Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Treatment for gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several available therapies for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) have demonstrated efficacy in randomised controlled trials. However, translation of these results into improved care faces several challenges, as a direct comparison of the most pertinent therapies is incomplete. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs, to guide clinical decision-making, and to provide estimates of relative efficiency of the different treatment options (including placebo) and rank the treatments according to their efficiency based on a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies through systematic searches of the following bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); and Embase from January 1947 to December 2020. In addition, we checked trial registries for ongoing or unpublished eligible trials and manually searched for abstracts from scientific and clinical meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We evaluated randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more therapies in people with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. Multi-arm studies were included in the network meta-analysis using the R-package netmeta. We separately analysed two different outcomes (disease control and progression-free survival) and two types of NET (gastrointestinal and pancreatic NET) in four network meta-analyses. A frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 55 studies in 90 records in the qualitative analysis, reporting 39 primary RCTs and 16 subgroup analyses. We included 22 RCTs, with 4299 participants, that reported disease control and/or progression-free survival in the network meta-analysis. Precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited, although the risk of bias was predominantly low. The network meta-analysis of progression-free survival found nine therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.46]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.80]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.89]), interferon (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.94]), sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.67]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.83]), surufatinib (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.76]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77]); and six therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: 177-Lu-DOTATATE plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.26]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.12 [95%CI, 0.03 to 0.54]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.94]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.93]), surufatinib (HR, 0.33 [95%CI, 0.12 to 0.88]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.76]), with higher efficacy than placebo. Besides everolimus for pancreatic NETs, the results suggested an overall superiority of combination therapies, including somatostatin analogues. The results indicate that NET therapies have a broad range of risk for adverse events and effects on quality of life, but these were reported inconsistently. Evidence from this network meta-analysis (and underlying RCTs) does not support any particular therapy (or combinations of therapies) with respect to patient-centred outcomes (e.g. overall survival and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for people with NETs.

Colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug that is used for a wide range of inflammatory diseases. Cardiovascular disease also has an inflammatory component but the effects of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes remain unclear. Previous safety analyses were restricted to specific patient populations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate potential cardiovascular benefits and harms of a continuous long-term treatment with colchicine in any population, and specifically in people with high cardiovascular risk. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, citations of key papers, and study references in January 2015. We also contacted investigators to gain unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cluster design or first phases of cross-over studies) comparing colchicine over at least six months versus any control in any adult population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure, non-scheduled hospitalisations, and non-scheduled cardiovascular interventions. We conducted predefined subgroup analyses, in particular for participants with high cardiovascular risk. . MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 randomised parallel-group trials with 4992 participants. Colchicine had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; participants = 4174; studies = 30; I² = 27%; moderate quality of evidence). There is uncertainty surrounding the effect of colchicine in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.21, I² = 9%; participants = 1132; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence). Colchicine reduced the risk for total myocardial infarction (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57; participants = 652; studies = 2; moderate quality of evidence). There was no effect on total adverse events (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46; participants = 1313; studies = 11; I² = 45%; very low quality of evidence) but gastrointestinal intolerance was increased (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.26; participants = 1258; studies = 11; I² = 74%; low quality of evidence). Colchicine showed no effect on heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.88; participants = 462; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence) and no effect on stroke (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.70; participants = 874; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence). Reporting of serious adverse events was inconsistent; no event occurred over 824 patient-years (4 trials). Effects on other outcomes were very uncertain. Summary effects of RCTs specifically focusing on participants with high cardiovascular risk were similar (4 trials; 1230 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is much uncertainty surrounding the benefits and harms of colchicine treatment. Colchicine may have substantial benefits in reducing myocardial infarction in selected high-risk populations but uncertainty about the size of the effect on survival and other cardiovascular outcomes is high, especially in the general population from which most of the studies in our review were drawn. Colchicine is associated with gastrointestinal side effects based on low-quality evidence. More evidence from large-scale randomised trials is needed.

A meta-research study of randomized controlled trials found infrequent and delayed availability of protocols.

OBJECTIVES: Availability of randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols is essential for the interpretation of trial results and research transparency. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this study, we determined the availability of RCT protocols approved in Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom in 2012. For these RCTs, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and trial registries for publicly available protocols and corresponding full-text publications of results. We determined the proportion of RCTs with (1) publicly available protocols, (2) publications citing the protocol, and (3) registries providing a link to the protocol. A multivariable logistic regression model explored factors associated with protocol availability. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six RCTs were included, of which 118 (36.2%) made their protocol publicly available; 56 (47.6% 56 of 118) provided as a peer-reviewed publication and 48 (40.7%, 48 of 118) provided as supplementary material. A total of 90.9% (100 of 110) of the protocols were cited in the main publication, and 55.9% (66 of 118) were linked in the clinical trial registry. Larger sample size (>500; odds ratio [OR] = 5.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.75-13.31) and investigator sponsorship (OR = 1.99, 95% CI, 1.11-3.59) were associated with increased protocol availability. Most protocols were made available shortly before the publication of the main results. CONCLUSION: RCT protocols should be made available at an early stage of the trial.

Effect of Anti-Inflammatory Diets on Pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Various nutritional therapies have been proposed in rheumatoid arthritis, particularly diets rich in ω-3 fatty acids, which may lead to eicosanoid reduction. Our aim was to investigate the effect of potentially anti-inflammatory diets (Mediterranean, vegetarian, vegan, ketogenic) on pain. The primary outcome was pain on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes were C-reactive protein levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, health assessment questionnaire, disease activity score 28, tender/swollen joint counts, weight, and body mass index. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL for studies published from database inception to 12 November 2021. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed a meta-analysis with all eligible randomized controlled trials using RevMan 5. We used mean differences or standardized mean differences and the inverse variance method of pooling using a random-effects model. The search retrieved 564 unique publications, of which we included 12 in the systematic review and 7 in the meta-analysis. All studies had a high risk of bias and the evidence was very low. The main conclusion is that anti-inflammatory diets resulted in significantly lower pain than ordinary diets (-9.22 mm; 95% CI -14.15 to -4.29; p = 0.0002; 7 RCTs, 326 participants).

Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Clinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain. Objective: To assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations. Evidence Review: For this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021. Findings: The analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, 62%-86%) for the date of first patient enrollment when the comparison time was increased to 30 days (date of first patient enrollment was not reported on EudraCT). For results availability in trial registries, agreement was 122 of 197 RCTs (62%; 95% CI, 55%-69%) for summary data reported in the registry and 91 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for whether a published article with the main results was indexed. Different legal requirements were stated as the main reason for inconsistencies by representatives of clinical trial registries. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, for a substantial proportion of registered RCTs, information about key trial characteristics was inconsistent across trial registries, raising concerns about the reliability of the information provided in these registries. Further harmonization across clinical trial registries may be necessary to increase their usefulness.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors combined with memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with Alzheimer’s disease is inconclusive. AIMS OF THE STUDY: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy of AChEI and memantine to monotherapy with either substance in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score is <20). METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and CENTRAL until February 2018 for eligible RCTs. We pooled the outcome data using inverse variance weighting models assuming random effects, and assessed the quality of evidence (QoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (2604 patients). At short-term follow-up (closest to 6 months), combination therapy compared to AChEI monotherapy had a significantly greater effect on cognition than AChEI monotherapy (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.35, 7 RCTs, low QoE) and clinical global impression (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01, 4 RCTs, moderate QoE), but not on activities of daily living (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.18, 5 RCTs, moderate QoE) or behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (mean difference −3.07, 95% CI −6.53 to 0.38, 6 RCT, low QoE). There was no significant difference in adverse events (relative risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12, 4 RCTs, low QoE). Evidence for long-term follow-up (≥ 9 months) or nursing home placement was sparse. Only two studies compared combination therapy with memantine monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy had statistically significant effects on cognition and clinical global impression. The clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. The overall QoE was very low. With the current evidence, it remains unclear whether combination therapy adds any benefit. Large pragmatic RCTs with long-term follow-up and focus on functional outcomes, delay in nursing home placement and adverse events are needed.  .

Cardiovascular effects and safety of long-term colchicine treatment: Cochrane review and meta-analysis.

Colchicine is an old anti-inflammatory drug that has shown substantial cardiovascular benefits in recent trials. We systematically reviewed cardiovascular benefits and harms of colchicine in any population and specifically in patients with high cardiovascular risk. We evaluated randomised controlled trials comparing colchicine over at least 6 months versus any control in any adult population. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and adverse events. Cardiovascular mortality was a secondary outcome. We included 39 trials with 4992 patients. The quality of evidence for mortality outcomes and myocardial infarction was moderate but lower for adverse events. Colchicine had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; I(2)=27%; 30 trials). Cardiovascular mortality was reduced in some but not all meta-analytical models (random-effects RR 0.34, 0.09 to 1.21, I(2)=9%; Peto's OR 0.24, 0.09 to 0.64, I(2)=15%; Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect RR 0.20, 0.06 to 0.68, I(2)=0%; 7 trials). The risk for myocardial infarction was reduced (RR 0.20, 0.07 to 0.57; 2 trials). There was no effect on total adverse events (RR 1.52, 0.93 to 2.46, I(2)=45%; 11 trials) but gastrointestinal intolerance was increased (RR 1.83, 1.03 to 3.26, I(2)=74%; 11 trials). Reporting of serious adverse events was inconsistent; no event occurred over 824 patient-years (4 trials). Effects in high cardiovascular risk populations were similar (4 trials; 1230 patients). We found no evidence supporting colchicine doses above 1 mg/day. Colchicine may have substantial cardiovascular benefits; however, there is sufficient uncertainty about its benefit and harm to indicate the need for large-scale trials to further evaluate this inexpensive, promising treatment in cardiovascular disease.

Nutritional Support and Outcomes in Malnourished Medical Inpatients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: During acute illness, nutritional therapy is widely used for medical inpatients with malnutrition or at risk for malnutrition. Yet, to our knowledge, no comprehensive trial has demonstrated that this approach is effective and beneficial for patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of nutritional support on outcomes of medical inpatients with malnutrition or at risk for malnutrition in a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The study dates were October 5, 1982, to April 30, 2014, in various (mostly European) countries. The dates of our analysis were March 10, 2015, to September 16, 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Based on a prespecified Cochrane protocol, we systematically searched RCTs investigating the effects of nutritional support (including counseling and oral and enteral feeding) in medical inpatients compared with a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary study outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital-acquired infections, nonelective readmissions, functional outcome, length of hospital stay, daily caloric and protein intake, and weight change. RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs with a total of 3736 participants. Heterogeneity across RCTs was high, with overall low study quality and mostly unclear risk of bias. Intervention group patients significantly increased their weight (mean difference, 0.72 kg; 95% CI, 0.23-1.21 kg), caloric intake (mean difference, 397 kcal; 95% CI, 279-515 kcal), and protein intake (mean difference, 20.0 g/d; 95% CI, 12.5-27.1 g/d) compared with control group patients. No differences between intervention group patients and control group patients were found with respect to mortality (9.8% vs 10.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.72-1.27), hospital-acquired infections (overall, 6.0% vs 7.6%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50-1.11), functional outcome (mean Barthel index difference, 0.33 point; 95% CI, -0.88 to 1.55 points), or length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.42 days; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.24 days). Nonelective readmissions were significantly decreased by the intervention (20.5% vs 29.6%; risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In medical inpatients, nutritional support increases caloric and protein intake and body weight. However, there is little effect on clinical outcomes overall except for nonelective readmissions. High-quality RCTs are needed to fill this gap.

Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the overall effects of bariatric surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for obesity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis based on a random effects model. DATA SOURCES: Searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to December 2012 regardless of language or publication status. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials with ≥ 6 months of follow-up that included individuals with a body mass index ≥ 30, compared current bariatric surgery techniques with non-surgical treatment, and reported on body weight, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life, or adverse events. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 11 studies with 796 individuals (range of mean body mass index at baseline 30-52). Individuals allocated to bariatric surgery lost more body weight (mean difference -26 kg (95% confidence interval -31 to -21)) compared with non-surgical treatment, had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes (relative risk 22.1 (3.2 to 154.3) in a complete case analysis; 5.3 (1.8 to 15.8) in a conservative analysis assuming diabetes remission in all non-surgically treated individuals with missing data) and metabolic syndrome (relative risk 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) in complete case analysis; 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3) in conservative analysis), greater improvements in quality of life and reductions in medicine use (no pooled data). Plasma triglyceride concentrations decreased more (mean difference -0.7 mmol/L (-1.0 to -0.4) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations increased more (mean difference 0.21 mmol/L (0.1 to 0.3)). Changes in blood pressure and total or low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations were not significantly different. There were no cardiovascular events or deaths reported after bariatric surgery. The most common adverse events after bariatric surgery were iron deficiency anaemia (15% of individuals undergoing malabsorptive bariatric surgery) and reoperations (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-surgical treatment of obesity, bariatric surgery leads to greater body weight loss and higher remission rates of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. However, results are limited to two years of follow-up and based on a small number of studies and individuals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012003317 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Basal plasma levels of insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and amylin do not signal adiposity in rats recovering from forced overweight.

This study examined how adiposity signals are related to adiposity during recovery from forced overweight (OW). Rats were rendered OW by chronic intragastric overfeeding (OW). Overfeeding was stopped when OW rats reached 126-129% of saline-infused normal-weight (NW) rats. Adipose tissue (AT) mass was estimated by computed tomography, and blood was drawn from chronic atrial cannulas throughout. Basal levels (i.e. after 2-3 h fasts late in the diurnal phase) of the hypothesized adiposity signals insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and amylin were assayed. OW rats gained approximately 130 g more body weight (BW) and approximately 100 g more AT mass during overfeeding. Plasma levels of insulin and leptin increased, whereas those of ghrelin decreased, linearly with AT mass; amylin did not change reliably. During recovery, OW rats' BW and AT mass decreased but were still elevated vs. NW rats after 39 d. OW rats' insulin returned to NW levels on d 1 of recovery and decreased below NW levels thereafter. Leptin was no longer elevated after d 8 of recovery. Ghrelin and amylin did not change reliably during recovery. Although AT mass decreased in OW rats during each intermeasurement interval between d 0 and d 23 of recovery, insulin and leptin did so during only the first interval (d 0-5). Insulin and leptin levels were exponentially related to AT mass during recovery. These data indicate that basal insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and amylin do not encode AT mass in rats dynamically regulating BW and adiposity during recovery from OW.