METHODS: Seventy-six obese subjects were randomly placed into two groups. The first group received three daily 120 mg dosages of orlistat for nine months (n=39), and the second group received a once daily 10 or 15 mg dosage of sibutramine for nine months (n=37). Baseline measurements for weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), body fat percentage (BF), visceral fat (VF), adiponectin, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting insulin, pancreatic B cell secretory capacity (HOMA%B), insulin sensitivity (HOMA%S), insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and serum high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were performed and repeated during the sixth and ninth months of treatment.
RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed the trial in both groups. For both groups, weight, BMI, WC, BF, VF, HOMA-IR and hs-CRP were significantly lower at the end of the nine month intervention. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups for these parameters with nine months treatment. There was a significant decrease in FPG in orlistat group; while fasting insulin and HOMA%B reduced in sibutramine group. For both groups, there were also significant increases in adiponectin levels and HOMA%S at the end of the nine month intervention.
CONCLUSION: Nine months of treatment with orlistat and sibutramine not only reduced weight but also significantly improved BMI, WC, BF, VF, FPG, adiponectin, fasting insulin, HOMA%B, HOMA%S, HOMA-IR and hs-CRP. These improvements could prove useful in the reduction of metabolic and cardiovascular risks in obese subjects.
Methods: Analyses were performed on 243 women (mean body mass index 31.27 ± 4.14 kg/m2) who completed a 12-month lifestyle intervention in low socioeconomic communities in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare changes of cardiometabolic risk factors across weight change categories (2% gain, ±2% maintain, >2 to <5% loss, and 5 to 20% loss) within intervention and control group.
Results: A graded association for changes in waist circumference, fasting insulin, and total cholesterol (p=0.002, for all variables) across the weight change categories were observed within the intervention group at six months postintervention. Participants who lost 5 to 20% of weight had the greatest improvements in those risk markers (-5.67 cm CI: -7.98 to -3.36, -4.27 μU/mL CI: -7.35, -1.19, and -0.59 mmol/L CI: -.99, -0.19, respectively) compared to those who did not. Those who lost >2% to <5% weight reduced more waist circumference (-4.24 cm CI: -5.44 to -3.04) and fasting insulin (-0.36 μU/mL CI: -1.95 to 1.24) than those who maintained or gained weight. No significant association was detected in changes of risk markers across the weight change categories within the control group except for waist circumference and adiponectin.
Conclusion: Weight loss of >2 to <5% obtained through lifestyle intervention may represent a reasonable initial weight loss target for women in the low socioeconomic community as it led to improvements in selected risk markers, particularly of diabetes risk.