A comparative study of five centrally acting drugs on the pharmacological treatment of obesity.

CONTEXT: No long-term studies have compared centrally acting drugs for treating obesity. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of diethylpropion (DEP), fenproporex (FEN), mazindol (MZD), fluoxetine (FXT) and sibutramine (SIB) in promoting weight loss. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective, randomized, placebo (PCB)-controlled study conducted at a single academic institution. PATIENTS: A total of 174 obese premenopausal women. INTERVENTION: Participants randomly received DEP 75 mg (n=28), FEN 25 mg (n=29), MZD 2 mg (n=29), SIB 15 mg (n=30), FXT 20 mg (n=29) or PCB (n=29) daily over 52 weeks. Diet and physical activity were encouraged. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoints were changes in body weight and the proportion of women who achieved at least 5% weight loss by week 52 in the intent-to-treat population. Other measurements included anthropometry, safety, metabolic and cardiovascular parameters. RESULTS: Weight loss was greater than PCB (-3.1±4.3 kg) with DEP (-10.0±6.4 kg; P<0.001), SIB (-9.5±5.9 kg; P<0.001), FEN (-7.8±6.9 kg; P<0.01) and MZD (-7.4±4.9 kg; P<0.01) but not with FXT (-2.5±4.1 kg). Ten (33.3%) women lost⩾5% of their initial weight with PCB, compared with 20 (71.4%; P<0.001) with DEP, 20 (69%; P<0.02) with FEN, 21 (72.4%; P<0.01) with MZD, 22 (73.3%; P<0.001) with SIB and 10 (35.5%) with FXT. Each medically treated group experienced more adverse events compared with PCB (P<0.001). Compared with PCB, constipation was more prevalent with DEP, SIB and MZD (P<0.01); anxiety was more prevalent with DEP (P=0.01); and irritability occurred more frequently with DEP and FEN (P=0.02). Significant improvements in the depression and anxiety scores, binge-eating episodes and quality of life correlated with weight loss. CONCLUSION: The centrally acting drugs DEP, FEN, MZD and SIB were more effective than PCB in promoting weight loss in obese premenopausal women, with a satisfactory benefit-risk profile.

Targeting adenosine receptors in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that adenosine plays a role in the pathogenesis of asthma and rhinitis; however, it is currently unclear whether adenosine receptors are useful therapeutic targets in the treatment of allergic airway diseases. OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the efficacy of intranasal treatment with an adenosine A(2A) receptor agonist/adenosine A(3) receptor antagonist (50 micro g), administered twice daily for 7 days, to reduce nasal symptoms and release of inflammatory mediators following intranasal allergen challenge in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). The compound was compared with twice-daily treatment with intranasal fluticasone proprionate nasal spray (FPANS) for 7 days. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-way balanced, incomplete block, crossover study was conducted on 48 males with verified AR. Following intranasal challenge with either an extract from the house dust mite (HDM), Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, rye grass or cat dander, nasal responses and the concentrations of albumin, tryptase, myeloperoxidase, eosinophilic cationic protein, epithelial neutrophil-activating protein-78 (ENA-78), IL-5 and IL-8 in nasal secretions were measured and treatment groups were compared. RESULTS: Drug improved nasal blockage but had no significant effect on rhinorrhoea, number of sneezes or peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements when compared with placebo. Drug reduced tryptase release after EAR but did not significantly reduce the levels of other mediators. CONCLUSION: A novel agonist/antagonist of adenosine A(2A) and A(3) receptors appears to have limited clinical benefit in both the early-phase and the late-phase response to intranasal allergen challenge. However, reduction of some pro-inflammatory mediators suggests that comparable, more selective compounds may have additional benefits meriting further investigation.