| Literature DB >> 35334917 |
Giovanna Flore1, Antonio Preti2, Mauro Giovanni Carta3, Andrea Deledda1, Michele Fosci1, Antonio Egidio Nardi4, Andrea Loviselli1, Fernanda Velluzzi1.
Abstract
After a low-calorie diet, only 25% of patients succeed in maintaining the result of weight loss for a long time. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore whether patients undergoing intensive intervention during the maintenance phase have a greater preservation of the weight achieved during the previous slimming phase than controls. A bibliographic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for clinical trials and randomised, controlled trials investigating the role of choice in weight-loss-maintenance strategies. Only studies with a follow-up of at least 12 months were considered. A total of eight studies, for a total of 1454 patients, was identified, each comparing a group that followed a more intensive protocol to a control group. Our metanalysis highlighted that an intensive approach even in the maintenance phase could be important to ensure greater success in the phase following the weight-loss period. However, it should be pointed out that the improvement was not so different from the trend of the respective controls, with a non-statistically significant mean difference of the effect size (0.087; 95% CI -0.016 to 0.190 p = 0.098). This finding, along with the observation of a weight regain in half of the selected studies, suggests this is a long work that has to be started within the weight-loss phase and reinforced during the maintenance phase. The problem of weight control in patients with obesity should be understood as a process of education to a healthy lifestyle and a balanced diet to be integrated in the context of a multidisciplinary approach.Entities:
Keywords: behavioural approach; diet; exercise; gender; low caloric diet; obesity; overweight; physical activity; weight loss; weight loss maintenance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35334917 PMCID: PMC8953094 DOI: 10.3390/nu14061259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow diagram illustrating the process of our review, screening, and articles selection.
Weight maintenance protocols used in the eight studies.
| Author | Country | Year | Patients | Previous | Intervention | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams | Australia | 2019 | 54 (54) | ** | Nutritional and sport consultations plus a paper support | Paper material |
| Sniehotta | England | 2019 | 288 (223) | ** | Portal where patients entered weight, physical activity, and food diary followed by a comment | SMS every 3 months |
| Dutton | USA | 2017 | 108 (103) | * | Group counselling sessions on diet, physical activity, and strategies to manage weight maintenance | Printed material and phone/mail counselling on request |
| Crain | USA | 2018 | 419 (342) | ** | More frequent phone calls encouraging for physical activity monitoring | Less frequent phone calls plus a book |
| Berk | Holland (Europe) | 2018 | 158 (88) | * | Group sessions of cognitive behaviour therapy with decreasing frequency | Usual care for diabetes |
| Voils | USA | 2018 | 222 (34) | * | Group sessions alternated with phone calls for psychological and practical support | No support |
| Knauper | Canada | 2020 | 110 (87) | * | Group sessions for nutritional and physical activity support plus an if-then plan to manage at-risk situations | No if-then plan |
| Nakata | Japan | 2019 | 95 (59) | * | Daily monitoring of weight and physical activity via the Web | No support |
* Weight-loss phase included in the study; ** weight loss obtained with other programmes.
Randomised trials of maintenance interventions included in the meta-analysis.
| Author | Number Patients | Age | Weight of Treated | Weight of Controls | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Treated | Controls | Treated | Controls | T0 | T12 | T0 | T12 | |
| Williams | 54 | 28 | 26 | 47.3 ± 1.8 | 47.3 ± 1.8 | 68.7 ± 8.9 | 65.6 ± 8.5 | 68.6 ± 6.7 | 67.4 ± 6.7 |
| Sniehotta | 288 | 144 | 144 | 42.0 ± 11.6 | 41.6 ± 11.4 | 85.1 ± 17.5 | 86.8 ± 18.2 | 85.2 ± 15.7 | 87 ± 16.7 |
| Dutton | 108 | 52 | 56 | 52.13 ± 11.75 | 51.18 ± 14.22 | 92.4 ± 13.8 | 85.2 ± 13.2 | 92.7 ± 12.9 | 87.8 ± 11.7 |
| Crain | 419 | 209 | 210 | 46.6 ± 10.9 | 46.3 ± 10.3 | 80.1 ± 15.8 | 80.9 ± 16.7 | 79.4 ± 16.6 | 82 ± 17.9 |
| Berk | 158 | 83 | 75 | 52.3 ± 11.3 | 55.2 ± 9.3 | 96.3 ± 19.3 | 97.7 ± 20 | 96.8 ± 22.5 | 98.5 ± 15.3 |
| Voils | 222 | 110 | 112 | 61.5 ± 8.3 | 62.0 ± 8.3 | 109.3 ± 19.5 | 104.3 ± 13.9 | 112.2 ± 21.7 | 105.9 ± 14.8 |
| Knäuper | 110 | 51 | 59 | 50.22 ± 11.97 | 50.22 ± 11.97 | 80.8 ± 12.7 | 85.7 ± 14.4 | 85.8 ± 12.9 | 88.3 ± 13.4 |
| Nakata | 95 | 47 | 48 | 54.7 ± 6.6 | 57.0 ± 5.7 | 74.7 ± 10.6 | 69 ± 10.9 | 74.2 ± 8.1 | 67.7 ± 8.7 |
Figure 2Weight changes between T0 and T12 in controls and treated patients in the eight studies.
Figure 3Meta-analysis of effectiveness of weight-maintenance strategies.
Figure 4Funnel plots to ascertain evidence for publication bias.
Risk assessment Tool of Bias.
| Study Quality-Assessment Tools | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Year | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| Williams | 2019 | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NS | NS | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Sniehotta | 2019 | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NS | YES | NO | YES | YES |
| Dutton | 2017 | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Crain | 2018 | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NS | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NS |
| Berk | 2018 | YES | NS | NS | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Voils | 2018 | YES | YES | NS | NO | NS | YES | YES | NS | NS | YES | YES | YES | YES | NS |
| Knäuper | 2020 | YES | YES | NS | NO | YES | NS | NO | YES | NS | YES | YES | NS | NS | NS |
| Nakata | 2019 | YES | YES | YES | NO | NS | YES | YES | NS | NS | YES | YES | NS | YES | YES |
1 Was the study described as randomised, a randomised trial, a randomised clinical trial or an RCT?; 2 Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)?; 3 Was the treatment allocation concealed (so that assignments could not be predicted)?; 4 Were study participants and providers blinded to treatment group assignment?; 5 Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignment?; 6 Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, comorbid conditions)?; 7 Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at endpoint 20% or lower of the number allocated to treatment?; 8 Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at endpoint 15% or lower?; 9 Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group?; 10 Were other interventions avoided or similar in the groups (e.g., similar background treatments)?; 11 Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants?; 12 Did the authors report that the sample size was sufficiently large to be able to detect a difference in the main outcome between group with at least 80% power?; 13 Were outcomes reported or subgroups analysed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)?; 14 Were all randomised participants analysed in the group to which they were originally assigned (i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis)?; Possible answers: YES, NO, NS (not specified).