Evolving Approaches for Pharmacological Therapy of Obesity.

Obesity is a global health concern. Progress in understanding the physiology of obesity and weight reduction has provided new drug targets. Development and testing of new antiobesity medications (AOMs) has the potential to quickly expand options for treatment. In this review, we briefly summarize the physiology of obesity and weight reduction, as well as medications currently approved for weight management. We highlight the increasing use of incretin and nutrient-stimulated hormone-based therapies. We conclude with an overview of AOMs progressing through the pipeline and discuss their implications for the rapidly evolving field of obesity management.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global health challenge with few pharmacologic options. Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we enrolled 1961 adults with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or greater (≥27 in persons with ≥1 weight-related coexisting condition), who did not have diabetes, and randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to 68 weeks of treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. The coprimary end points were the percentage change in body weight and weight reduction of at least 5%. The primary estimand (a precise description of the treatment effect reflecting the objective of the clinical trial) assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue interventions. RESULTS: The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -14.9% in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.4% with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -12.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -11.5; P<0.001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight reductions of 5% or more (1047 participants [86.4%] vs. 182 [31.5%]), 10% or more (838 [69.1%] vs. 69 [12.0%]), and 15% or more (612 [50.5%] vs. 28 [4.9%]) at week 68 (P<0.001 for all three comparisons of odds). The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.6 kg in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference, -12.7 kg; 95% CI, -13.7 to -11.7). Participants who received semaglutide had a greater improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and a greater increase in participant-reported physical functioning from baseline than those who received placebo. Nausea and diarrhea were the most common adverse events with semaglutide; they were typically transient and mild-to-moderate in severity and subsided with time. More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group discontinued treatment owing to gastrointestinal events (59 [4.5%] vs. 5 [0.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03548935).

Measuring internalized health-related stigma across health conditions: development and validation of the I-HEARTS Scale.

BACKGROUND: Health-related stigma and its internalization among individuals with chronic health conditions contribute to impaired mental and physical health and quality of life. Research on health-related stigma has been siloed, with disease-specific measures that may not capture the experiences of individuals with multiple health conditions and that prevent comparisons across health conditions. The current study aimed to develop and test a transdiagnostic measure of internalized health-related stigma for use among adults with different physical health conditions. METHODS: An existing measure of internalized mental health stigma was adapted to assess stigma due to chronic physical health conditions following COSMIN procedures, with input from advisory boards of community members living with a range of stigmatized health conditions (obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, skin diseases, HIV, chronic pain, and cancers) and of health professionals who specialized in these conditions. The new Internalized Health-Related Stigma (I-HEARTS) Scale was tested in an online sample of 300 adults with these health conditions, recruited from ResearchMatch. Additional psychosocial measures of mental health and quality of life were administered, and participants provided information about their health conditions and demographic characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis and tests of reliability and validity were conducted to determine the psychometric properties of the I-HEARTS Scale, and k-means clustering and receiver of characteristic curve analysis were used to determine a clinically meaningful cutoff score indicating high levels of internalized stigma. RESULTS: Factor analysis results yielded a 25-item scale with a 3-factor solution, with subscales of Perceived and Anticipated Stigma, Stereotype Application and Self-Devaluation, and Stigma Resistance. Psychometric properties for internal consistency, inter-item and item-total correlations, and test-retest reliability were strong. Certain demographics (e.g., younger age) and characteristics related to health conditions (e.g., greater symptom severity) were associated with higher levels of internalized stigma. I-HEARTS Scale scores correlated moderately to strongly with related but distinct psychosocial measures, and a cutoff score of 3.40 or higher on the 1-7 rating scale was determined to indicate clinically meaningful levels of internalized stigma. CONCLUSIONS: The I-HEARTS Scale is a reliable and valid measure for the assessment of internalized health-related stigma among adults with varied stigmatized chronic health conditions. STUDY PRE-REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/84c5d/?view_only=87238512f6d6475c87f8f64280a8a15f .

The past, present, and future of behavioral obesity treatment.

Over the last century, hundreds of evaluations have been conducted to examine weight-management interventions related to diet, physical activity, and behavior therapy. These investigations have contributed to a growing body of knowledge that has consistently advanced the field of obesity treatment, while also revealing some persistent challenges. This narrative review summarizes key findings from randomized controlled trials conducted in adults that have combined diet, physical activity, and behavior therapy, an approach variously referred to as behavioral treatment, comprehensive lifestyle modification, or intensive lifestyle intervention. The review shows that current behavioral approaches induce average reductions in baseline body weight of 5 to 10% at 6 to 12 months. Such losses have proven effective in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes in persons with impaired glucose tolerance and in improving other obesity-related complications. These benefits have also been associated with reductions in healthcare costs. Despite these advances, behavioral treatment is challenged by the need for larger losses to achieve optimal improvements in health, by difficulties associated with maintaining weight loss, and by barriers limiting access to treatment. New anti-obesity medications, when combined with behavioral obesity treatment, hold promise of addressing the first two issues.

Neural Responses to Auditory Food Stimuli Following Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Binge-Eating Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with binge-eating disorder (BED), compared with those without BED, demonstrate higher blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) response to food cues in reward-related regions of the brain. It is not known whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can reverse this reward system hyperactivation. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessed changes in BOLD response to binge-eating cues following CBT versus wait-list control (WLC). METHOD: Females with BED (N = 40) were randomized to CBT or WLC. Participants completed assessments at baseline and 16 weeks including measures of eating and appetite and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure BOLD response while listening to personalized scripts of binge-eating and neutral-relaxing cues. Data were analyzed using general linear models with mixed effects. RESULTS: Overall retention rate was 87.5%. CBT achieved significantly greater reductions in binge-eating episodes than WLC (mean ± standard error decline of 14.6 ± 2.7 vs. 5.7 ± 2.8 episodes in the past 28 days, respectively; p = 0.03). CBT and WLC did not differ significantly in changes in neural responses to binge-eating stimuli during the fMRI sessions. Compared with WLC, CBT had significantly greater improvements in reward-based eating drive, disinhibition, and hunger as assessed by questionnaires (ps < 0.05). DISCUSSION: CBT was effective in reducing binge eating, but, contrary to our hypothesis, CBT did not improve BOLD response to auditory binge-eating stimuli in reward regions of the brain. Further studies are needed to assess mechanisms underlying improvements with CBT for BED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03604172.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects of Behavioral Weight Loss Treatment on Food Cue Reactivity.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether behavioral weight loss can attenuate blood oxygen level-dependent responses to food stimuli. OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled trial assessed the effects of a commercially available behavioral weight loss program (WW, WeightWatchers) compared to a wait-list control on blood oxygen level-dependent response to food cues. METHODS: Females with obesity ( N = 61) were randomized to behavioral weight loss or wait-list control. At baseline and follow-up, participants completed assessments that included functional magnetic resonance imaging scans to assess response to images of high-calorie foods (HCF) or low-calorie foods (LCF), and neutral objects. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in change from baseline to follow-up in any regions of the brain in response to viewing HCF or LCF. From baseline to follow-up, participants in behavioral weight loss, compared with wait-list control, reported significantly greater increases in desire for LCF. Changes in liking and palatability of LCF and liking, palatability, and desire for HCF did not differ between groups. DISCUSSION: Behavioral weight loss was associated with increased desire for LCF without changes in neural reactivity to food cues. These results suggest that alteration of neurological processes underlying responsiveness to food is difficult to achieve through behavioral weight management alone.

Semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes (STEP 2): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of the GLP-1 analogue once a week subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg versus semaglutide 1·0 mg (the dose approved for diabetes treatment) and placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, superiority study enrolled adults with a body-mass index of at least 27 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin 7-10% (53-86 mmol/mol) who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least 180 days before screening. Patients were recruited from 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries across Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system and stratified by background glucose-lowering medication and glycated haemoglobin, to subcutaneous injection of semaglutide 2·4 mg, or semaglutide 1·0 mg, or visually matching placebo, once a week for 68 weeks, plus a lifestyle intervention. Patients, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. Coprimary endpoints were percentage change in bodyweight and achievement of weight reduction of at least 5% at 68 weeks for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo, assessed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03552757 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: From June 4 to Nov 14, 2018, 1595 patients were screened, of whom 1210 were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2·4 mg (n=404), semaglutide 1·0 mg (n=403), or placebo (n=403) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Estimated change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 68 was -9·6% (SE 0·4) with semaglutide 2·4 mg vs -3·4% (0·4) with placebo. Estimated treatment difference for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo was -6·2 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to -5·2; p<0·0001). At week 68, more patients on semaglutide 2·4 mg than on placebo achieved weight reductions of at least 5% (267 [68·8%] of 388 vs 107 [28·5%] of 376; odds ratio 4·88, 95% CI 3·58 to 6·64; p<0·0001). Adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide 2·4 mg (in 353 [87·6%] of 403 patients) and 1·0 mg (329 [81·8%] of 402) than with placebo (309 [76·9%] of 402). Gastrointestinal adverse events, which were mostly mild to moderate, were reported in 256 (63·5%) of 403 patients with semaglutide 2·4 mg, 231 (57·5%) of 402 with semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 138 (34·3%) of 402 with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week achieved a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

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.

Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: The STEP 1 trial extension.

AIM: To explore changes in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors after treatment withdrawal in the STEP 1 trial extension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: STEP 1 (NCT03548935) randomized 1961 adults with a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 (or ≥ 27 kg/m2 with ≥ 1 weight-related co-morbidity) without diabetes to 68 weeks of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (including 16 weeks of dose escalation) or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention. At week 68, treatments (including lifestyle intervention) were discontinued. An off-treatment extension assessed for a further year a representative subset of participants who had completed 68 weeks of treatment. This subset comprised all eligible participants from any site in Canada, Germany and the UK, and sites in the United States and Japan with the highest main phase recruitment. All analyses in the extension were exploratory. RESULTS: Extension analyses included 327 participants. From week 0 to week 68, mean weight loss was 17.3% (SD: 9.3%) with semaglutide and 2.0% (SD: 6.1%) with placebo. Following treatment withdrawal, semaglutide and placebo participants regained 11.6 (SD: 7.7) and 1.9 (SD: 4.8) percentage points of lost weight, respectively, by week 120, resulting in net losses of 5.6% (SD: 8.9%) and 0.1% (SD: 5.8%), respectively, from week 0 to week 120. Cardiometabolic improvements seen from week 0 to week 68 with semaglutide reverted towards baseline at week 120 for most variables. CONCLUSIONS: One year after withdrawal of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg and lifestyle intervention, participants regained two-thirds of their prior weight loss, with similar changes in cardiometabolic variables. Findings confirm the chronicity of obesity and suggest ongoing treatment is required to maintain improvements in weight and health.

Effects of Weight Loss on Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity. Ten-Year Results of the Sleep AHEAD Study.

Rationale: Weight loss is recommended to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).Objectives: To determine whether the initial benefit of intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) for weight loss on OSA severity is maintained at 10 years.Methods: Ten-year follow-up polysomnograms of 134 of 264 adults in Sleep AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) with overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and OSA were randomized to ILI for weight loss or diabetes support and education (DSE).Measurements and Main Results: Change in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was measured. Mean ± SE weight losses of ILI participants of 10.7 ± 0.7, 7.4 ± 0.7, 5.1 ± 0.7, and 7.1 ± 0.8 kg at 1, 2, 4, and 10 years, respectively, were significantly greater than the 1-kg weight loss at 1, 2, and 4 years and 3.5 ± 0.8 kg weight loss at 10 years for the DSE group (P values ≤ 0.0001). AHI was lower with ILI than DSE by 9.7, 8.0, and 7.9 events/h at 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively (P values ≤ 0.0004), and 4.0 events/h at 10 years (P = 0.109). Change in AHI over time was related to amount of weight loss, baseline AHI, visit year (P values < 0.0001), and intervention independent of weight change (P = 0.01). OSA remission at 10 years was more common with ILI (34.4%) than DSE (22.2%).Conclusions: Participants with OSA and type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving ILI for weight loss had reduced OSA severity at 10 years. No difference in OSA severity was present between ILI and DSE groups at 10 years. Improvement in OSA severity over the 10-year period with ILI was related to change in body weight, baseline AHI, and intervention independent of weight change.

Binge size and loss of control as correlates of eating behavior and psychopathology among individuals with binge eating disorder and higher weight.

Studies comparing individuals with loss of control (LOC) eating who do and do not have objectively large binge episodes have found that degree of LOC is more important than binge size to psychological and behavioral outcomes. However, the relative importance of these characteristics has not been investigated in a population with binge eating disorder (BED), who by definition all have objectively large binge episodes. Persons with BED and higher weight (N = 34) were enrolled in a BED treatment trial and completed the Loss of Control Over Eating Scale, the Eating Disorder Examination, and measures of eating behavior, mood, and quality of life. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from measured height and weight. The size of the largest binge episode (measured in kilocalories) and degree of LOC were entered into multiple regression equations to determine their relationships with disordered eating symptoms, depression, quality of life, and BMI in this pilot study. Greater LOC had a stronger independent association than binge size with higher total eating psychopathology, shape dissatisfaction, hunger, food cravings and food addiction symptoms. Larger binge size had a stronger independent association than LOC with higher weight concern and lower general and social quality of life. Both characteristics were associated with higher eating concern and neither were associated with depression or BMI. Both binge size and degree of LOC are associated with important psychosocial treatment targets in patients with BED. Future research should validate the largest binge episode measurement method and replicate the present findings in a larger sample.

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.

Estimating and reporting treatment effects in clinical trials for weight management: using estimands to interpret effects of intercurrent events and missing data.

In the approval process for new weight management therapies, regulators typically require estimates of effect size. Usually, as with other drug evaluations, the placebo-adjusted treatment effect (i.e., the difference between weight losses with pharmacotherapy and placebo, when given as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention) is provided from data in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). At first glance, this may seem appropriate and straightforward. However, weight loss is not a simple direct drug effect, but is also mediated by other factors such as changes in diet and physical activity. Interpreting observed differences between treatment arms in weight management RCTs can be challenging; intercurrent events that occur after treatment initiation may affect the interpretation of results at the end of treatment. Utilizing estimands helps to address these uncertainties and improve transparency in clinical trial reporting by better matching the treatment-effect estimates to the scientific and/or clinical questions of interest. Estimands aim to provide an indication of trial outcomes that might be expected in the same patients under different conditions. This article reviews how intercurrent events during weight management trials can influence placebo-adjusted treatment effects, depending on how they are accounted for and how missing data are handled. The most appropriate method for statistical analysis is also discussed, including assessment of the last observation carried forward approach, and more recent methods, such as multiple imputation and mixed models for repeated measures. The use of each of these approaches, and that of estimands, is discussed in the context of the SCALE phase 3a and 3b RCTs evaluating the effect of liraglutide 3.0 mg for the treatment of obesity.

Effect of Continued Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Placebo on Weight Loss Maintenance in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: The STEP 4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of continuing vs withdrawing treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, on weight loss maintenance in people with overweight or obesity is unknown. Objective: To compare continued once-weekly treatment with subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, with switch to placebo for weight maintenance (both with lifestyle intervention) in adults with overweight or obesity after a 20-week run-in with subcutaneous semaglutide titrated to 2.4 mg weekly. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, 68-week phase 3a withdrawal study conducted at 73 sites in 10 countries from June 2018 to March 2020 in adults with body mass index of at least 30 (or ≥27 with ≥1 weight-related comorbidity) and without diabetes. Interventions: A total of 902 participants received once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide during run-in. After 20 weeks (16 weeks of dose escalation; 4 weeks of maintenance dose), 803 participants (89.0%) who reached the 2.4-mg/wk semaglutide maintenance dose were randomized (2:1) to 48 weeks of continued subcutaneous semaglutide (n = 535) or switched to placebo (n = 268), plus lifestyle intervention in both groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was percent change in body weight from week 20 to week 68; confirmatory secondary end points were changes in waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, and physical functioning (assessed using the Short Form 36 Version 2 Health Survey, Acute Version [SF-36]). Results: Among 803 study participants who completed the 20-week run-in period (with a mean weight loss of 10.6%) and were randomized (mean age, 46 [SD, 12] years; 634 [79%] women; mean body weight, 107.2 kg [SD, 22.7 kg]), 787 participants (98.0%) completed the trial and 741 (92.3%) completed treatment. With continued semaglutide, mean body weight change from week 20 to week 68 was -7.9% vs +6.9% with the switch to placebo (difference, -14.8 [95% CI, -16.0 to -13.5] percentage points; P < .001). Waist circumference (-9.7 cm [95% CI, -10.9 to -8.5 cm]), systolic blood pressure (-3.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.8 to -2.0 mm Hg]), and SF-36 physical functioning score (2.5 [95% CI, 1.6-3.3]) also improved with continued subcutaneous semaglutide vs placebo (all P < .001). Gastrointestinal events were reported in 49.1% of participants who continued subcutaneous semaglutide vs 26.1% with placebo; similar proportions discontinued treatment because of adverse events with continued semaglutide (2.4%) and placebo (2.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity who completed a 20-week run-in period with subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg once weekly, maintaining treatment with semaglutide compared with switching to placebo resulted in continued weight loss over the following 48 weeks. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03548987.

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.

Who's a good boy? Effects of dog and owner body weight on veterinarian perceptions and treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Weight bias against persons with obesity impairs health care delivery and utilization and contributes to poorer health outcomes. Despite rising rates of pet obesity (including among dogs), the potential for weight bias in veterinary settings has not been examined. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In two online, 2 × 2 experimental studies, the effects of dog and owner body weight on perceptions and treatment recommendations were investigated in 205 practicing veterinarians (Study 1) and 103 veterinary students (Study 2). In both studies, participants were randomly assigned to view one of four vignettes of a dog and owners with varying weight statuses (lean vs. obesity). Dependent measures included emotion/liking ratings toward the dog and owners; perceived causes of the dog's weight; and treatment recommendations and compliance expectations. Other clinical practices, such as terms to describe excess weight in dogs, were also assessed. RESULTS: Veterinarians and students both reported feeling more blame, frustration, and disgust toward dogs with obesity and their owners than toward lean dogs and their owners (p values < 0.001). Interactions between dog and owner body weight emerged for perceived causes of obesity, such that owners with obesity were perceived as causing the dog with obesity's weight, while lean owners were perceived as causing the lean dog's weight. Participants were pessimistic about treatment compliance from owners of the dog with obesity, and weight loss treatment was recommended for the dog with obesity when presenting with a medical condition ambiguous in its relationship to weight. Veterinarians and students also reported use of stigmatizing terms to describe excess weight in dogs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this investigation, with replication, have implications for training and practice guidelines in veterinary medicine.

Effects of liraglutide on appetite, food preoccupation, and food liking: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Some weight loss medications, including liraglutide 3.0 mg, are thought to facilitate weight loss by improving appetite control. However, no studies have evaluated their long-term appetitive effects. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This study examined changes in appetite in a subsample of 113 adults with obesity (76.1% female, 55.8% white, BMI = 38.8 ± 4.8 kg/m2) who participated in a 52-week trial. Participants were randomized to intensive behavioral therapy alone (IBT-alone), IBT with liraglutide 3.0 mg/day (IBT-liraglutide), or IBT-liraglutide combined with a 12-week meal replacement diet (Multi-component). Participants rated their hunger, fullness after meals, liking of meals, and food preoccupation (all as experienced over the past week) using visual analogue scales (0-100 mm). Ratings were completed at baseline and eight subsequent visits over the year. RESULTS: At week 52, participants treated by IBT-alone lost 6.2 ± 1.6% of baseline weight, compared with 11.8 ± 1.6% and 12.1 ± 1.5% in the IBT-liraglutide and Multi-component groups, respectively. Compared to IBT-alone, IBT-liraglutide participants reported larger reductions at week 6 in hunger (-0.3 ± 4.2 vs -16.8 ± 4.0 mm, p = .005) and food preoccupation (+0.2 ± 3.7 vs -16.3 ± 3.6 mm, p = .002) and larger increases in fullness (-5.1 ± 3.2 vs +9.8 ± 3.0 mm, p = .001). These significant differences persisted at all assessments through week 24. There were no differences between IBT-alone and IBT-liraglutide in meal liking. IBT-alone and Multi-component participants differed in hunger at week 6, and in food preoccupation at all assessments through week 24. Multi-component participants reported reduced liking of meals relative to the IBT-alone and IBT-liraglutide groups through weeks 40 and 52, respectively. There were no other differences among any groups at week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with short-term studies, IBT-liraglutide participants reported greater improvements in hunger, fullness, and food preoccupation than those assigned to IBT-alone. Differences in appetite persisted for 24 weeks but were not maintained at week 52, despite the relatively greater weight losses in the liraglutide-treated participants at the trial's end.

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.

An evaluation of food addiction as a distinct psychiatric disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the state of the literature for whether food addiction may warrant consideration as a distinct psychiatric disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) using Blashfield et al.'s (1990; Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31(1), 15-19) five criteria. This framework was utilized because it has recently been applied to examine the diagnostic utility of several eating disorder phenotypes. The criteria are: (a) at least 50 journal articles published on the proposed syndrome in the past 10 years; (b) proposal of diagnostic criteria and assessment measures; (c) clinician reliability in diagnosis; (d) cohesiveness of the proposed diagnostic criteria; and (e) differentiation from similar, existing diagnostic categories. METHOD: For each criterion, a literature review was conducted to examine if the minimum qualification had been met, and key findings were discussed. RESULTS: Two of the criteria (literature and differentiation) have been empirically supported to extent specified. Two criteria (diagnostic criteria and syndrome) have been partially fulfilled, due to only having self-report assessment measures and no examination of the odds ratios for meeting more than one symptom, respectively. Clinician reliability has not yet been evaluated. DISCUSSION: The existing literature suggests that food addiction may warrant consideration as a proposed diagnostic category in the DSM, though future research is needed to fulfill Blashfield et al.'s (1990; Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31(1), 15-19) criteria. The development of a semi-structured interview would be an impactful contribution for addressing these gaps.

Associations between causal attributions for obesity and long-term weight loss.

Obesity is a complex disease caused by a wide array of behavioral, biological, and environmental factors. However, obesity is often attributed to oversimplified and stigmatizing causal factors such as laziness, lack of willpower, and failure to take personal responsibility for one's health. Understanding of the causal factors that contribute to obesity among people with obesity may affect their weight management efforts. The current study explored associations between causal attributions for obesity and long-term weight loss, as well as examined potential changes in attributions with weight reduction. The 16-item Causal Attributions for Obesity scale (rated 1-7) was administered to 178 patients seeking behavioral/pharmacological weight-loss treatment. Causal attributions and weight were assessed at baseline, after 14 weeks of a low-calorie diet, and again at weeks 24 and 52 of a subsequent randomized trial (i.e., 66 weeks total). Logistic and linear regression examined effects of baseline causal attribution ratings on weight loss. Higher baseline ratings of personal responsibility attributions predicted 38% reduced odds of achieving ≥10% weight loss at week 52 (p = 0.02). Causal attribution ratings did not change over time or correlate continuously with weight change. Thus, attributing obesity to a failure of personal responsibility may impair long-term weight management efforts for individuals seeking ≥10% weight loss. Targeted techniques are needed to reduce patients' stigmatizing beliefs about the causes of obesity.