| Literature DB >> 26217540 |
Karina Pokhis1, Norman Bitterlich2, Umberto Cornelli3, Giuseppina Cassano4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this clinical study was to ascertain whether low molecular weight chitosan polyglucosamine is able to produce significantly better weight loss than placebo.Entities:
Keywords: Body weight; Caloric restriction; Obesity; Overweight; Physical activity; Polyglucosamine; Weight loss
Year: 2015 PMID: 26217540 PMCID: PMC4511026 DOI: 10.1186/s40608-015-0053-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Obes ISSN: 2052-9538
Fig. 1CONSORT Statement Flow Chart of the enrolment and progress of participants through the phases of the study
Characteristics of the patients at baseline (PP): average (SD)
| Variables | Measure | ST + PL group | ST + PG group | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 42) | (N = 45) | ( | ||
| Age | Years | 50.0 (8.91) | 48.6 (8.67) | 0.348 (0.469) |
| Height | Cm | 167.3 (6.70) | 167.7 (7.63) | 0.708 (0.806) |
| Weight | Kg | 97.9 (11.61) | 98.4 (14.83) | 0.884 (0.859) |
| Waist | Cm | 108.3 (9.86) | 110.4 (10.13) | 0.277 (0.335) |
| BMI | kg/m2 | 35.0 (3.26) | 35.0 (3.72) | 0.758 (0.988) |
Characteristics of the patients at baseline (ITT): average (SD)
| Variables | Measure | ST + PL group | ST + PG group | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 54) | (N = 53) | ( | ||
| Age | Years | 50.4 (9.38) | 48.8 (9.80) | 0.313 (0.391) |
| Height | Cm | 167.6 (6.24) | 168.5 (8.02) | 0.468 (0.519) |
| Weight | Kg | 99.5 (11.69) | 99.8 (14.95) | 0.923 (0.908) |
| Waist | Cm | 109.3 (10.14) | 110.9 (10.55) | 0.384 (0.431) |
| BMI | kg/m2 | 35.4 (3.62) | 35.1 (3.73) | 0.533 (0.661) |
Values of the anthropometric measures before and at the end of the treatment (PP): average value (SD)
| Times | Body weight | BMI | Waist circumf. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST + PL | ST + PG | ST + PL | ST + PG | ST + PL | ST + PG | |
| t2 | 97.9 (11.61) | 98.4 (14.83) | 35.0 (3.26) | 35.0 (3.72) | 108.3 (9.86) | 110.4 (10.13) |
| t3 | 97.2 (11.33) | 97.6 (14.55) | 34.7 (3.16) | 34.6 (3.75) | 107.5 (9.36) | 108.7 (9.73) |
| Changes shown as continuous variables | ||||||
| t15 | 93.7 (12.28) | 92.2 (13.68) | 33.4 (3.50) | 32.7 (3.46) | 100.9 (9.63) | 101.6 (9.55) |
| t16 | 93.6 (12.28) | 91.9 (13.70) | 33.4 (3.54) | 32.6 (3.48) | 100.9 (9.69) | 101.3 (9.65) |
| Weeks | 26.1 (2.0) | 25.6 (2.0) | ||||
| Difference t16 from t2 | 4.3 (3.12) | 6.5 (3.89) | 1.6(1.18) | 2.4 (1.40) | 7.4 (7.66) | 9.1 (6.83) |
| p | 0.008 | 0.003 | 0.276 | |||
| p | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.293 | |||
Values of the anthropometric measures before and at the end of the treatment (ITT): average value (SD)
| Times | Body weight | BMI | Waist circumf. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST + PL | ST + PG | ST + PL | ST + PG | ST + PL | ST + PG | |
| t2 | 99.5 (11.69) | 99.8 (14.95) | 35.4 (3.62) | 35.1 (3.73) | 109.3 (10.14) | 110.9 (10.55) |
| t3 | 98.6 (11.44) | 99.0 (14.69) | 35.1 (3.56) | 34.7 (3.75) | 108.6 (9.72) | 109.1 (10.20) |
| Changes shown as continuous variables | ||||||
| t15 | 95.6 (12.42) | 94.2 (14.55) | 34.0 (3.91) | 33.0 (3.60) | 102.7 (10.34) | 102.9 (10.39) |
| t16 | 95.5 (12.43) | 94.0 (14.60) | 34.0 (3.94) | 33.0 (3.62) | 102.6 (10.40) | 102.6 (10.52) |
| Weeks | 22.9 (7.26) | 23.9(5.49) | ||||
| Differencet16 from t2 | 4.02 (2.94) | 5.83 (4.09) | 1.44 (1.10) | 2.14 (1.48) | 6.70 (7.01) | 8.34 (6.73) |
| p | 0.023 | 0.009 | 0.266 | |||
| p | 0.010 | 0.007 | 0.219 | |||
Study duration and the number of 5R at the visits (PP)
| Control | Days | 5 %-Responder cumulative | Difference ST + PG - ST + PL Cumulative | P Fisher Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST + PL | ST + PG | ST + PL | ST + PG | |||
| t3 | 7.1 | 7.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| t4 | 14.4 | 16.6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Changes shown as continuous variables | ||||||
| t15 | 149.5 | 152.0 | 17 | 31 | 14 | 0.010 |
| t16 | 174.1 | 176.3. | 20 | 32 | 12 | 0.030 |
Study duration and the number of 5R at the visits (ITT)
| Control | Days Mean (SD) | 5 % Responder cumulative | Difference ST + PG - ST + PL Cumulative | P Fisher Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST + PL | ST + PG | ST + PL | ST + PG | |||
| t3 | 12.0 (4.4) | 11.2 (4.4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| t4 | 20.1 (5.0) | 18.9 (5.0) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.495 |
| Changes shown as continuous variables | ||||||
| t15 | 144.4 (35.7) | 139.6 (39.9) | 19 | 32 | 13 | 0.012 |
| t16 | 166.6 (44.4) | 161.4 (48.0) | 23 | 34 | 11 | 0.033 |
Fig. 2Mean body weight [% with regard to t2]. The red solid line shows the % reduction in body weight of the group (PP) receiving “standard-treatment plus placebo tablets” against weight loss and the cyan solid line in the group receiving “standard treatment plus polyglucosamine tablets” (PP), whereas the dashed lines in the respective colors denote the progress of the ITT groups
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier curve estimating percentage of patients with weight loss of 5 % of initial body weight (5R)