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.

Clinical outcomes associated with anti-obesity medications in real-world practice: A systematic literature 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/m² ). 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.

Sensitivity of Patient Outcomes to Pharmacist Interventions. Part III: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Hyperlipidemia Management

Background

Hyperlipidemia increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, and control is pivotal ror preventing disease complications. Multidisciplinary interventions, including those performed by pharmacists, are important for improving patients’ outcomes.

Objective:

To quantify the impact of pharmacist interventions in enhancing patients’ outcomes.

Methods

TWO reviewers searched International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. 3rd Quarter, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (all from inception to July 2007) for pharmacist interventions in hyperlipidemia. Quality was assessed using the Downs-Black scale. Data extracted included the number of patients enrolled; study characteristics; intervention type; and pre- and postintervention measures for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, total cholesterol, adherence, and quality of life. A random effects meta-analysis combined data. Heterogeneity of effects was tested using χ5 analysis. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and the Begg-Mazumdar statistic.

Results:

Forty-eight studies were found; 23 met inclusion criteria. Study settings included medical clinic/center (n = 12), community pharmacy (n = 8), hospital (n = 2), and patient homes (n = 1). Article quality was good (71% ± 7.0%). Patient education (78%) and medication management (74%) were the most common interventions. Total cholesterol was significantly reduced from baseline (mean ± SD; 34.3 ± 10.3 mg/dL; p < 0.001) and above that for controls (22.0 ± 10.4 mg/dL: p = 0.034). LDL-C was reduced significantly from baseline (32.6 ± 11.3 mg/dL; p = 0.004), but not significantly more than controls (17.5 ± 10.9 mg/dL; p = 0.109). A clinically relevant but not statistically significant reduction in triglycerides was found. No impact on HDL-C levels was found. Patients’ adherence to pharmacotherapeutic regimens and quality of life were considered possibly not sensitive and possibly sensitive to pharmacist interventions, respectively.

Conclusions:

Total cholesterol is sensitive to pharmacist interventions, while LDL-C and triglyceride levels are possibly sensitive to those interventions. Further research is required for these outcomes.