The cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle intervention in the treatment of obesity

Therapeutic Advances in Obesity: How Real-World Evidence Impacts Affordability Beyond Standard of Care

Obesity is currently considered a global epidemic, with rising prevalence worldwide and rather pessimistic projections. Based on its close interconnection with various co-morbidities, such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, obesity is associated with significant increases in morbidity and mortality, while it also poses a substantial economic burden for national healthcare systems. Apparently, the majority of individuals classified as obese do not achieve adequate weight loss with the adoption of a healthy lifestyle intervention, including dietary modification and physical activity. Fortunately, during the last decade, a significant progress in pharmacotherapy of obesity has been observed, with the introduction of agents that have gained approval from regulatory authorities, namely semaglutide, liraglutide and tirzepatide, due to their impressive results in body weight reduction, alongside their beneficial, pleiotropic effects. The aim of the present review article is to discuss on evidence retrieved from real-world studies regarding the efficacy of those agents in obesity treatment, with emphasis on cost-effectiveness data, towards an effort to tackle efficiently the progression of obesity epidemic.

Effectiveness and safety of drugs for obesity

Recent publicity around the use of new antiobesity medications (AOMs) has focused the attention of patients and healthcare providers on the role of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of obesity. Newer drug treatments have shown greater efficacy and safety compared with older drug treatments, yet access to these drug treatments is limited by providers' discomfort in prescribing, bias, and stigma around obesity, as well as by the lack of insurance coverage. Now more than ever, healthcare providers must be able to discuss the risks and benefits of the full range of antiobesity medications available to patients, and to incorporate both guideline based advice and emerging real world clinical evidence into daily clinical practice. The tremendous variability in response to antiobesity medications means that clinicians need to use a flexible approach that takes advantage of specific features of the antiobesity medication selected to provide the best option for individual patients. Future research is needed on how best to use available drug treatments in real world practice settings, the potential role of combination therapies, and the cost effectiveness of antiobesity medications. Several new drug treatments are being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials, suggesting that the future for pharmacotherapy of obesity is bright.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Anti-Obesity Medications in Real-World Practice

Purpose

Anti-obesity medications (AOMs), along with lifestyle interventions, are effective means of inducing and maintaining weight loss in patients with obesity. Although the efficacy of AOMs has been reported, there have been no direct comparisons of these drugs. Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of all the AOMs available in Korea in a real-world setting.

Patients and Methods

The body weight and composition of 205 adults treated with phentermine, phentermine/topiramate, liraglutide, naltrexone/bupropion, lorcaserin, or orlistat for at least 6 months were analyzed at 2 month intervals. The prevalence of the achievement of a ≥5% weight loss and the changes in body composition were compared between participants using each AOM at each visit.

Results

A total of 132 (64.4%) participants achieved ≥5% weight loss within 6 months (prevalence of ≥5% weight loss after 6 months: phentermine, 87.2%; phentermine/topiramate, 67.7%; liraglutide, 58.1%; naltrexone/bupropion, 35.3%; lorcaserin, 75%; orlistat, 50%). At each visit, after adjustment for age, sex, and baseline body weight, phentermine use was associated with a significantly higher prevalence of ≥5% weight loss than the use of the other AOMs, except for liraglutide. There were significant differences in the body weight, body mass index and body fat mass among the AOM groups by visit (P for interaction <0.05), but not in their waist circumference, skeletal muscle mass, percentage body fat, or visceral fat area.

Conclusion

All the AOMs were effective at inducing and maintaining weight loss, in the absence of significant changes in muscle mass, over a 6 month period, and the short-term use of phentermine and the long-term use of phentermine/topiramate or liraglutide would be practical choices for the treatment of obesity. However, further, large-scale studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Phentermine in the Modern Era of Obesity Pharmacotherapy: Does It Still Have a Role in Treatment?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an overview of the history, mechanism of action, and expected treatment effects of the anti-obesity medication (AOM), phentermine. It also includes a summary of recent research and practical guidance for prescribing clinicians.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research on phentermine is sparse and consists primarily of observational studies with methodologic limitations. These studies suggest that phentermine use is associated with clinically significant weight loss in adults and that the medication is generally well tolerated. Large-scale observational studies evaluating phentermine's safety have not identified an increased risk of cardiovascular events or elevations in blood pressure. There is no data to support the notion that phentermine is addictive. Although it remains the most commonly prescribed AOM in the USA, phentermine has little rigorous research to support its efficacy and safety in long-term treatment, which creates a dilemma with guideline-recommended chronic use of AOMs. While we await forthcoming conclusive data on this front, clinicians may consider using phentermine long-term in selected patients, if such prescribing is consistent with local regulatory statutes.

EXIST: EXamining rIsk of excesS adiposiTy-Machine learning to predict obesity-related complications

Background

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of multiple conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer. However, there are few predictive models for these outcomes that have been developed specifically for people with overweight/obesity.

Objective

To develop predictive models for obesity-related complications in patients with overweight and obesity.

Methods

Electronic health record data of adults with body mass index 25-80 kg/m2 treated in primary care practices between 2000 and 2019 were utilized to develop and evaluate predictive models for nine long-term clinical outcomes using a) Lasso-Cox models and b) a machine-learning method random survival forests (RSF). Models were trained on a training dataset and evaluated on a test dataset over 100 replicates. Parsimonious models of <10 variables were also developed using Lasso-Cox.

Results

Over a median follow-up of 5.6 years, study outcome incidence in the cohort of 433,272 patients ranged from 1.8% for knee replacement to 11.7% for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Harrell C-index averaged over replicates ranged from 0.702 for liver outcomes to 0.896 for death for RSF, and from 0.694 for liver outcomes to 0.891 for death for Lasso-Cox. The Harrell C-index for parsimonious models ranged from 0.675 for liver outcomes to 0.850 for knee replacement.

Conclusions

Predictive modeling can identify patients at high risk of obesity-related complications. Interpretable Cox models achieve results close to those of machine learning methods and could be helpful for population health management and clinical treatment decisions.

Implementation of a Scalable Online Weight Management Programme in Clinical Settings: Protocol for the PROPS 2.0 Programme (Partnerships for Reducing Overweight and Obesity with Patient-Centered Strategies 2.0)

INTRODUCTION

There is an urgent need for scalable strategies for treating overweight and obesity in clinical settings. PROPS 2.0 (Partnerships for Reducing Overweight and Obesity with Patient-Centered Strategies 2.0) aims to adapt and implement the combined intervention from the PROPS Study at scale, in a diverse cross-section of patients and providers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We are implementing PROPS 2.0 across a variety of clinics at Brigham and Women's Hospital, targeting enrolment of 5000 patients. Providers can refer patients or patients can self-refer. Eligible patients must be ≥20 years old and have a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m2 or a BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2 plus another cardiovascular risk factor or obesity-related condition. After enrolment, patients register for the RestoreHealth online programme/app (HealthFleet Inc.) and participate for 12 months. Patients can engage with the programme and receive personalized feedback from a coach. Patient navigators help to enrol patients, enter updates in the electronic health record, and refer patients to additional resources. The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework is guiding the evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Mass General Brigham Human Research Committee approved this protocol. An implementation guide will be created and disseminated, to help other sites adopt the intervention in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT0555925.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of anti-obesity drugs for chronic weight management: a systematic review of literature

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of five anti-obesity medications from a US payer's perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To determine the cost-effectiveness of anti-obesity medications (AOM): tirzepatide, semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine plus topiramate (PpT), and naltrexone plus bupropion (NpB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

From a U.S. perspective we developed a Markov model to simulate weight change over a 40-year time horizon using results from clinical studies. According to the body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and mortality risk were the health states considered in the model, being mutually exclusive. Costs of AOM, adverse events, cardiovascular events, and diabetes were included. We applied a 3% per-year discount rate and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters. A deterministic analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the model. The model included a cohort of 78.2% females with a mean age of 45 years and BMI of 37.1 (SD 4.9) for females and 36.8 (SD 4.9) for males. NpB and PpT were the least costly medications and, all medications differed no more than 0.5 QALYs. Tirzepatide ICER was $355,616 per QALY. Liraglutide and semaglutide options were dominated by PpT.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other AOM, PpT was lowest cost treatment with nearly identical QALYs with other agents.

Impact of BMI and comorbidities on efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide: Post hoc analyses of the STEP 1 randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the effects of semaglutide on body weight, cardiometabolic risk factors, and glycemic status in individuals categorized by baseline BMI with or without additional obesity-related comorbidities, including prediabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

This was a post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 1 trial (NCT03548935), in which participants without diabetes and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , or BMI ≥27 kg/m2 with ≥1 weight-related comorbidity, were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks. For this analysis, individuals were categorized into subgroups based on baseline BMI <35 versus ≥35 kg/m2 (with no additional criteria, with ≥1 comorbidity, with prediabetes, and with prediabetes and high risk of CVD).

RESULTS

Mean changes in body weight from baseline to week 68 with semaglutide were -16.2% and -14.0% in the subgroups with baseline BMI <35 and ≥35 kg/m2 , respectively (both p < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Similar changes were observed in individuals with comorbidities, with prediabetes, and with prediabetes plus high CVD risk. The beneficial effects of semaglutide on cardiometabolic risk factors were consistent across all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This subgroup analysis confirms that semaglutide is effective in individuals with baseline BMI <35 and ≥35 kg/m2 , including in those with comorbidities.

Semaglutide for the treatment of obesity

Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for chronic weight management. This paper reviews data on the mechanism of action, weight-loss and cardiometabolic efficacy, and safety of semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for obesity. Semaglutide has demonstrated the largest weight loss of any obesity medication to date with reductions of approximately 15% of initial weight at 68 weeks, accompanied by improvements in cardiovascular risks factors and physical functioning. The approval of this medication provides patients with greater options for weight management.

A Call to Reconceptualize Obesity Treatment in Service of Health Equity: Review of Evidence and Future Directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rates of obesity and associated comorbidities are higher among Black and Latino adults compared to white adults. We sought to provide an overview of both structural and individual factors contributing to obesity inequities and synthesize available evidence regarding treatment outcomes in Black and Latino adults, with an eye towards informing future directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Obesity disparities are influenced by myriad systemic issues, yet the vast majority of interventions target individual-level factors only, and most behavioral treatments fail to target drivers beyond eating and physical activity. Extant treatments are not equally accessible, affordable, or effective among Black and Latino adults compared with white counterparts. Asset-based, culturally relevant interventions that target the root causes of obesity and address intersectional stress-designed in partnership with intended beneficiaries-are urgently needed. Treatment trials must improve enrollment of Black and Latino adults and report treatment outcomes by race and ethnicity.

The use of virtual visits for obesity pharmacotherapy in patients with overweight or obesity compared with in-person encounters

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to demonstrate noninferiority using telehealth in treating obesity with phentermine in patients with BMI ≥ 27 kg/m² with comorbidities or BMI ≥ 30 compared with the standard in-person approach over a 90-day period.

METHODS

A 12-week, randomized, prospective, single-center, open label trial compared the use of virtual visits versus in-person visits for the treatment of obesity using phentermine. The primary end point was percentage mean change in body weight from baseline to 12 weeks. A noninferiority approach assuming a 3% noninferiority region was used to assess effect size differences.

RESULTS

The weight loss in the virtual visit arm was noninferior to the in-person arm at all time points. At 12 weeks, the mean change in weight was -6.5% among the virtual group and -7.7% among the in-person group. In addition, 65% of virtual patients and 71% of in-person patients demonstrated a weight reduction of at least 5%. There was no difference in medication tolerance, adherence, and compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the virtual obesity pharmacotherapy visits in adults aged 18 to 65 years prescribed phentermine are effective and noninferior in achieving meaningful weight loss after 12 weeks. Future clinical trials are needed to better assess the effectiveness of televisits for obesity pharmacotherapy.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pharmacological management of obesity improves outcomes and decreases the risk of obesity-related complications. This American Gastroenterological Association guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about pharmacological interventions for overweight and obesity.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis of the following agents: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel used the evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice.

RESULTS

The guideline panel made 9 recommendations. The panel strongly recommended the use of pharmacotherapy in addition to lifestyle intervention in adults with overweight and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, or ≥27 kg/m2 with weight-related complications) who have an inadequate response to lifestyle interventions. The panel suggested the use of semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate ER, and naltrexone-bupropion ER (based on moderate certainty evidence), and phentermine and diethylpropion (based on low certainty evidence), for long-term management of overweight and obesity. The guideline panel suggested against the use of orlistat. The panel identified the use of Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel as a knowledge gap.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with overweight and obesity who have an inadequate response to lifestyle interventions alone, long-term pharmacological therapy is recommended, with multiple effective and safe treatment options.

Economic evaluation of using polygenic risk score to guide risk screening and interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in individuals with high overall baseline risk

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) with increasing prevalence is a significant global public health challenge. Obesity, unhealthy diet, and low physical activity are one of the major determinants of the rise in T2D prevalence. In addition, family history and genetic risk of diabetes also play a role in the process of developing T2D. Therefore, solutions for the early identification of individuals at high risk for T2D for early targeted detection of T2D, prevention, and intervention are highly preferred. Recently, novel genomic-based polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been suggested to improve the accuracy of risk prediction supporting the targeting of preventive interventions to those at highest risk for T2D. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the cost-utility of an additional PRS testing information (as a part of overall risk assessment) followed by a lifestyle intervention and an additional medical therapy when estimated 10-year overall risk for T2D exceeded 20% among Finnish individuals screened as at the high-risk category (i.e., 10%–20% 10-year overall risk of T2D) based on traditional risk factors only. For a cost-utility analysis, an individual-level state-transition model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis was constructed. A 1-year cycle length and a lifetime time horizon were applied in the base-case. A 3% discount rate was used for costs and QALYs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and estimates for the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) were calculated to assist decision makers. The use of the targeted PRS strategy reclassified 12.4 percentage points of individuals to be very high-risk individuals who would have been originally classified as high risk using the usual strategy only. Over a lifetime horizon, the targeted PRS was a dominant strategy (i.e., less costly, more effective). One-way and scenario sensitivity analyses showed that results remained dominant in almost all simulations. However, there is uncertainty, since the probability (EVPI) of cost-effectiveness at a WTP of 0€/QALY was 63.0% (243€) indicating the probability that the PRS strategy is a dominant option. In conclusion, the results demonstrated that the PRS provides moderate additional value in Finnish population in risk screening leading to potential cost savings and better quality of life when compared with the current screening methods for T2D risk.

Semaglutide for weight loss and cardiometabolic risk reduction in overweight/obesity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the risk is heightened in the presence of obesity. We review semaglutide, a drug recently approved for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or who are overweight.

RECENT FINDINGS

On 4 June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved semaglutide injection at 2.4 mg once weekly for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight with at least one weight-related condition such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or high cholesterol. This subcutaneous injection is the first approved drug for chronic weight management in adults with general obesity or overweight since 2014. The drug is indicated for weight management in patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or greater who have at least one weight-related ailment or in patients with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater.

SUMMARY

Semaglutide offers adults with obesity or overweight a new treatment in conjunction with a weight management program consisting of reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of adult patients with overweight and obesity in the United States

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence and associated public health burden of obesity has led to advancements in pharmaceuticals for weight management. Semaglutide 2.4 mg, an anti-obesity medication (AOM) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has demonstrated clinically relevant weight loss in its phase 3 clinical trials. Economic evaluation comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg with other available weight management therapies is essential to inform payers for decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in the treatment of adult patients with obesity (ie, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and adult patients who are overweight (ie, BMI 27-29.9) with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort Markov model was constructed to compare semaglutide 2.4 mg with the following comparators: no treatment, diet and exercise (D&E), and 3 branded AOMs (liraglutide 3 mg, phentermine-topiramate, and naltrexone-bupropion). All AOMs, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, were assumed to be taken in conjunction with D&E. Changes in BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol level, experience of acute and chronic obesity-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were simulated over 30 years based on pivotal trials of the AOMs and other relevant literature. Drug and health care prices reflect 2021 standardized values. Cost-effectiveness was examined with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to plausible variation in model inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to improve QALYs by 0.138 to 0.925 and incur higher costs by $3,254 to $25,086 over the 30-year time horizon vs comparators. Semaglutide 2.4 mg is cost-effective against all comparators at the prespecified WTP threshold, with the incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from $23,556 to $144,296 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analysis, extended maximum treatment duration, types of subsequent treatment following therapy discontinuation, and weight-rebound rates were identified as key drivers for model results. The estimated probability of semaglutide 2.4 mg being cost-effective compared with comparators ranged from 67% to 100% when varying model parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: As a long-term weight management therapy, semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to be cost-effective compared with no treatment, D&E alone, and all other branded AOM comparators under a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research, including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Kim and Ms Ramasamy are employees of Novo Nordisk Inc. Ms Kumar and Dr Burudpakdee were employees of Novo Nordisk Inc at the time this study was conducted. Dr Sullivan received research support from Novo Nordisk Inc for this study. Drs Wang, Song, Wu, Ms Xie, and Ms Sun are employees of Analysis Group, Inc, who received consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk Inc in connection with this study.

Pharmacological profile of once-weekly injectable semaglutide for chronic weight management

INTRODUCTION

The recent approval in the USA (Food and Drug Administration), Canada (Health Canada), UK (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency), and EU (European Medicines Agency) of once-weekly injectable semaglutide 2.4 mg, as an adjunct to a calorie-controlled diet and increased physical activity, for chronic weight management provides health-care practitioners with an additional option when prescribing weight-loss medication.

AREAS COVERED

We describe the chemistry, mechanism of action, and pharmacological properties of semaglutide (a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist [GLP-1 RA]) and discuss clinical data and considerations for using once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg as treatment for overweight and obesity among patients with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D).

EXPERT OPINION

Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg is the most efficacious medication approved for chronic weight management among patients with overweight and obesity, with and without T2D, and is the first drug to induce sustained double-digit reductions in percentage body weight over 1- to 2-year treatment periods. It demonstrates a similar safety and tolerability profile to other GLP-1 RAs. Semaglutide 2.4 mg treatment could dramatically improve clinical approaches to weight management, but the relatively high cost might prevent patients accessing treatment. Further research exploring the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg is required.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Analogues for the Treatment of Obesity

There is an increasing prevalence of obesity worldwide, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which frequently reduces quality of life and life expectancy. Consequently, there is a substantial and growing personal and economic burden necessitating the development of more effective therapies for obesity. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogues (GLP-1RAs) are licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), and there is substantial evidence that these drugs not only improve cardiovascular outcomes but also promote weight loss. More recent evidence supports the use of the GLP-1RAs liraglutide and semaglutide in people with obesity without T2D. This article discusses the results of the major cardiovascular outcome trials for GLP-1RAs in people with T2D, the SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes study (Effect of liraglutide on body weight in non-diabetic obese subjects or overweight subjects with co-morbidities: SCALE™ - Obesity and Pre-diabetes; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01272219; investigating liraglutide) and the STEP studies (Semaglutide treatment effect in people with obesity; assorted studies; investigating subcutaneous semaglutide). We also highlight the importance of a cost-effective approach to obesity pharmacotherapy. Clinicians should consider the use of GLP-1RAs in people with obesity, especially those with T2D or other obesity-related diseases, such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia. Ongoing trials, as well as clinical and cost-effectiveness appraisals, are anticipated over the next 12 months, and their findings may change the current landscape of obesity pharmacotherapy.

Treatment of Obesity: Pharmacotherapy Trends of Office-Based Visits in the United States From 2011 to 2016

OBJECTIVE

To examine pharmacotherapy for obesity in the United States from 2011 to 2016 using a large, nationally representative sample.

METHODS

Data were obtained during 6 years, 2011 to 2016, from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. There were 3 types of visits identified: patients with obesity and an antiobesity drug mention; patients with obesity and no antiobesity drug mention; and patients without obesity and with antiobesity drug mention. The χ2 test was used to compare characteristics across each type of visit. To predict the odds of an antiobesity medication mention for patients with obesity, a logistic regression analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the overall weighted 196,872,870 office-based physician visits made by patients with obesity from 2011 to 2016, 1% mentioned an antiobesity drug. In addition, there were 760,470 office-based physician visits by patients without obesity but with an antiobesity medication mention. An antiobesity drug mention was more likely for those aged 51 years or older and those residing in the South (adjusted odds ratio, 5.31 95% CI, 1.19 to 23.59).

CONCLUSION

There was a slight increase in antiobesity medication mentions, from 0.26% in 2011 to 0.28% in 2016, but only 1% of office-based visits for patients with obesity received a prescription for an antiobesity medication. Physicians tended to prescribe antiobesity medications to those with obesity aged 51 years or older and residing in the South. Antiobesity medication for treatment of obesity is significantly underused.

Adjustable intragastric balloon for treatment of obesity: a multicentre, open-label, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Intragastric balloons are anatomy-preserving, minimally invasive obesity therapies. Enhanced tolerance and durability could help broaden clinical adoption. We investigated the safety and efficacy of an adjustable intragastric balloon (aIGB) in adults with obesity.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised clinical trial done at seven US sites, adults aged 22-65 years with obesity were randomly assigned (2:1) to aIGB with lifestyle intervention or lifestyle intervention alone (control) for 32 weeks. Balloon volume could be increased to facilitate weight loss or decreased for tolerability. Coprimary endpoints included mean percentage total bodyweight loss and responder rate (≥5% total bodyweight loss) at 32 weeks. We used a multiple imputed intention-to-treat population analysis. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02812160.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 9, 2016, and Dec 7, 2018, we randomly assigned 288 patients to aIGB (n=187 [65%]) or control (n=101 [35%]) groups. Mean total bodyweight loss at 32 weeks was 15·0% (95% CI 13·9-16·1) in the aIGB group versus 3·3% (2·0-4·6) in the control group (p<0·0001). Clinical response was observed in 171 (92%) patients in the aIGB group. Adjustments to the aIGB occurred in 145 (80%) patients for weight loss plateau or intolerance. Upward volume adjustment facilitated an additional mean 5·2% (4·5-5·8) total bodyweight loss. Downward volume adjustment allowed 21 (75%) patients in the aIGB group to complete the full duration of therapy. Intolerance caused early removal of the device in 31 (17%) patients. No micronutrient deficiencies were observed in the aIGB cohort. Device-related serious adverse events were observed in seven (4%) patients, without any deaths.

INTERPRETATION

When aIGB was combined with lifestyle modification, significant weight loss was achieved and maintained for 6 months following removal. Balloon volume adjustability permitted individualised therapy, maximising weight loss and tolerance.

FUNDING

Spatz Medical.

Role of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Pediatric Obesity: Benefits, Risks, and Approaches to Patient Selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Effective treatments for pediatric obesity are limited. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have emerged as therapeutic agents for obesity in adults and have shown benefits outside of weight loss. Here we explore the evidence for GLP-1R agonist use in pediatric obesity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging evidence suggests that GLP-1R agonists have a role in pediatric obesity treatment. A recently published, randomized, placebo-controlled trial found a greater reduction in BMI z-score (- 0.22 SDs) in adolescents receiving liraglutide compared with placebo. As in adults, gastrointestinal adverse effects were commonly seen. GLP-1R agonists appear to perform favorably compared with other approved pharmacological agents for pediatric obesity. However, heterogeneity in weight loss response, cost, side effects, and need for injections may limit their use in many pediatric patients. Rather than broadly applying this therapy if it is approved, we suggest careful patient selection and monitoring by clinicians pending further studies.