Efficacy and Safety of Rimonabant for Improvement of Multiple Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Overweight/Obese Patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To better define the efficacy and safety of rimonabant, the first selective cannabinoid type 1 (CB(1)) receptor antagonist, in a large population of overweight and obese patients using pooled efficacy data from three Phase III nondiabetes Rimonabant in Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders (RIO) studies, selected efficacy data from the RIO-Diabetes study, and pooled safety data for all four RIO studies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The RIO studies enrolled patients who were either overweight (BMI >27 kg/m(2)) with at least one comorbidity (i.e., hypertension, dyslipidemia, or, for RIO-Diabetes, type 2 diabetes) or obese. All patients received daily treatment with rimonabant (5 or 20 mg) or placebo for 1 year plus a hypocaloric diet (600 kcal/day deficit) and advice on increased physical activity. RIO-Europe (n = 1,508), RIO-North America (n = 3,045), and RIO-Lipids (n = 1,036) excluded patients with type 2 diabetes; untreated dyslipidemia was an entry requirement for RIO-Lipids. RIO-Diabetes (n = 1,047) required the presence of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy. RESULTS: The pooled intention-to-treat population comprised 5,580 patients without diabetes (3,165 completed treatment) and 1,047 patients with diabetes (692 completed treatment). Most efficacy measures improved during the 4-week placebo run-in period, except that HDL cholesterol decreased as expected in the early phase of a hypocaloric diet. After 1 year of randomized treatment, changes from baseline with 20 mg rimonabant in the nondiabetic population were as follows: body weight -6.5 kg, waist circumference -6.4 cm, HDL cholesterol +16.4%, triglycerides -6.9%, fasting insulin -0.6 muU/ml, and homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) -0.2 (all P < 0.001 vs. placebo). In the diabetic population, 20 mg rimonabant reduced A1C levels by 0.6% (P < 0.001 vs. placebo). Regression analysis of change in HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, adiponectin (in RIO-Lipids), and A1C (in RIO-Diabetes) versus body weight at 1 year by ANCOVA suggested that 45-57% of the effect of rimonabant could not be explained by the observed weight loss. At 1 year, adverse events more frequently reported with rimonabant were gastrointestinal, neurological, and psychiatric in nature. Serious adverse events were infrequent and almost equivalent to placebo. Overall discontinuation rates were similar across treatment groups, except discontinuation from adverse events, which occurred more frequently with 20 mg rimonabant versus placebo (most commonly, depressive disorders [1.9 vs. 0.8%], nausea [1.4 vs. 0.1%], mood alterations with depressive symptoms [1.0 vs. 0.6%], and anxiety [1.0 vs. 0.3%]). A thorough review of psychiatric and neurological adverse events was performed. CONCLUSIONS: In overweight/obese patients, 20 mg/day rimonabant produced weight loss and significant improvements in multiple cardiometabolic risk factors such as waist circumference, A1C, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. Rimonabant was generally well tolerated, with more frequently reported adverse events being gastrointestinal, neurological, and psychiatric in nature.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».