Weight loss and persistence with liraglutide 3.0 mg by obesity class in the real‐world effectiveness study in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Objective Liraglutide 3.0 mg is associated with clinically significant weight loss in clinical trials, but real‐world data are lacking. In this analysis, weight loss and persistence outcomes with liraglutide 3.0 mg were assessed across obesity classes, in a real‐world clinical setting. Methods Secondary analysis of an observational, retrospective study of liraglutide 3.0 mg for weight management (as adjunct to diet and exercise) at six Wharton Medical Clinics in Canada. Patients were categorized by body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) into obesity class I (BMI 30–34.9); class II (BMI 35–39.9); and class III (BMI ≥40). Change in weight, categorical weight loss, time to maintenance dose (defined as the time to reach the full liraglutide 3.0 mg maintenance dose) and persistence were assessed for each class and for differences between classes. Results Of 308 patients, 70 (22.7%) had obesity class I, 83 (26.9%) obesity class II and 155 (50.3%) obesity class III. Similar percentage change in weight was observed between obesity classes (mean [standard deviation, SD]: −7.0% [6.0], −6.6% [6.0] and −6.1% [5.0], respectively; p = .640), and similar proportions achieved ≥5% weight loss (60.4%, 62.0% and 55.3%, respectively; p = .717) at 6 months. Mean time to maintenance dose (SD) was 64.2 (56.4) d, 76.4 (56.3) d and 71.4 (54.5) d for obesity classes I, II and III, respectively (p = .509). Persistence with medication was also similar between obesity classes (p = .358). Conclusions These findings suggest that real‐world treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg, regardless of obesity class, is associated with similar clinically significant weight loss, time to maintenance dose and medication persistence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".