Weight Loss Interventions as Treatment of Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome. A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is an undesirable consequence of obesity. Weight loss is an important component of management based on clinical rationale, but the evidence supporting weight loss has not been summarized and the optimal approach has not been determined. Objectives This systematic review informed an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts who had converged to develop a clinical practice guideline on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. The panel asked, “Should a weight loss intervention be performed in patients with OHS?” Methods Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from January 1946 to March 2019 for studies that assessed weight loss interventions in obese adults with confirmed OHS, suspected OHS, or hypercapnia. The quality of the evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The search identified 2,994 articles. Six studies were selected, including two randomized trials and four nonrandomized studies without a comparator. Sample size ranged from 16 to 63 subjects. The studies found that a comprehensive weight loss program (including motivational counseling, dieting, and exercise) can reduce weight by 6% to 7% but confers no clinically significant effects compared with standard care. Bariatric surgery, on the other hand, is associated with more robust weight loss (15–64.6%, depending on the type of intervention), reduction of obstructive sleep apnea severity (18–44% reduction of the apnea–hypopnea index), and improvement in gas exchange (17–20% reduction in partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the arterial blood), ultimately leading to the resolution of OHS. Moreover, daytime sleepiness and pulmonary artery pressure also improve with significant weight loss. Bariatric surgery is associated with adverse effects in roughly one-fifth of patients, but serious adverse effects are very rare. The level of certainty in the estimated effects was very low for most outcomes. Conclusions The guideline panel for which the systematic review was performed made a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation suggesting a weight loss intervention for patients with OHS, targeting a sustained weight loss of 25% to 30% of actual body weight. This recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence. Although the weight loss target is based on the observation that greater weight loss is associated with better outcomes, there is a need for better-quality studies to ascertain the degree of weight loss necessary to achieve improvement in clinically relevant outcomes in patients with OHS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".