Obesity medications: A narrative review of current and emerging agents

The aim of this narrative review is to synthesize the available data describing the efficacy and safety of medications approved for obesity management and to provide an overview of upcoming agents in development. A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases identified relevant articles describing medications approved in the U.S., Australia, U.K., and/or Europe. Papers were selected based on relevance and originality, with phase 3 clinical trials and meta-analyses preferentially included. Six medications are widely approved for long-term weight management in conjunction with lifestyle interventions in people with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 ​kg/m2 or BMI ≥27 ​kg/m2 and at least one medical condition related to excess weight. Compared with lifestyle interventions alone, all medications approved for obesity management are more effective for long-term weight loss and improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors. Older obesity medications are associated with mean weight losses in the range of 5-10%. The new generation of agents, including the injectable incretin analogues semaglutide and tirzepatide are associated with sustained mean weight reductions of 15-20%, along with substantial benefits on a range of health outcomes. Several novel agents are under development, with multi-hormone receptor agonists and oral formulations likely to become available in the coming years. As effective treatment options expand, cost and availability will need to be addressed to enable equitable access to treatment. Other important challenges for clinical practice and research include the need for long-term strategies to prevent and manage weight regain and loss of lean muscle and bone mineral density.

A randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of phentermine-topiramate ER in patients with binge-eating disorder and bulimia nervosa

OBJECTIVE

Open trials suggest phentermine/topiramate ER (PHEN/TPM-ER), food and drug administration (FDA) approved for obesity, has utility for binge eating. With no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yet performed, this trial aimed to evaluate PHEN/TPM-ERs efficacy and safety in a crossover RCT for patients with binge-eating disorder (BED) or bulimia nervosa (BN).

METHOD

Participants were randomized to 12-weeks PHEN/TPM-ER (3.75 mg/23 mg-15 mg/92 mg) or placebo followed by 2-weeks drug washout, then 12-week crossover. Demographics, vitals, eating disorder behaviors, mood, and side effects were measured. Primary outcome was objective binge-eating (OBE) days/4-weeks; secondary outcomes included binge abstinence. Mixed-effect models estimated treatment effects, with fixed effects adjusting for treatment, study period, and diagnosis.

RESULTS

The 22 adults (BED = 18, BN = 4) were female (96%), Caucasian (55%), aged 42.9 (SD = 10.1) years with body mass index = 31.1 (SD = 6.2) kg/m2 . Baseline OBE days/4-weeks decreased from 16.2 (SD = 7.8) to 4.2 (SD = 8.4) after PHEN/TPM-ER versus 13.2 (SD = 9.1) after placebo (p < .0001), with abstinence rates = 63.6% on PHEN/TPM-ER versus 9.1% on placebo (p < .0001). Weight changes = -5.8 kg on PHEN/ TPM-ER versus +0.4 kg on placebo. Drop-out = 2 (9%) on PHEN/TPM-ER and 2 (9%) on placebo, with few side effects. Vital sign changes with PHEN/TPM-ER were minimal and similar to placebo. Responses were not significantly different for BED versus BN.

DISCUSSION

This first RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PHEN/TPM-ER for BED/BN found this drug combination significantly more effective at reducing binge eating than placebo and well tolerated. However, with only four participants with BN, findings regarding the safety of PHEN/TPM-ER in patients with BN must be taken with caution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02553824 registered on 9/17/2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02553824.

Study protocol and rationale for a randomized double-blinded crossover trial of phentermine-topiramate ER versus placebo to treat binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa

INTRODUCTION

Bulimia nervosa (BN) and binge eating disorder (BED) are associated with severe psychological and medical consequences. Current therapies are limited, leaving up to 50% of patients symptomatic despite treatment, underscoring the need for additional treatment options. Qsymia, an FDA-approved medication for obesity, combines phentermine and topiramate ER. Topiramate has demonstrated efficacy for both BED and BN, but limited tolerability. Phentermine is FDA-approved for weight loss. A rationale for combined phentermine/topiramate for BED and BN is improved tolerability and efficacy. While a prior case series exploring Qsymia for BED showed promise, randomized studies are needed to evaluate Qsymia's safety and efficacy when re-purposed in eating disorders. We present a study protocol for a Phase I/IIa single-center, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, crossover trial examining safety and preliminary efficacy of Qsymia for BED and BN.

METHODS

Adults with BED (n=15) or BN (n=15) are randomized 1:1 to receive 12weeks Qsymia (phentermine/topiramate ER, 3.75mg/23mg-15mg/92mg) or placebo, followed by 2-weeks washout and 12-weeks crossover, where those on Qsymia receive placebo and vice versa. Subsequently participants receive 8weeks follow-up off study medications. The primary outcome is the number of binge days/week measured by EDE. Secondary outcomes include average number of binge episodes, percentage abstinence from binge eating, and changes in weight/vitals, eating psychopathology, and mood.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge this is the first randomized, double-blind protocol investigating the safety and efficacy of phentermine/topiramate in BED and BN. We highlight the background and rationale for this study, including the advantages of a crossover design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02553824 registered on 9/17/2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02553824.

Vanadium methyl-bipyridine organoligand and its influence on energy balance and organs mass

In the treatment of lifestyle diseases, including metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, it is important to lower body mass and fat tissue, and consequently, to increase insulin-sensitivity. Unfortunately, it often happens that low-energy diet which would lower overweight is not observed and, thus, it does not bring the expected effects. This paper discusses the influence of three diets-control, high-fructose, and high-fatty diet-on absorption of energy from food in order to transform it into body mass. The kJ/g ratio which describes this process has been calculated. In the tested diets, the addition of fructose (79.13 ± 2.47 kJ/g) or fat (82.48 ± 2.28 kJ/g) results in higher transformation of energy into body mass than in the case of control diet (89.60 ± 1.86 kJ/g). The addition of Na[VO(O2)2(4,4′-Me2-2,2′-bpy)]•8H2O (where 4,4′-Me2-2,2′-bpy = 4,4′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridine) results in statistical increase of that ratio: fructose diet (86.88 ± 0.44 kJ/g), fat diet (104.68 ± 3.01 kJ/g), and control diet (115.98 ± 0.56 kJ/g), respectively. Fat diet statistically influences the decrease of kidney mass in comparison to the other diets. The application of the tested vanadium compound results also in the statistical decrease of the fatty liver caused by fructose and fat diet.

Combination pharmacotherapies for stimulant use disorder: a review of clinical findings and recommendations for future research

Despite concerted efforts to identify a pharmacotherapy for managing stimulant use disorders, no widely effective medications have been approved. Innovative strategies are necessary to develop successful pharmacotherapies for stimulant use disorders. This manuscript reviews human laboratory studies and clinical trials to determine whether one such strategy, use of combination pharmacotherapies, holds promise. The extant literature shows that combination pharmacotherapy produced results that were better than placebo treatment, especially with medications shown to have efficacy as monotherapies. However, many studies did not compare individual constituents to the combination treatment, making it impossible to determine whether combination treatment is more effective than monotherapy. Future research should systematically compare combined treatments with individual agents using medications showing some efficacy when tested alone.