No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveDietary supplements and alternative therapies are commercialized as a panacea for obesity/weight gain as a result of the minimal regulatory requirements in demonstrating efficacy. These products may indirectly undermine the value of guideline‐driven obesity treatments. Included in this study is a systematic review of the literature of purported dietary supplements and alternative therapies for weight loss.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of dietary supplements and alternative therapies for weight loss in participants aged ≥18 years. Searches of Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase (Ovid) were conducted. Risk of bias and results were summarized qualitatively.ResultsOf the 20,504 citations retrieved in the database search, 1,743 full‐text articles were reviewed, 315 of which were randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of 14 purported dietary supplements, therapies, or a combination thereof. Risk of bias and sufficiency of data varied widely. Few studies (n = 52 [16.5%]) were classified as low risk and sufficient to support efficacy. Of these, only 16 (31%) noted significant pre/post intergroup differences in weight (range: 0.3‐4.93 kg).ConclusionsDietary supplements and alternative therapies for weight loss have a limited high‐quality evidence base of efficacy. Practitioners and patients should be aware of the scientific evidence of claims before recommending use.

This study aimed to assess whether diabetes mellitus (DM) or obesity is an independent risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes and to explore whether the risk conferred by one condition is modified by the other. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of inpatient adults with COVID-19 used multivariable Cox regression to determine the independent effects of DM and obesity on the composite outcome of intubation, intensive care unit admission, or in-hospital mortality. Effect modification between DM and obesity was assessed with a statistical interaction term and an exploration of stratum-specific effects. Results: Out of 3,533 patients, a total of 1,134 (32%) had DM, 1,256 (36%) had obesity, and 430 (12%) had both. DM and obesity were independently associated with the composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14 [95% CI: 1.01-1.30] and HR 1.22 [95% CI: 1.05-1.43], respectively). A statistical trend for potential interaction between DM and obesity was observed (P = 0.20). Stratified analyses showed potential increased risk with obesity compared with normal weight among patients with DM (HR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.04-1.74]) and patients without DM (HR 1.18 [95% CI: 0.96-1.43]). Conclusions: DM and obesity are independent risk factors associated with COVID-19 severity. Stratified analyses suggest that obesity may confer greater risk to patients with DM compared with patients without DM, and this relationship requires further exploration.

Metreleptin's approval for generalized lipodystrophy is the first step in defining and expanding its role to other metabolic diseases. Clinical trials are underway to delineate its efficacy in FPLD, human immunodeficiency virus/highly active anti-retroviral therapy-associated acquired lipodystrophy (HAL), and NAFLD. Additionally, there is growing data that support a therapeutic role in obesity. One of the barriers to development, however, is metreleptin's safety and immunogenicity. Further advances in biologic compatibility are required before metreleptin can be approved for additional indications.

No abstract

No abstract