fit all”.
PubMed: 35683598
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11113211 -
International Journal of Clinical... Aug 2022Obesity is the strongest risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to explore 7% weight reduction rates of mazindol alone or combined with metformin in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
Obesity is the strongest risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to explore 7% weight reduction rates of mazindol alone or combined with metformin in non-diabetic obese Mexican subjects who had additional risk factors for T2D.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this randomized double-blind study, 137 participants received 1 mg mazindol (n = 65) alone or combined with 500 mg metformin (n = 72), twice a day, for 6 months.
RESULTS
Mazindol and mazindol-metformin were similarly effective. However, when subjects were subclassified into non-diabetics and prediabetics, according to glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) - < 5.7% and 5.7 - 6.4%, respectively - and/or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) - < 100 mg/dL and 100 - 125 mg/dL, respectively -, differences were evident. Prediabetics in the mazindol-metformin group had a higher rate of 7% weight reduction (78.4%, n = 37) compared to prediabetics treated with mazindol (48.3%, n = 29). Furthermore, mazindol-metformin treatment induced significant reductions in fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-IR, and HbA1c in prediabetics compared to mazindol. No differences were found in any parameter between non-diabetics treated with mazindol (n = 36) and mazindol-metformin (n = 35).
CONCLUSION
Our results highlight the effectiveness of mazindol-metformin to achieve higher rates of 7% weight reduction and to improve the glycemic profile in prediabetic obese subjects, which could be useful to prevent or delay T2D in these subjects.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Double-Blind Method; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Mazindol; Metformin; Obesity; Prediabetic State; Weight Loss
PubMed: 35770520
DOI: 10.5414/CP204180