SLIMMING DRUG NOT MUCH HELP

From the Cochrane Library

Background
Worldwide, the prevalence of obesity and overweight in industrialized countries and in a substantial number of developing countries is increasing at an alarming rate. Rimonabant is a selective cannabinoid-1 receptor antagonist that has been investigated for its efficacy in reducing body weight and associated risk factors in obese people. Phase III trials are now under way to test the use of rimonabant for long-term weight-loss. Given the prevalence of overweight and obesity, it is important to establish the efficacy and safety of rimonabant.

Objectives
To assess the effects of rimonabant in overweight and obese people.

Search strategy
MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, LILACS, databases of ongoing trials and reference lists were used to identify relevant trials. The last search was conducted in June 2006.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials comparing rimonabant with placebo or other weight loss interventions in overweight or obese adults.

Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers independently assessed all potentially relevant citations for inclusion and methodological quality. The primary outcome measures were weight loss change, morbidity and adverse effects occurrence.

Main results
Four studies evaluating rimonabant 20 mg versus rimonabant 5 mg versus placebo in addition to a hypocaloric diet lasting at least one year were included. Compared with placebo, rimonabant 20 mg produced a 4.9 kg greater reduction in body weight in trials with one-year results. Improvements in waist circumference, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride levels and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were also seen. However, the results with rimonabant 5 mg demonstrated a weight reduction which was only 1.3 kg greater when compared with placebo. No clinically relevant effects on plasma lipids and blood pressure were found. Rimonabant 20 mg caused significant more adverse effects both of general and serious nature, especially of nervous system, psychiatric or gastro-intestinal origin. Attrition rates were approximately 40% at the end of one year.

Authors' conclusions
The use of rimonabant after one year produces modest weight loss of approximately 5%. Even modest amounts of weight loss may be potentially beneficial. The observed results should be interpreted with some caution, though, since the evaluated studies presented some deficiencies in methodological quality. Studies with longer follow-ups after the end of treatment and of more rigorous quality should be done before definitive recommendations can be made regarding the role of this new medication in the management of overweight or obese patients.




SOY MILK NO SAFER THAN COWS' MILK

From the Cochrane Library

Background
Allergies and food reactions in infants and children are common and may be associated with a variety of foods including adapted cow's milk formula. Soy based formulas have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance. However, it is unclear whether they can help prevent allergy and food intolerance in infants without clinical evidence of allergy or food intolerance.

Objectives
To determine the effect of feeding adapted soy formula compared to human milk, cow's milk formula or a hydrolysed protein formula on preventing allergy or food intolerance in infants without clinical evidence of allergy or food intolerance.

Search strategy
The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. Updated searches were performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - March 2006), EMBASE (1980 - March 2006), CINAHL (1982 - March 2006) and previous reviews including cross references.

Selection criteria
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compare the use of an adapted soy formula to human milk, an adapted cow's milk or a hydrolysed protein formula for feeding infants without clinical allergy or food intolerance in the first six months of life. Only trials with > 80% follow up of participants and reported in group of assignment were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis
Eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction were assessed independently by each review author. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergies and food intolerance. Where no heterogeneity of treatment effect was found, the fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis. Where significant or apparent heterogeneity was found, results were reported using the random effects model and potential causes of the heterogeneity were sought.

Main results
Three eligible studies enrolling high risk infants with a history of allergy in a first degree relative were included. No eligible study enrolled infants fed human milk. No study examined the effect of early, short term soy formula feeding. All compared prolonged soy formula to cow's milk formula feeding. One study was of adequate methodology and without unbalanced allergy preventing co-interventions in treatment groups. One study with unclear allocation concealment and 19.5% losses reported a significant reduction in infant allergy, asthma and allergic rhinitis. However, no other study reported any significant benefits from the use of a soy formula. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in childhood allergy incidence (2 studies; typical RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37, 1.44). No significant difference was reported in one study in infant asthma (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86, 1.40), infant eczema (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95, 1.52), childhood eczema prevalence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73, 1.68), infant rhinitis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76, 1.16) or childhood rhinitis prevalence (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73, 2.00). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in childhood asthma incidence (3 studies, 728 infants; typical RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26, 1.92), childhood eczema incidence (2 studies, 283 infants; typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.90, 2.75) or childhood rhinitis incidence (2 studies, 283 infants; typical RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.06, 8.00). One study reported no significant difference in infant CMPI (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45, 2.62), infant CMA (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.24, 4.86), childhood soy protein allergy incidence (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.36, 29.17) and urticaria. No study compared soy formula to hydrolysed protein formula.

Authors' conclusions
Feeding with a soy formula cannot be recommended for prevention of allergy or food intolerance in infants at high risk of allergy or food intolerance. Further research may be warranted to determine the role of soy formulas for prevention of allergy or food intolerance in infants unable to be breast fed with a strong family history of allergy or cow's milk protein intolerance.

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? [/sarcasm].

*********************