MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991778481 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.7.761

Effect of Rimonabant, a Cannabinoid-1 Receptor Blocker, on Weight and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Overweight or Obese Patients

2006· article· en· W1991778481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Xavier Pi‐Sunyer, Louis J. Aronne, Hassan Heshmati, Jeanne Devin, Julio Rosenstock, for the RIO-North America Study Group

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRimonabantMedicinePlaceboOverweightBody mass indexInternal medicineDyslipidemiaWaistObesityCannabinoid receptorAntagonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Rimonabant, a selective cannabinoid-1 receptor blocker, may reduce body weight and improve cardiometabolic risk factors in patients who are overweight or obese. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of rimonabant with placebo each in conjunction with diet and exercise for sustained changes in weight and cardiometabolic risk factors over 2 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 3045 obese (body mass index > or =30) or overweight (body mass index >27 and treated or untreated hypertension or dyslipidemia) adult patients at 64 US and 8 Canadian clinical research centers from August 2001 to April 2004. INTERVENTION: After a 4-week single-blind placebo plus diet (600 kcal/d deficit) run-in period, patients were randomized to receive placebo, 5 mg/d of rimonabant, or 20 mg/d of rimonabant for 1 year. Rimonabant-treated patients were rerandomized to receive placebo or continued to receive the same rimonabant dose while the placebo group continued to receive placebo during year 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Body weight change over year 1 and prevention of weight regain during year 2. Additional efficacy measures included changes in waist circumference, plasma lipid levels, and other cardiometabolic risk factors. RESULTS: At year 1, the completion rate was 309 (51%) patients in the placebo group, 620 (51%) patients in the 5 mg of rimonabant group, and 673 (55%) patients in the 20 mg of rimonabant group. Compared with the placebo group, the 20 mg of rimonabant group produced greater mean (SEM) reductions in weight (-6.3 [0.2] kg vs -1.6 [0.2] kg; P<.001), waist circumference (-6.1 [0.2] cm vs -2.5 [0.3] cm; P<.001), and level of triglycerides (percentage change, -5.3 [1.2] vs 7.9 [2.0]; P<.001) and a greater increase in level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (percentage change, 12.6 [0.5] vs 5.4 [0.7]; P<.001). Patients who were switched from the 20 mg of rimonabant group to the placebo group during year 2 experienced weight regain while those who continued to receive 20 mg of rimonabant maintained their weight loss and favorable changes in cardiometabolic risk factors. Use of different imputation methods to account for the high rate of dropouts in all 3 groups yielded similar results. Rimonabant was generally well tolerated; the most common drug-related adverse event was nausea (11.2% for the 20 mg of rimonabant group vs 5.8% for the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter trial, treatment with 20 mg/d of rimonabant plus diet for 2 years promoted modest but sustained reductions in weight and waist circumference and favorable changes in cardiometabolic risk factors. However, the trial was limited by a high drop-out rate and longer-term effects of the drug require further study. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00029861.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,222
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207