Cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies in Canada: a societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies approved by Canada Health, i.e., orlistat, naltrexone 32 mg/bupropion 360 mg (NB-32), liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg as compared to the current standard of care (SoC). METHODS: Analyses were conducted using a cohort with a mean starting age 50 years, body mass index (BMI) 37.5 kg/m2, and 27.6% having type 2 diabetes. Using treatment-specific changes in surrogate endpoints from the STEP trials (BMI, glycemic, blood pressure, lipids), besides a network meta-analysis, the occurrence of weight-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were projected over lifetime. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY, semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment, at an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 31 243 and CAD 29 014 per QALY gained versus the next best alternative, i.e., orlistat, and SoC, respectively. Semaglutide 2.4 mg extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg and remained cost-effective both under a public and private payer perspective. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses varying post-treatment catch-up rates, longer treatment durations and using real-world cohort characteristics. Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the preferred intervention, with a likelihood of 70% at a WTP threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY gained. However, when the modeled benefits of weight-loss on cancer, mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or osteoarthritis surgeries were removed simultaneously, orlistat emerged as the best value for money compared with SoC, with an ICUR of CAD 35 723 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment alternative compared with D&E or orlistat alone, and extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg. Results were sensitive to the inclusion of the combined benefits of mortality, cancer, CVD, and knee osteoarthritis.

Obesity management from the perspectives of people living with obesity in Canada: A mixed-methods study.

AIMS: To identify and better understand themes related to why people living with obesity (PwO) in Canada may not use professional support and to explore potential strategies to address the challenges. METHODS: One-on-one interviews and online surveys, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, were conducted. A total of 20 PwO were interviewed and a separate group of 200 PwO were surveyed. Results from the interviews guided the development of the survey. Spearman's correlation analysis was performed to investigate the association between the theme domain scores of the PwO and their prior experience with obesity management strategies. RESULTS: The 200 PwO surveyed provided representation across Canada and were diverse in age, background and gender. The most prominent domains associated with use of professional support by PwO were: Intention (rs = -0.25; p < 0.01); Social/Professional Role and Identity (rs = -0.15; p < 0.05); and Optimism (rs = -0.15; p < 0.05). For example, PwO without professional support less often reported being transparent in obesity discussions, perceived obesity to be part of their identity, and expected to manage the illness long term. Many PwO hesitated to use various adjunctive therapies due to concerns about affordability, long-term effectiveness, and side effects. CONCLUSION: This study identified contextual, perception and resource considerations that contribute to healthcare decision-making and the use by PwO of professional support to manage obesity, and highlighted key areas to target with interventions to facilitate obesity management. Strategies such as consistent access to healthcare support and educational resources, as well as improved financial support may help PwO to feel more comfortable with exploring new strategies and take control of their healthcare.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of concomitant administration of multiple doses of cagrilintide with semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management: a randomised, controlled, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Cagrilintide, a long-acting amylin analogue, and semaglutide 2·4 mg, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, are both being investigated as options for weight management. We aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of this drug combination. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending dose, phase 1b trial, individuals aged 18-55 years with a body-mass index 27·0-39·9 kg/m2 and who were otherwise healthy were recruited from a single centre in the USA. The trial included six sequential overlapping cohorts, and in each cohort eligible participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous cagrilintide (0·16, 0·30, 0·60, 1·2, 2·4, or 4·5 mg) or matched placebo, in combination with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg, without lifestyle interventions. In each cohort, the doses of cagrilintide and semaglutide were co-escalated in 4-week intervals to the desired dose over 16 weeks, participants were treated at the target dose for 4 weeks, and then followed up for 5 weeks. Participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events from baseline to end of follow-up. Secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints assessed from day of last dose (week 19) to end of treatment (week 20) were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 168 h (AUC0-168 h) and maximum concentration [Cmax] of cagrilintide and semaglutide; exploratory pharmacokinetic endpoints were half-life, time to Cmax [tmax], plasma clearance, and volume of distribution of cagrilintide and semaglutide; and exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints were changes in bodyweight, glycaemic parameters, and hormones. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints were assessed in all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03600480, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between July 25, 2018, and Dec 17, 2019, 285 individuals were screened and 96 were randomly assigned to cagrilintide (0·16-2·4 mg group n=12; 4·5 mg group n=11) or placebo (n=24), in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg, of whom 95 were exposed to treatment (one patient in 0·60 mg cagrilintide group was not exposed) and included in the safety and full analysis datasets. The mean age was 40·6 years (SD 9·2), 56 (59%) of 95 participants were men and 51 (54%) were Black or African American. Of 566 adverse events reported in 92 participants (69 [97%] of 71 participants assigned to 0·16-4·5 mg cagrilintide and 23 [96%] of 24 assigned to placebo), 207 (37%) were gastrointestinal disorders. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and the proportion of participants with one or more adverse event was similar across treatment groups. Exposure was proportional to cagrilintide dose and did not affect semaglutide exposure or elimination. AUC0-168 h ranged from 926 nmol × h/L to 24 271 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 6·14 nmol/L to 170 nmol/L with cagrilintide 0·16-4·5 mg. AUC0-168 h ranged from 12 757 nmol × h/L to 15 305 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 96·4 nmol/L to 120 nmol/L with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Cagrilintide 0·16-4·5 mg had a half-life of 159-195 h, with a median tmax of 24-72 h. Semaglutide 2·4 mg had a half-life of 145-165 h, with a median tmax of 12-24 h. Plasma clearance and volume of distribution for both cagrilintide and semaglutide were similar across treatment groups. At week 20, mean percentage bodyweight reductions were greater with cagrilintide 1·2 and 2·4 mg than with placebo (15·7% [SE 1·6] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and 17·1% [1·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs 9·8% [1·2] for pooled placebo cohorts 1-5; estimated treatment difference of -6·0% [95% CI -9·9 to -2·0] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and -7·4% [-11·2 to -3·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs pooled placebo), and with cagrilintide 4·5 mg than with matched placebo (15·4% [1·3] vs 8·0% [2·2]; estimated treatment difference -7·4% [-12·8 to -2·1]), all in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Glycaemic parameters improved in all treatment groups, independently of cagrilintide dose. Changes in hormones were similar across treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant treatment with cagrilintide and semaglutide 2·4 mg was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Future larger and longer trials are needed to fully assess the efficacy and safety of this treatment combination. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Once-weekly cagrilintide for weight management in people with overweight and obesity: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, dose-finding phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Natural amylin is a pancreatic hormone that induces satiety. Cagrilintide is a long-acting amylin analogue under investigation for weight management. We assessed the dose-response relationship of cagrilintide regarding the effects on bodyweight, safety, and tolerability. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, dose-finding phase 2 trial at 57 sites including hospitals, specialist clinics, and primary care centres in ten countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Serbia, South Africa, the UK, and the USA). Eligible participants were adults aged at least 18 years without diabetes, with a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 or at least 27 kg/m2 with hypertension or dyslipidaemia. Participants were randomly assigned (6:1) to subcutaneous self-injections of once-weekly cagrilintide (0·3, 0·6, 1·2, 2·4, or 4·5 mg), once-daily liraglutide 3·0 mg, or volume-matched placebo (for six placebo groups). The trial had a 26-week treatment period, including a dose-escalation period of up to 6 weeks, and a 6-week follow-up period without treatment. Participants and investigators were masked to the assigned study treatment with respect to active versus pooled placebo treatment, but not to different active treatments. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in bodyweight from baseline to week 26, assessed in all randomly assigned participants according to the trial product estimand (assuming all participants were adherent to treatment) and to the treatment policy estimand (regardless of adherence to treatment). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03856047, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and Aug 19, 2019, we randomly assigned 706 participants to cagrilintide 0·3-4·5 mg (100-102 per dose group), 99 to liraglutide 3·0 mg, and 101 to placebo. Permanent treatment discontinuation (n=73 [10%]) occurred similarly across treatment groups, mostly due to adverse events (n=30 [4%]). In total, 29 participants (4%) withdrew from the trial. According to the trial product estimand, mean percentage weight reductions from baseline were greater with all doses of cagrilintide (0·3-4·5 mg, 6·0%-10·8% [6·4-11·5 kg]) versus placebo (3·0% [3·3 kg]; estimated treatment difference range 3·0%-7·8%; p<0·001). Weight reductions were also greater with cagrilintide 4·5 mg versus liraglutide 3·0 mg (10·8% [11·5 kg] vs 9·0% [9·6 kg]; estimated treatment difference 1·8%, p=0·03). Similar weight loss reductions were observed with the treatment policy estimand. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (eg, nausea, constipation, and diarrhoea) and administration-site reactions. More participants receiving cagrilintide 0·3-4·5 mg had gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo (41%-63% vs 32%), primarily nausea (20%-47% vs 18%). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cagrilintide in people with overweight and obesity led to significant reductions in bodyweight and was well tolerated. The findings support the development of molecules with novel mechanisms of action for weight management. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

3 years of liraglutide versus placebo for type 2 diabetes risk reduction and weight management in individuals with prediabetes: a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Liraglutide 3·0 mg was shown to reduce bodyweight and improve glucose metabolism after the 56-week period of this trial, one of four trials in the SCALE programme. In the 3-year assessment of the SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial we aimed to evaluate the proportion of individuals with prediabetes who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults with prediabetes and a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with comorbidities, were randomised 2:1, using a telephone or web-based system, to once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 3·0 mg or matched placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. Time to diabetes onset by 160 weeks was the primary outcome, evaluated in all randomised treated individuals with at least one post-baseline assessment. The trial was conducted at 191 clinical research sites in 27 countries and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01272219. FINDINGS: The study ran between June 1, 2011, and March 2, 2015. We randomly assigned 2254 patients to receive liraglutide (n=1505) or placebo (n=749). 1128 (50%) participants completed the study up to week 160, after withdrawal of 714 (47%) participants in the liraglutide group and 412 (55%) participants in the placebo group. By week 160, 26 (2%) of 1472 individuals in the liraglutide group versus 46 (6%) of 738 in the placebo group were diagnosed with diabetes while on treatment. The mean time from randomisation to diagnosis was 99 (SD 47) weeks for the 26 individuals in the liraglutide group versus 87 (47) weeks for the 46 individuals in the placebo group. Taking the different diagnosis frequencies between the treatment groups into account, the time to onset of diabetes over 160 weeks among all randomised individuals was 2·7 times longer with liraglutide than with placebo (95% CI 1·9 to 3·9, p<0·0001), corresponding with a hazard ratio of 0·21 (95% CI 0·13-0·34). Liraglutide induced greater weight loss than placebo at week 160 (-6·1 [SD 7·3] vs -1·9% [6·3]; estimated treatment difference -4·3%, 95% CI -4·9 to -3·7, p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 227 (15%) of 1501 randomised treated individuals in the liraglutide group versus 96 (13%) of 747 individuals in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In this trial, we provide results for 3 years of treatment, with the limitation that withdrawn individuals were not followed up after discontinuation. Liraglutide 3·0 mg might provide health benefits in terms of reduced risk of diabetes in individuals with obesity and prediabetes. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, Denmark.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of 3.0 mg of Liraglutide in Weight Management.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a chronic disease with serious health consequences, but weight loss is difficult to maintain through lifestyle intervention alone. Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, has been shown to have potential benefit for weight management at a once-daily dose of 3.0 mg, injected subcutaneously. METHODS: We conducted a 56-week, double-blind trial involving 3731 patients who did not have type 2 diabetes and who had a body-mass index (BMI; the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of at least 30 or a BMI of at least 27 if they had treated or untreated dyslipidemia or hypertension. We randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous injections of liraglutide at a dose of 3.0 mg (2487 patients) or placebo (1244 patients); both groups received counseling on lifestyle modification. The coprimary end points were the change in body weight and the proportions of patients losing at least 5% and more than 10% of their initial body weight. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 45.1±12.0 years, the mean weight was 106.2±21.4 kg, and the mean BMI was 38.3±6.4; a total of 78.5% of the patients were women and 61.2% had prediabetes. At week 56, patients in the liraglutide group had lost a mean of 8.4±7.3 kg of body weight, and those in the placebo group had lost a mean of 2.8±6.5 kg (a difference of -5.6 kg; 95% confidence interval, -6.0 to -5.1; P<0.001, with last-observation-carried-forward imputation). A total of 63.2% of the patients in the liraglutide group as compared with 27.1% in the placebo group lost at least 5% of their body weight (P<0.001), and 33.1% and 10.6%, respectively, lost more than 10% of their body weight (P<0.001). The most frequently reported adverse events with liraglutide were mild or moderate nausea and diarrhea. Serious events occurred in 6.2% of the patients in the liraglutide group and in 5.0% of the patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 3.0 mg of liraglutide, as an adjunct to diet and exercise, was associated with reduced body weight and improved metabolic control. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes NN8022-1839 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01272219.).

Neuropsychiatric safety with liraglutide 3.0 mg for weight management: Results from randomized controlled phase 2 and 3a trials.

AIMS: Liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, regulates appetite via receptors in the brain. Because of concerns regarding the potential of centrally-acting anti-obesity medications to affect mental health, pooled neuropsychiatric safety data from all phase 2 and 3a randomized, double-blind trials with liraglutide 3.0 mg were evaluated post hoc. METHODS: Data from the liraglutide weight-management programme were pooled. Across trials, individuals with a body mass index ≥30 or ≥27 kg/m2 with weight-related comorbidities were randomized to once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 3384) or placebo (n = 1941), both with a 500 kcal/d deficit diet, plus exercise. Adverse events related to neuropsychiatric safety were collected in all trials. Additionally, in the phase 3a trials, validated mental-health questionnaires were prospectively and systematically administered. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of 5325 randomized and exposed individuals, rates of depression (2.1 vs 2.1 events/100 person-years) and anxiety (1.9 vs 1.7 events/100 person-years) through adverse event reporting were similarly low in liraglutide and placebo groups. Nine (0.3%) individuals receiving liraglutide and 2 (0.1%) receiving placebo reported adverse events of suicidal ideation or behaviour. In phase 3a trials, mean baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores of 2.8 ± 3.0 vs 2.9 ± 3.1 for liraglutide vs placebo improved to 1.8 ± 2.7 vs 1.9 ± 2.7, respectively, at treatment end; 34/3291 individuals (1.0%) receiving liraglutide 3.0 mg vs 19/1843 (1.0%) receiving placebo reported suicidal ideation on the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this exploratory pooled analysis provide no cause for concern regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg in patients similar to those included in the examined trials. Although there was a small numerical imbalance in suicidal ideation with liraglutide through adverse event reporting, no between-treatment imbalances in suicidal ideation/behaviour or depression were noted through prospective questionnaire assessments.

The Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire (STAR-Q): reliability and validity against doubly labeled water and 7-day activity diaries.

We determined measurement properties of the Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire (STAR-Q), which was designed to estimate past-month activity energy expenditure (AEE). STAR-Q validity and reliability were assessed in 102 adults in Alberta, Canada (2009-2011), who completed 14-day doubly labeled water (DLW) protocols, 7-day activity diaries on day 15, and the STAR-Q on day 14 and again at 3 and 6 months. Three-month reliability was substantial for total energy expenditure (TEE) and AEE (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.84 and 0.73, respectively), while 6-month reliability was moderate. STAR-Q-derived TEE and AEE were moderately correlated with DLW estimates (Spearman's ρs of 0.53 and 0.40, respectively; P < 0.001), and on average, the STAR-Q overestimated TEE and AEE (median differences were 367 kcal/day and 293 kcal/day, respectively). Body mass index-, age-, sex-, and season-adjusted concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07, 0.36) and 0.21 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.32) for STAR-Q-derived versus DLW-derived TEE and AEE, respectively. Agreement between the diaries and STAR-Q (metabolic equivalent-hours/day) was strongest for occupational sedentary time (adjusted CCC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.85) and overall strenuous activity (adjusted CCC = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.76). The STAR-Q demonstrated substantial validity for estimating occupational sedentary time and strenuous activity and fair validity for ranking individuals by AEE.

Prevalence of Adult Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Related Complications in Alberta, Canada: A Retrospective, Observational Study Using Administrative Data.

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a prevalent chronic disease and a leading cause of morbidity/mortality in Canada. We evaluated the burden of T2DM in Alberta, Canada, by estimating the 5-year period prevalence of T2DM and rates of comorbidities and complications/conditions after T2DM. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective study linking administrative health databases. Individuals with T2DM (≥18 years of age) were identified between 2008-2009 and 2018-2019 using a published algorithm, with follow-up data to March 2020. The 5-year period prevalence was estimated for 2014-2015 to 2018-2019. Individuals with newly identified T2DM, ascertained between 2010-2011 and 2017-2018 with a lookback period between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and a minimum 1 year of follow-up data, were evaluated for subsequent cardiovascular, diabetic, renal, and other complication/condition frequencies (%) and rates (per 100 person-years). Complications/conditions were stratified by atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) status at index and age. RESULTS: The 5-year period prevalence of T2DM was 11,051 per 100,000 persons, with the highest prevalence in men 65 to <75 years of age. There were 195,102 individuals included in the cohort (mean age 56.7±14.7 years). The most frequently reported complications/conditions (rates per 100 person-years) were acute infection (23.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 23.00 to 23.30), hypertension (17.30, 95% CI 16.80 to 17.70), and dyslipidemia (12.20, 95% CI 11.90 to 12.40). Individuals who had an ASCVD event/procedure and those ≥75 years of age had higher rates of complications/conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We found that over half of the individuals had hypertension or infection after T2DM. Also, those with ASCVD had higher rates of complications/conditions. Strategies to mitigate complications/conditions after T2DM are required to reduce the burden of this disease on individuals and health-care systems.

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.

Validity of administrative data claim-based methods for identifying individuals with diabetes at a population level.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the validity of a widely-accepted administrative data surveillance methodology for identifying individuals with diabetes relative to three laboratory data reference standard definitions for diabetes. METHODS: We used a combination of linked regional data (hospital discharge abstracts and physician data) and laboratory data to test the validity of administrative data surveillance definitions for diabetes relative to a laboratory data reference standard. The administrative discharge data methodology includes two definitions for diabetes: a strict administrative data definition of one hospitalization code or two physician claims indicating diabetes; and a more liberal definition of one hospitalization code or a single physician claim. The laboratory data, meanwhile, produced three reference standard definitions based on glucose levels +/- HbA1c levels. RESULTS: Sensitivities ranged from 68.4% to 86.9% for the administrative data definitions tested relative to the three laboratory data reference standards. Sensitivities were higher for the more liberal administrative data definition. Positive predictive values (PPV), meanwhile, ranged from 53.0% to 88.3%, with the liberal administrative data definition producing lower PPVs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the trade-offs of sensitivity and PPV for selecting diabetes surveillance definitions. Centralized laboratory data may be of value to future surveillance initiatives that use combined data sources to optimize case detection.

Metabolic syndrome: perception or reality?

Metabolic syndrome is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It has garnered considerable clinical and research interest as a potential target to reduce cardiovascular risk in addition to the classical risk factors. Whether it exists as a distinct clinical entity has become a subject of controversy and debate. This review appraises the evidence in support of or against recognizing metabolic syndrome as a clinical condition that requires therapeutic intervention. Proper evaluation of cardiovascular disease risk should start with consideration of traditional risk factors using validated tools, such as the short-term 10-year Framingham risk score. Individuals with abdominal obesity should be further assessed for associated cardiometabolic risks. Global cardiovascular disease risk should take into consideration not only short-term but also lifetime risks.