Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, semaglutide 50 mg, taken once per day versus placebo for the treatment of overweight or obesity in adults without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, superiority trial enrolled adults with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with bodyweight-related complications and comorbidities, without type 2 diabetes. The trial was done at 50 outpatient clinics in nine countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) via an interactive web-response system to oral semaglutide escalated to 50 mg, or visually matching placebo, once per day for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention. Group assignment was masked for participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes. Coprimary endpoints were the percentage change in bodyweight and whether participants reached a bodyweight reduction of at least 5% at week 68 for oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo, assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of other bodyweight-lowering therapies (an intention-to-treat analysis). Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05035095), is now complete. FINDINGS: From Sept 13 to Nov 22, 2021, 709 participants were screened, of whom 667 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 50 mg (n=334) or placebo (n=333). The estimated mean bodyweight change from baseline to week 68 was -15·1% (SE 0·5) with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus -2·4% (0·5) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -12·7 percentage points, 95% CI -14·2 to -11·3; p<0·0001). More participants reached bodyweight reductions of at least 5% (269 [85%] of 317 vs 76 [26%] of 295; odds ratio [OR] 12·6, 95% CI 8·5 to 18·7; p<0·0001), 10% (220 [69%] vs 35 [12%]; OR 14·7, 9·6 to 22·6), 15% (170 [54%] vs 17 [6%]; OR 17·9, 10·4 to 30·7), and 20% (107 [34%] vs 8 [3%]; OR 18·5, 8·8 to 38·9) at week 68 with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo. Adverse events were more frequent with oral semaglutide 50 mg (307 [92%] of 334) than with placebo (285 [86%] of 333). Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild to moderate) were reported in 268 (80%) participants with oral semaglutide 50 mg and 154 (46%) with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide 50 mg once per day led to a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Effects of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg on C-reactive protein in adults with overweight or obesity (STEP 1, 2, and 3): Exploratory analyses of three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

Background: Inflammation is a key driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. C-reactive protein (CRP), an established biomarker of inflammation, is commonly elevated in people with overweight/obesity. Methods: STEP 1, 2, and 3 were 68-week, placebo-controlled trials of semaglutide for weight management in participants with overweight/obesity, with (STEP 2) or without (STEP 1 and 3) type 2 diabetes. Change in serum CRP from baseline to week 68 was assessed as a prespecified secondary endpoint for semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo (STEP 1, 2, and 3) and versus semaglutide 1.0 mg (STEP 2). Post hoc assessments included change in CRP by baseline characteristics (bodyweight, body mass index [BMI], glycaemic status, CRP concentration); change in CRP-defined cardiovascular risk category (<1 [low], 1-3 [intermediate], and >3 mg/L [high]); and correlation between change in CRP and change in bodyweight, waist circumference, fasting serum insulin (STEP 1 and 3), fasting plasma glucose, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Findings: The trials took place from June through November 2018 (STEP 1 and 2) and from August 2018 to April 2020 (STEP 3). In all trials, semaglutide 2.4 mg reduced CRP at week 68 versus placebo (estimated treatment difference [ETD; 95% CI] -44% [-49 to -39] in STEP 1, -39% [-46 to -30] in STEP 2, and -48% [-55 to -39] in STEP 3; all p < 0.05). In STEP 2, CRP reductions were greater with semaglutide 2.4 mg (-49%) than with 1.0 mg (-42%) but the difference did not reach statistical significance (ETD [95% CI] -12% [-23 to 1]; p = 0.06). Reductions in CRP occurred in parallel with bodyweight loss and were consistent regardless of baseline BMI/bodyweight/glycaemic status. More semaglutide-treated participants had reductions in CRP-defined cardiovascular risk versus those on placebo. Reductions in CRP were positively correlated with reductions in bodyweight, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, fasting serum insulin, and HOMA-IR (data not shown). Interpretation: In people with overweight/obesity, once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg and 1.0 mg reduced CRP concentration irrespective of baseline BMI/bodyweight/glycaemic status compared with placebo. These data suggest a potential anti-inflammatory role of semaglutide in obesity. Funding: Novo Nordisk.

Semaglutide improves cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with overweight or obesity: STEP 1 and 4 exploratory analyses.

AIMS: Evaluate the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight/obesity without diabetes in the STEP 1 and 4 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: STEP 1 and 4 were phase III, 68-week, placebo-controlled trials of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg combined with lifestyle intervention; STEP 4 had a 20-week semaglutide run-in and 48-week randomized withdrawal period. Participants had a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 or ≥27 kg/m2 with one or more weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes. Pre-specified endpoints were changes in waist circumference, systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP), lipids, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting serum insulin and antihypertensive/lipid-lowering medication use. Post-hoc assessments included non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; STEP 1 only), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association algorithm; STEP 1 only) and cardiometabolic risk factors by weight loss achieved (<5%, 5% to <10%, 10% to <15%, or ≥15%) (STEP 1 only). RESULTS: Of the 1961 participants in STEP 1 and 803 in STEP 4, most had one or more complication/comorbidity at baseline, with dyslipidaemia and hypertension most prevalent. In STEP 1, reductions in waist circumference, SBP, DBP, FPG, fasting serum insulin, lipids and HOMA-IR were greater with semaglutide versus placebo (p ≤ .001). Reductions in SBP, non-HDL cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and FPG were generally greater with semaglutide than placebo within weight-loss categories. Non-significant ASCVD risk reductions were observed with semaglutide versus placebo (p > .05). In STEP 4, improvements in waist circumference, SBP, FPG, fasting serum insulin and lipids during the semaglutide run-in (week 0-20) were maintained over week 20-68 with continued semaglutide, but deteriorated following the switch to placebo (p < .001 [week 20-68]). Net reductions in antihypertensive/lipid-lowering medication use occurred with semaglutide versus placebo (both trials). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide may improve cardiometabolic risk factors and reduce antihypertensive/lipid-lowering medication use versus placebo in adults with overweight/obesity without diabetes. These potential benefits were not maintained after treatment discontinuation. GOV NUMBERS: STEP 1 NCT03548935, STEP 4 NCT03548987.

Effect of Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Daily Liraglutide on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity Without Diabetes: The STEP 8 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management. Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338). Interventions: Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points. Results: Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was -15.8% with semaglutide vs -6.4% with liraglutide (difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was -1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161.

Gastrointestinal tolerability of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg in adults with overweight or obesity, and the relationship between gastrointestinal adverse events and weight loss.

AIM: We evaluated gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) with once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg in adults with overweight or obesity and their contribution to weight loss (WL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: AE analyses pooled data from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) 1-3 trials for participants randomized to 68 weeks of semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 2117) or placebo (n = 1262). WL was analysed by presence/absence of GI AEs. Mediation analysis estimated WL effects mediated by and unrelated to GI AEs. GI tolerability with semaglutide 2.4 mg maintenance and cessation after dose escalation was evaluated using STEP 4 data among 803 participants tolerating 20 weeks of semaglutide run-in. RESULTS: GI AEs were more common with semaglutide 2.4 mg than placebo, with most frequently nausea (43.9% vs. 16.1% of participants), diarrhoea (29.7% vs. 15.9%), vomiting (24.5% vs. 6.3%) and constipation (24.2% vs. 11.1%). Most GI AEs with semaglutide were non-serious (99.5% of AEs), mild-to-moderate (98.1%), transient and occurred most frequently during/shortly after dose escalation. Few semaglutide-treated participants (4.3%) permanently discontinued treatment for GI AEs. In STEP 1-3, mean WL with semaglutide 2.4 mg was similar in participants without (9.6%-17.1%) versus with GI AEs (11.4%-17.7%). Consistent with this observation, mediation analysis found that GI AEs contributed little to semaglutide-induced WL: of the additional 7.6%-14.4% WL with semaglutide versus placebo, <1 percentage point was mediated by GI AEs. In STEP 4, semaglutide 2.4 mg maintenance was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: GI AEs were more common with semaglutide 2.4 mg than placebo, but typically mild-to-moderate and transient. Semaglutide-induced WL was largely independent of GI AEs.

Managing the gastrointestinal side effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in obesity: recommendations for clinical practice.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are well established in clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and are approved and recommended for weight management in overweight or obesity. Gastrointestinal side effects are well known as the most common adverse effects of these agents and represent a potential barrier for use, particularly at higher doses. Drawing on both published evidence and our collective clinical experience, we aim to guide practitioners through managing these side effects with a view to optimizing therapeutic outcomes with GLP-1RAs.

Exploring the wider benefits of semaglutide treatment in obesity: insight from the STEP program.

Obesity negatively impacts patients' health-related quality of life (QOL) and is associated with a range of complications such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease, and sleep apnea, alongside decreased physical function, mobility, and control of eating. The Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) trials compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg with placebo in adults with overweight or obesity, with or without T2D. This article reviews the effects of semaglutide 2.4 mg on QOL, control of eating, and body composition. Weight-related QOL was assessed using the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (IWQOL-Lite-CT), and health-related QOL was assessed with the 36-item Short Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2®). Control of eating was evaluated using the Control of Eating questionnaire in a subgroup of participants in one trial. Body composition was evaluated via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in another trial, in a subgroup of participants with a body mass index of ≤40 kg/m2. All IWQOL-Lite-CT scores (Physical Function, Physical, Psychosocial, and Total Score) improved with semaglutide 2.4 mg significantly more than with placebo. Across the trials, changes in SF-36v2 scores were generally in favor of semaglutide versus placebo. There were significant improvements in all Control of Eating questionnaire domains (craving control, craving for savory, craving for sweet, and positive mood) up to week 52 with semaglutide treatment versus placebo, with improvements in craving control and craving for savory remaining significantly different at week 104. Body composition findings showed that reductions in total fat mass were greater with semaglutide versus placebo. These findings highlight the wider benefits that patients can experience with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, in addition to weight loss, including improvements in patients' wellbeing and ability to perform daily activities. Taken together, these are important considerations for primary care when incorporating pharmacotherapy for weight management.

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.

Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Placebo as an Adjunct to Intensive Behavioral Therapy on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: The STEP 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Weight loss improves cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or obesity. Intensive lifestyle intervention and pharmacotherapy are the most effective noninvasive weight loss approaches. Objective: To compare the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg vs placebo for weight management as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy with initial low-calorie diet in adults with overweight or obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 68-week, phase 3a study (STEP 3) conducted at 41 sites in the US from August 2018 to April 2020 in adults without diabetes (N = 611) and with either overweight (body mass index ≥27) plus at least 1 comorbidity or obesity (body mass index ≥30). Interventions: Participants were randomized (2:1) to semaglutide, 2.4 mg (n = 407) or placebo (n = 204), both combined with a low-calorie diet for the first 8 weeks and intensive behavioral therapy (ie, 30 counseling visits) during 68 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary end points were percentage change in body weight and the loss of 5% or more of baseline weight by week 68. Confirmatory secondary end points included losses of at least 10% or 15% of baseline weight. Results: Of 611 randomized participants (495 women [81.0%], mean age 46 years [SD, 13], body weight 105.8 kg [SD, 22.9], and body mass index 38.0 [SD, 6.7]), 567 (92.8%) completed the trial, and 505 (82.7%) were receiving treatment at trial end. At week 68, the estimated mean body weight change from baseline was -16.0% for semaglutide vs -5.7% for placebo (difference, -10.3 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -8.6]; P < .001). More participants treated with semaglutide vs placebo lost at least 5% of baseline body weight (86.6% vs 47.6%, respectively; P < .001). A higher proportion of participants in the semaglutide vs placebo group achieved weight losses of at least 10% or 15% (75.3% vs 27.0% and 55.8% vs 13.2%, respectively; P < .001). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide (82.8%) vs placebo (63.2%). Treatment was discontinued owing to these events in 3.4% of semaglutide participants vs 0% of placebo participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with placebo, used as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy and initial low-calorie diet, resulted in significantly greater weight loss during 68 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the durability of these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611582.

Changes in weight control behaviors and hedonic hunger in a commercial weight management program adapted for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A WW (formerly Weight Watchers) program adapted for persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously was found to be more effective than standard care (SC) intervention for weight loss, improved glycemic control, and weight- and diabetes-related quality of life measures. With data from the same national trial, this study examined whether WW adapted for persons with T2DM also increased engagement in weight control behaviors and decreased hedonic hunger, each of which could contribute to improved diabetes management. INTERVENTION AND METHODS: Individuals with T2DM (n = 563) and overweight or obesity participated in a 12-month, 16-site, randomized trial of WW with diabetes counseling or SC. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) evaluated whether 12-month changes in weight control behaviors (Eating Behavior Inventory; EBI) and hedonic hunger (Power of Food Scale; PFS) differed by treatment condition. If a significant treatment effect was found, 12-month changes in EBI/PFS were regressed on 12-month changes in HbA1c and percent weight loss to explore potential treatment differences in these associations. RESULTS: EBI scores increased significantly over the 12-months (p < 0.001), with greater improvements in WW than SC (p < 0.001). PFS decreased significantly in the 12-months (p < 0.001), with no differences between treatment groups (p = 0.15). HLM analyses that followed up on the significant treatment effect for 12-month change in EBI revealed no significant differences by treatment condition for the relationship between change in EBI scores and change in HbA1c (p = 0.14) or percent weight loss (p = 0.32). Across all participants, 12-month improvements in EBI and PFS were related to improved HbA1c (r = 0.22; -0.13, respectively) and greater percent weight loss (r = 0.41; -0.18, respectively) (ps < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: WW with diabetes counseling produced greater engagement in weight control behaviors in those with T2DM than did SC. Across both groups, improved weight control behaviors and hedonic hunger were related to improved glycemic control and weight loss.

Weight History in Clinical Practice: The State of the Science and Future Directions.

Eliciting a weight history can provide clinically important information to aid in treatment decision-making. This view is consistent with the life course perspective of obesity and the aim of patient-centered care, one of six domains of health care quality. However, thus far, the value and practicality of including a weight history in the clinical assessment and treatment of patients with obesity have not been systematically explored. For these reasons, the Clinical Committee of The Obesity Society established a task force to review and assess the available evidence to address five key questions. It is concluded that weight history is an essential component of the medical history for patients presenting with overweight or obesity, and there are strong and emerging data that demonstrate the importance of life stage, duration of exposure to obesity, maximum BMI, and group-based trajectory modeling in predicting risk for increased morbidity and mortality. Consideration of these and other patient-specific factors may improve risk stratification and clinical decision-making for screening, counseling, and management. Recommendations are provided for the key elements that should be included in a weight history, and several needs for future clinical research are outlined.

Impact on psychosocial outcomes of a nationally available weight management program tailored for individuals with type 2 diabetes: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can substantially decrease quality of life (QOL). This study examined the effects on QOL-relevant psychosocial measures of a widely available commercial weight loss program enhanced for individuals with T2DM. METHODS: A year-long multi-site randomized clinical trial compared the Weight Watchers (WW) approach, supplemented with phone and email counseling with a certified diabetes educator (CDE), to brief standard diabetes nutrition counseling and education (Standard Care; SC). Participants were 400 women and 163 men (N=279 WW; 284 SC) with T2DM [mean (±SD) HbA1c 8.32±1%; BMI=37.1±5.7kg/m2; age=55.1 ± 9.1years]. Psychosocial outcomes were assessed at baseline, month 6, and month 12 using a diabetes specific psychosocial measure (Diabetes Distress Scale [DDS]), Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite scale (IWQOL), a generic QOL measure (SF-36), and a depression screen (PHQ-9). RESULTS: WW participants showed significantly greater improvements than did SC participants on all DDS subscales and total score and on IWQOL total score and physical function, sex life and work domains (all ps<.05). There was no significant treatment effect on SF-36 scores or PHQ-9. CONCLUSIONS: WW enhanced for individuals with T2DM was superior to SC in improving psychosocial outcomes most specific to T2DM and obesity. Available commercial WL programs, combined with scalable complementary program-specific diabetes counseling, may have benefits that extend to diabetes-related distress and weight-relevant QOL.

Randomized controlled trial of a nationally available weight control program tailored for adults with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Modest weight loss from clinical interventions improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Data are sparse on the effects of weight loss via commercial weight loss programs. This study examined the effects on glycemic control and weight loss of the standard Weight Watchers program, combined with telephone and email consultations with a certified diabetes educator (WW), compared with standard diabetes nutrition counseling and education (standard care, SC). METHODS: In a 12-month randomized controlled trial at 16 U.S. research centers, 563 adults with T2DM (HbA1c 7-11%; BMI 27-50 kg/m2 ) were assigned to either the commercially available WW program (regular community meetings, online tools), plus telephone and email counseling from a certified diabetes educator, or to SC (initial in-person diabetes nutrition counseling/education, with follow-up informational materials). RESULTS: Follow-up rate was 86%. Twelve-month HbA1c changes for WW and SC were -0.32 and +0.16, respectively; 24% of WW versus 14% of SC achieved HbA1c <7.0% (P = 0.004). Weight losses were -4.0% for WW and -1.9% for SC (Ps < 0.001). 26% of WW versus 12% of SC reduced diabetes medications (P < 0.001). WW participants had greater reductions in waist circumference (P < 0.001) and C-reactive protein (P = 0.02) but did not differ on other cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Widely available commercial weight loss programs with community and online components, combined with scalable complementary diabetes education, may represent accessible and effective components of management plans for adults with overweight/obesity and T2DM.