Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24287940›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of obesity (2005)2014

A comparative study of five centrally acting drugs on the pharmacological treatment of obesity.

H Suplicy, C L Boguszewski, C M C dos Santos, M do Desterro de Figueiredo, D R Cunha, R Radominski

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of obesity (2005), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Fluoxetine for adults who are overweight or obese.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Obesity Management: Clinical Review and Update of the Pharmacologic Treatment Options.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Neuropharmacology of Synthetic Cathinones.Handbook of experimental pharmacology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H SuplicyEndocrine Division (SEMPR), Department of Internal Medicine, Parana Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil.
C L BoguszewskiEndocrine Division (SEMPR), Department of Internal Medicine, Parana Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil.
C M C dos SantosEndocrine Division (SEMPR), Department of Internal Medicine, Parana Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil.
M do Desterro de FigueiredoEndocrine Division (SEMPR), Department of Internal Medicine, Parana Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil.
D R CunhaEndocrine Division (SEMPR), Department of Internal Medicine, Parana Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil.
R RadominskiEndocrine Division (SEMPR), Department of Internal Medicine, Parana Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Paraná · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextNo long-term studies have compared centrally acting drugs for treating obesity.

objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of diethylpropion (DEP), fenproporex (FEN), mazindol (MZD), fluoxetine (FXT) and sibutramine (SIB) in promoting weight loss. DESIGN AND

settingA prospective, randomized, placebo (PCB)-controlled study conducted at a single academic institution. PATIENTS: A total of 174 obese premenopausal women.

interventionParticipants randomly received DEP 75 mg (n=28), FEN 25 mg (n=29), MZD 2 mg (n=29), SIB 15 mg (n=30), FXT 20 mg (n=29) or PCB (n=29) daily over 52 weeks. Diet and physical activity were encouraged.

main outcome measuresThe primary endpoints were changes in body weight and the proportion of women who achieved at least 5% weight loss by week 52 in the intent-to-treat population. Other measurements included anthropometry, safety, metabolic and cardiovascular parameters.

resultsWeight loss was greater than PCB (-3.1±4.3 kg) with DEP (-10.0±6.4 kg; P<0.001), SIB (-9.5±5.9 kg; P<0.001), FEN (-7.8±6.9 kg; P<0.01) and MZD (-7.4±4.9 kg; P<0.01) but not with FXT (-2.5±4.1 kg). Ten (33.3%) women lost⩾5% of their initial weight with PCB, compared with 20 (71.4%; P<0.001) with DEP, 20 (69%; P<0.02) with FEN, 21 (72.4%; P<0.01) with MZD, 22 (73.3%; P<0.001) with SIB and 10 (35.5%) with FXT. Each medically treated group experienced more adverse events compared with PCB (P<0.001). Compared with PCB, constipation was more prevalent with DEP, SIB and MZD (P<0.01); anxiety was more prevalent with DEP (P=0.01); and irritability occurred more frequently with DEP and FEN (P=0.02). Significant improvements in the depression and anxiety scores, binge-eating episodes and quality of life correlated with weight loss.

conclusionThe centrally acting drugs DEP, FEN, MZD and SIB were more effective than PCB in promoting weight loss in obese premenopausal women, with a satisfactory benefit-risk profile.

Indexed as

AdultAmphetaminesAnti-Obesity AgentsBody Mass IndexBrazilCyclobutanesDiethylpropionDiet, ReducingFemaleFluoxetineFollow-Up StudiesHumansMazindolObesityProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesAmphetaminesAnti-Obesity AgentsCyclobutanesDiethylpropionfenproporexFluoxetineMazindolsibutramine

Identifiers

PMID24287940
OpenAlexW2078146995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.