A 6-month randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of topiramate for weight loss in obesity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate (TPM) for weight loss in healthy obese subjects. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial was conducted. Three hundred eighty-five subjects, 18 and 75 years of age, were randomized to receive either placebo or TPM at 64, 96, 192, or 384 mg daily. Dosing began at 16 mg once daily. In week 2, the dose was increased to 16 mg twice daily. Thereafter, the dose was raised every week by 32 mg/d (16 mg twice daily) until subjects reached their target dose. Twenty-four weeks after beginning treatment, all subjects were tapered off treatment by a dose reduction of 50% per week. All participants received the same lifestyle program. RESULTS: Mean percent weight loss from baseline to week 24 was -2.6% in placebo-treated patients vs. -5.0%, -4.8%, -6.3%, and -6.3% in the 64, 96, 192, and 384 mg/d TPM groups, respectively. Greater percentages of TPM-treated patients lost at least 5% or 10% of body weight compared with placebo. The most frequent adverse events were related to the central or peripheral nervous system, including paresthesia, somnolence, and difficulty with memory, concentration, and attention. Most events were dose-related, occurred early in treatment, and usually resolved spontaneously; only 21% receiving TPM withdrew due to adverse events compared with 11% on placebo. DISCUSSION: TPM produced significantly greater weight loss than placebo at all doses.

A meta-analytic approach to an integrated summary of efficacy: a case study of becaplermin gel.

This paper presents a case study involving a meta-analytic approach for an integrated summary of efficacy based upon four phase II and III clinical trials that comprised the basis for a Biologics License Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of becaplermin gel. There were substantial variations in observed response rates across the four studies that were of concern to regulatory agencies. Due to these variations and because there were various treatment combinations in the four trials, standard statistical methods for an integrated analysis of efficacy were problematic. A meta-analytic model that focused on the variations of concern was employed to permit a suitable integrated analysis. The resulting integrated analysis clarified response rate variability and provided accurate estimates of treatment effects based upon the four clinical trials. While this meta-analysis was viewed by neither regulators nor the sponsor as a confirmatory analysis, it was seen by both regulators and sponsor as strongly supportive of the efficacy of becaplermin gel.