Dataset Information

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

Many companies provide genetic tests for obesity-related polymorphisms (nutrigenetics) and make dietary recommendations for weight loss that are based on the results. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether more participants who followed a nutrigenetic-guided diet lost ≥5% of their body weight than participants on a standard balanced diet for 8 and 24 weeks.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of 51 obese or overweight U.S. veterans on an established weight management program at the Veterans Administration San Diego Healthcare System (the MOVE! program). Participants were randomly assigned to groups placed on a nutrigenetic-guided diet (balanced, low-carbohydrate, low-fat, or Mediterranean; n = 30) or a standard balanced diet (n = 21). Nutrigenetic diets were selected on the basis of results from the Pathway FIT test.

Results

There was no significant difference in the percentage of participants on the balanced diet vs the nutrigenetic-guided diet who lost 5% of their body weight at 8 weeks (35.0% ± 20.9% vs 26.9% ± 17.1%, respectively; P = .28) or at 24 weeks. Both groups had difficulty adhering to the diets. However, adherence to the nutrigenetic-guided diet correlated with weight loss (r = 0.74; P = 4.0 × 10(-5)), but not adherence to standard therapy (r = 0.34; P = .23). Participants who had low-risk polymorphisms for obesity lost more weight than all other participants at 8 weeks (5.0% vs 2.9%, respectively; P = .02) and had significantly greater reductions in body mass index (6.4% vs 3.6%, respectively; P = .03) and waist circumference (6.5% vs 2.6%, respectively; P = .02) at 24 weeks.

Conclusions

In a prospective study, a nutrigenetic-based diet did not increase weight loss compared with a standard balanced diet. However, genetic features can identify individuals most likely to benefit from a balanced diet weight loss strategy; these findings require further investigation. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01859403.

SUBMITTER: Frankwich KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4546861 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Frankwich Karen A KA Egnatios Jeremy J Kenyon Mandy L ML Rutledge Thomas R TR Liao Patricia S PS Gupta Samir S Herbst Karen L KL Zarrinpar Amir A

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 20150310 9

<h4>Background & aims</h4>Many companies provide genetic tests for obesity-related polymorphisms (nutrigenetics) and make dietary recommendations for weight loss that are based on the results. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether more participants who followed a nutrigenetic-guided diet lost ≥5% of their body weight than participants on a standard balanced diet for 8 and 24 weeks.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a prospective study of 51 obese or overweight U.S. veterans o ...[more]

PMID: 25769412

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLifestyle interventions have shown to be effective when continuous personal support was provided. However, there is lack of knowledge whether a telemedical-approach with personal coaching contributes to long-term weight losses in overweight employees. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis that telemedical-based lifestyle interventions accompanied with telemedical coaching lead to larger weight losses in overweight persons in an occupational health care setting.MethodsOverweight employees (n=180) with a body mass index (BMI) of >27 kg/m2 were randomized into either a telemedical (TM) group (n=61), a telemedical coaching (TMC) group (n=58), or a control group (n=61). Both intervention groups were equipped with scales and pedometers automatically transferring the data into a personalized online portal, which could be monitored from participants and coaches. Participants of the TMC group received additionally one motivational care call per week by mental coaches to discuss the current data (current weight and steps) and achieving goals such as a healthy lifestyle or weight reduction. The control group remained in routine care. Clinical and anthropometric data were determined after the 12-week intervention. Additionally, weight change was followed up after 12 months.ResultsParticipants of TMC (-3.1 ± 4.8 kg, p<0.0001) and TM group (-1.9 ± 4.0 kg; p=0.0012) significantly reduced weight and sustained it during the 1-year follow-up, while the control group showed no change. Compared to the control group only weight loss in the TMC group was significantly different (p<0.001) after 12 months. TMC and TM group also reduced BMI, waist circumference, and LDL cholesterol. Moreover, TMC group improved additionally systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and HbA1c.ConclusionsTelemedical devices in combination with telemedical coaching lead to significant long-term weight reductions in overweight persons in an occupational health care setting. This study is registered with NCT01868763, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:ImportanceObesity is a disease with a large socioeconomic burden. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive endoscopic bariatric procedure with wide global adoption. More recently, new weight-loss medications, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (eg, semaglutide), have attracted increased attention due to their efficacy. However, their cost-effectiveness over an extended period compared with ESG is a critical gap that needs to be better explored for informed health care decision-making.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide compared with ESG over 5 years for individuals with class II obesity.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation study, conducted from September 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023, used a Markov cohort model to compare ESG and semaglutide, with a no-treatment baseline strategy. The study comprised adult patients in the US health care system with class II obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 35-39.9). The base case was a 45-year-old patient with class II obesity (BMI of 37). Patients undergoing ESG were subjected to risks of perioperative mortality and adverse events with resultant costs and decrement in quality of life.InterventionsStrategies included treatment with semaglutide and ESG.Main outcomes and measuresCosts (2022 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. A 5-year time horizon with a cycle length of 1 month with a 3% discount rate was used. Probabilities, costs, and quality-of-life estimates of the model were derived from published literature. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.ResultsThe model found that ESG was more cost-effective than semaglutide over a 5-year time horizon, with an ICER of -$595 532/QALY. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty added 0.06 QALYs and reduced total cost by $33 583 relative to semaglutide. The results remained robust on 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty sustained greater weight loss over 5 years vs semaglutide (BMI of 31.7 vs 33.0). To achieve nondominance, the annual price of semaglutide, currently $13 618, would need to be $3591.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that ESG is cost saving compared with semaglutide in the treatment of class II obesity. On price threshold analyses, a 3-fold decrease in the price of semaglutide is needed to achieve nondominance.

Project description:BackgroundSome popular weight loss diets restricting carbohydrates (CHO) claim to be more effective, and have additional health benefits in preventing cardiovascular disease compared to balanced weight loss diets.Methods and findingsWe compared the effects of low CHO and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets in overweight and obese adults assessed in randomised controlled trials (minimum follow-up of 12 weeks), and summarised the effects on weight, as well as cardiovascular and diabetes risk. Dietary criteria were derived from existing macronutrient recommendations. We searched Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL (19 March 2014). Analysis was stratified by outcomes at 3-6 months and 1-2 years, and participants with diabetes were analysed separately. We evaluated dietary adherence and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We calculated mean differences (MD) and performed random-effects meta-analysis. Nineteen trials were included (n = 3209); 3 had adequate allocation concealment. In non-diabetic participants, our analysis showed little or no difference in mean weight loss in the two groups at 3-6 months (MD 0.74 kg, 95%CI -1.49 to 0.01 kg; I2 = 53%; n = 1745, 14 trials; moderate quality evidence) and 1-2 years (MD 0.48 kg, 95%CI -1.44 kg to 0.49 kg; I2 = 12%; n = 1025; 7 trials, moderate quality evidence). Furthermore, little or no difference was detected at 3-6 months and 1-2 years for blood pressure, LDL, HDL and total cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting blood glucose (>914 participants). In diabetic participants, findings showed a similar pattern.ConclusionsTrials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.

Dataset Information

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background & aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets