| Literature DB >> 26308476 |
Loïc Lenoir1, Matthieu Maillot2, Angèle Guilbot3, Patrick Ritz4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of weight loss maintenance, defined as a 10% loss of initial weight maintained beyond 1 year, among patients with BMI > 25 kg/m(2) who had been managed by primary care physicians practicing behavioral nutrition (moderately high-protein diet, carbohydrate restriction, and behavioral therapy).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26308476 PMCID: PMC4660887 DOI: 10.1002/oby.21157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) ISSN: 1930-7381 Impact factor: 5.002
Figure 1Data set flow through the screening process leading to the final sample. 190 months was the 95th centile of the distribution when the length of follow-up was calculated among the 17,543 patients.
Distribution of patients according to gender, age, and BMI
| Percentage, % | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 256 | 100.00 | ||
| <0.001 | |||
| | 12 054 | 84.55 | |
| | 2 202 | 15.45 | |
| <0.001 | |||
| | 1 894 | 13.29 | |
| | 3 292 | 23.03 | |
| | 3 763 | 26.40 | |
| | 5 307 | 37.23 | |
| <0.001 | |||
| | 7 114 | 49.90 | |
| | 4 410 | 30.93 | |
| | 1 852 | 12.99 | |
| | 880 | 6.17 |
Non-parametric chi-square test was significant (P < 0.001) showing that the sample was not homogeneously distributed.
Figure 2Distribution of subjects according to success in the final sample. Results are expressed as percentages of the final sample (n = 14,256). F: failure group; SM: successful maintenance group; UM: unsuccessful maintenance group.
Follow-up characteristics and anthropometric measures at inclusion and variation between first and last consultation in the overall population and the three success groups
| Overall ( | F group ( | UM group ( | SM group ( | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Crude | Adjusted | |||||
| | 0 | 84.55 | . | 0 | 82.8 | . | 0 | 85.61 | . | 0 | 86.67 | . | <0.001 | |
| | 0 | 44.97 | 11.71 | 0 | 45.45 | 11.89 | 0 | 43.89 | 11.43 | 0 | 45.15 | 11.6 | <0.001 | |
| | 0 | 14.4 | 10.34 | 0 | 10.82a | 8.57 | 0 | 15.58b | 9.6 | 0 | 19.64c | 11.38 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 0 | 12 | 0 | 9a | 0 | 13b | 0 | 17c | <0.001 | |||||
| | 0 | 35.41 | 19.34 | 0 | 34.47a | 19.63 | 0 | 38.35b | 19.48 | 0 | 34.25a | 18.39 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 0 | 0.48 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.39a | 0.29 | 0 | 0.48b | 0.3 | 0 | 0.65c | 0.33 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 6784 | 31.73 | 18.18 | 6784 | . | . | 0 | 33.36a | 18.66 | 0 | 30.16b | 17.57 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 6784 | 4.53 | 6.4 | 6784 | . | . | 0 | 4.99a | 6.91 | 0 | 4.09b | 5.83 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 0 | 84.26 | 16.08 | 0 | 81.9a | 14.98 | 0 | 83.81b | 15.51 | 0 | 88.89c | 17.5 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 0 | 31.15 | 4.99 | 0 | 30.22a | 4.68 | 0 | 31.02b | 4.63 | 0 | 32.93c | 5.4 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 41 | −4.18 | 8.52 | 0 | 0.49a | 5.24 | 11 | −3.89b | 5.92 | 30 | −12.85c | 8.7 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 41 | −4.6 | 9.22 | 0 | 0.66a | 6.45 | 11 | −4.59b | 6.77 | 30 | −14.07c | 7.85 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 40 | −1.54 | 3.13 | 0 | 0.19a | 1.95 | 11 | −1.43b | 2.17 | 29 | −4.75c | 3.15 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 40 | −4.6 | 9.25 | 0 | 0.66a | 6.47 | 11 | −4.58b | 6.79 | 29 | −14.08c | 7.92 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Mean values with different superscript letters were significantly different (P < 0.05).
GLM test was used for all variables except for gender for which a chi-square was used and for the number of consultations for which median values were compared using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test.
GLM tests were adjusted for age, gender, year of recruitment, and BMI level at inclusion, except for the BMI at the inclusion which was adjusted for age, gender, and year of recruitment.
Median values.
F: failure group; SM: successful maintenance group; UM: unsuccessful maintenance group.
Figure 3Success rate according to BMI range. All chi-square tests were significant. F: failure group; SM: successful maintenance group; UM: unsuccessful maintenance group.
Variation of body composition between first and last consultation in the overall population and the three groups
| Overall ( | F group ( | UM group ( | SM group ( | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Crude | Adjusted | |||||
| 0 | 32.74 | 9.09 | 0 | 30.99a | 8.59 | 0 | 32.54b | 8.63 | 0 | 36.03c | 9.51 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 0 | 38.32 | 6.74 | 0 | 36.98 | 7.01 | 0 | 38.52 | 6.16 | 0 | 40.53 | 6.2 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 0 | 50.59 | 8.96 | 0 | 50.09a | 8.89 | 0 | 50.57a | 8.94 | 0 | 51.52a | 9.05 | <0.001 | 0.3130 | |
| 0 | 0.65 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.62a | 0.15 | 0 | 0.65b | 0.15 | 0 | 0.70c | 0.15 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 0 | −2.9 | 6.38 | 0 | 0.45 | 4.29 | 0 | −2.7 | 4.89 | 0 | −9.05 | 6.26 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 0 | −7.81 | 18.3 | 0 | 1.92 | 14.83 | 0 | −8.21 | 14.7 | 0 | −24.69 | 14.3 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 3,850 | 84.67 | 116.6 | 3016 | 99.32 | 176.37 | 722 | 79.54 | 89.2 | 112 | 75.07 | 37.73 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Mean values with different superscript letters were significantly different (P < 0.05).
GLM tests.
GLM tests adjusted for age, gender, year of recruitment and BMI level at inclusion. F: failure group; SM: successful maintenance group; UM: unsuccessful maintenance group.
Figure 4(A) Absolute weight and (B) weight variation during follow-up in the three groups. F: failure group; SM: successful maintenance group; UM: unsuccessful maintenance group.