Panteleimon (
Jul 11, 2021 40 tweets 15 min read Read on X
Of all the diseases, the ONE that is most often thought as something that can be treated with #exercise is, of course, #obesity. But, instead, obesity is commonly treated with #drugs. Who would like to know more about the history of FDA-approved obesity drugs in the US? A thread!
For economy, let's skip the part about the 1st wave of obesity drugs being based on amphetamine & methamphetamine (to speed up metabolic rate), either alone or in combination with a "downer," to balance the stimulatory effect of the meth/amphetamine on the central nervous system.
In 1959, phentermine (an amphetamine analogue, with less addictive potential) was introduced. It stimulates the release of norepinephrine (primarily), and dopamine and serotonin (secondarily) in the brain. Acts as an appetite suppressant.
In 1973, the FDA, based on newly implemented procedures, approves another amphetamine-based drug, fenfluramine. But, the drug is withdrawn in 1977 (along with other amphetamine-based obesity drugs) due to the absence of compelling safety data about their addictive potential.
Everything changed in 1992 when Michael Weintraub published a series of papers from a study showing that the combination of fenfluramine and phentermine led to substantial weight loss compared to placebo, without major side-effects. A blockbuster drug cocktail was born: fen-phen!
By 1996, an estimated 18 million prescriptions for fenfluramine (Pondimin) were written in the US! So, the FDA receives an application for its dextrorotatory version, dexfenfluramine, by Interneuron Pharmaceuticals. The drug was to be marketed by American Home Products as Redux.
The FDA first rejects the application for dexfenfluramine based on concerns about primary pulmonary hypertension and neurotoxicity but the negative decision is reversed almost immediately, Redux is approved, and sales soar!
In September 1996, TIME magazine has Redux on the cover. Millions of middle-aged adults in the US, primarily women, wanting to lose 5-10 lbs, take Redux in combination with phentermine. Everyone's happy because the drug combination evidently works!
But the party was to be short-lived. In August 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine publishes a European study showing that, as feared by the FDA advisory committee, the drugs raise the risk of primary pulmonary hypertension. Later studies show effects on heart valves.
An editorial commissioned by the NEJM editors becomes one of the highest-profile scandals involving conflict-of-interest. JoAnn Manson (Harvard) and Gerald Faich (UPenn) claim that the benefits of the drugs outweigh the risk but don't declare their links to the drug manufacturer.
The financial ties of Manson and Faich to the drug manufacturer (& its American subsidiaries) are discovered by journalists, who then inform the editors of NEJM. If you haven't, you should read the books published by Marcia Angell and Jerome Kassirer after their terms as editors.
In a subsequent invited paper in Epidemiology, JoAnn Manson attributes the slip-up to nothing more than a "series of misunderstandings." Of course, she remains a towering figure in the obesity field.
A year later, in September 1997, the FDA finally announces the withdrawal of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine (Redux) from the US market, breaking up the fen-phen drug combo.
With well over 100 deaths in the US and numerous hospitalizations linked to fen-phen, the story becomes an injury attorney's dream. Servier, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, American Home Products, Wyeth are forced to pay billions of dollars in compensation deals.
Despite massive scandal and the negative publicity, the FDA feels the pressure to approve a drug for obesity, so as quickly as it pulled Redux (September 1997), it approved sibutramin (Meridia), an SNRI from Abbott Laboratories (November 1997).
Despite concerns about spikes in blood pressure and heart rate expressed by the advisory committee, the agency approved based on the conviction that "the benefits outweigh the risks." By now, you should know where this is going, right?
Yes, people started dying. The spikes in blood pressure were not "inconsequential," to a large measure because it is impossible to police who will pressure their physician for the magic "diet drug."
The run of sibutramin (Meridia) lasted until 2010, when it was withdrawn. Contrary to the rationale originally expressed by the FDA to justify the approval of the drug, now the FDA said that the "modest weight loss" cannot justify the "risk of heart attack or stroke." What irony!
Parenthetically, in 2006, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMA) had the brilliant idea to approve a blocker of the CB1 cannabinoid receptor called rimonabant, marketed as Acomplia (Sanofi-Aventis).
As quickly as 2008, it became evident that, if you block the cannabinoid receptors, bad things happen; people start trying to kill themselves. So, although Aventis had applied to get FDA approval, the drug was withdrawn from Europe and the FDA application was never evaluated.
Around 2010, at least three drug hopefuls are working the FDA process: (1) lorcaserin by Eisai / Arena Pharmaceuticals, (2) the combination of phentermine / topiramate by Vivus, and (3) the combination of naltrexone / bupropion by Orexigen / Takeda. All are fascinating stories!
Lorcaserin, which was going to be marketed as Lorqess, came in front of the FDA in 2010. It was rejected due to marginal effectiveness and elevated risk of cancer.
But given that, once again, there was pressure to have some obesity drugs available in the market, the drug was quickly approved in 2012, despite the concerns.
The combination of the good-old phentermine (yes, the "phen" from fen-phen) and topiramate (anti-epileptic), which was to be marketed as Qnexa, gets a rejection in 2010 due to concerns about birth defects (e.g., cleft palate) and cardiac problems.
But, in a familiar pattern, due to pressure to have obesity drugs in the market, the FDA quickly approves the drug combo. To shed the negative baggage, drugs that have a prior FDA rejection tend to be renamed after approval, so Qnexa became Qsymia.
Meanwhile, the combination of naltrexone (a blocker of the opioid receptor) and the antidepressant bupropion (Wellbutrin), developed by Orexigen / Takeda, which was to be marketed as Contrave, starts the process more slowly. It gets its initial rejection in 2011.
Obviously, the obesity "insiders" are well aware that there is activity in the obesity field. So, following the 2012 FDA approvals, the American Medical Association declares obesity a "disease" in 2013, hoping for better insurance coverage of the new drugs.
They time the announcement to coincide almost perfectly, in early June 2013, with the official introduction of Belviq (formerly Lorqess) and Qsymia (formerly Qnexa) to the US market.
Alas, earlier in 2013, Katherine Flegal of CDC, evidently not invited to the party, publishes a meta-analysis in JAMA, showing what researchers know as the "obesity paradox," namely that there's hardly any elevated risk at the BMI range of "overweight" or even "obesity class 1."
This phenomenon is well known and reliably established. By several indictors, it appears that mortality and health care costs are lowest at the BMI range we have come to consider as "over-weight."
Flegal was viciously attacked, with language and tactics that were entirely unprofessional. The main attackers were the superstars from the Harvard School of Public Health, including Walter Willett and ...yes, JoAnn Manson, who convened a press conference to discredit Flegal.
If you have a chance, read "The obesity wars and the education of a researcher: A personal account" by Katherine Flegal. It is truly shocking and eye-opening.

doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad…
Meanwhile, the third drug, Contrave, earned FDA approval in 2014, despite concerns about cardiovascular problems. Orexigen promised to conduct a *subsequent* safety study, to show that Contrave does not raise the risk of heart problems.
Orexigen decides to inappropriate "peek" at the data after 25% had been collected, and thinks it's finding a cardiovascular benefit (!) rather than risk. Thinking they may get a patent, they file with the SEC and disclose the data! But analysis of the next 25% shows no benefit!
The FDA was furious. The Cleveland Clinic partners were furious. So, the trial was discontinued! Then, as this was not enough, Orexigen decides to also discontinue a second safety trial, called Convene!
Eventually, Orexigen filed for bankruptcy in 2018. As far as I know, the promised safety data have yet to be delivered to the FDA but the drug is still on the US market (contrave.com).
On the other hand, lorcaserin (Belviq, formerly Lorqess) was pulled from the market in 2020, after 7 years, precisely for the reason it had been initially rejected by the FDA: increased risk of cancer.
As one reads this amazing story (if you made it to this point), keep in mind that the FDA guideline for seeking regulatory approval for an obesity drug in the US, is that the drug arm of the trial should lose on average just 5% of body weight more than the placebo arm.
This fact, and the long and sad story I summarized here, should help underscore how CRUCIAL it is for exercise science to become a lot better at developing methods to keep individuals who are overweight or obese physically active. Talk to your students!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Panteleimon ("Paddy") Ekkekakis

Panteleimon (

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Ekkekakis

Mar 28
Kahneman and exercise science? What is the relevance of the scientific legacy of the great Israeli psychologist and Nobel laureate to the science of physical activity? It's much more than you think. A thread -- and a tribute...
Image
Image
Let's start from this. Imagine that you bring together the world's best physical activity epidemiologists, experts in physical activity assessment, exercise physiologists, and sports medicine physicians. You put them in a room at the @WHO headquarters and ask them to develop the next physical activity guidelines. What are they going to come up with?Image
In the absence of input from the behavioral sciences, the team will likely follow what I call the "common sense approach" to developing physical activity guidelines. For example, analyze the @WHO guidelines. The part at the top gives the rationale for physical activity. Image
Read 29 tweets
Nov 8, 2023
In November 2020, my students and I discovered a completely fake meta-analysis, now cited more than 100 times. I notified @Hindawi but, as shown below, they have no intention to act. Each year, on the anniversary of the discovery, I re-post this thread... Image
This is the meta-analysis in question, supposedly summarizing RCTs examining the effects of exercise in patients with chronic renal failure. Note that the APC for "BioMed Research International" is $2,550.

doi.org/10.1155/2017/7…
Image
Also note that @WileyGlobal bought @Hindawi in 2021 for $298 million, evidently unbothered by the fact that @Hindawi is generally not considered a reputable scientific publisher.

newsroom.wiley.com/press-releases…
Image
Read 17 tweets
Oct 8, 2023
Steve Blair, an iconic figure in the field of exercise science over the past four decades, has passed away at the age of 84. He is leaving behind an enormous legacy. I would like to share a few thoughts... Image
In my mind, Blair was the last of the trio of physical activity epidemiologists that gave our field a prominent place in contemporary medicine and public health. We lost Jerry Morris on Oct 28, 2009. We lost Ralph Paffenbarger on Jul 9, 2007. We lost Steve Blair on Oct 6, 2023. Image
Parenthetically, if you are interested, the @ACSMNews has a wonderful 22-minute video at the YouTube link below, featuring a conversation with Blair and Paffenbarger. Highly recommended.


Image
Read 23 tweets
Dec 14, 2022
This sort of headlines (what you thought you knew is actually false) are becoming increasingly common. While we can debate their scientific value, one thing is for sure: they are *wonderful* training opportunities for Kinesiology / Exercise Science students. Let's take a look... Image
The first thing to note is that these headlines are happening against the backdrop of tremendous activity in the dementia field following the flop of Aducanumab (Aduhelm). Now, there is lecanemab, also a monoclonal antibody, with similar side-effects (brain swelling, bleeding). Image
So, let's look at the study in question. The MEDEX (Mindfulness, Education, and Exercise) randomized controlled trial ($3M) aimed to compare mindfulness-based stress reduction and exercise, alone or in combination, with a control intervention (health ed).

doi.org/10.1001/jama.2… Image
Read 25 tweets
Aug 10, 2022
Today is the first formal step toward the culmination of a 10-year process of trying to analyze and comprehend the phenomenon of HIIT within exercise science. Paper II (from a set of 6) with @NBTiller is the first to become available online (DM for PDF).

doi.org/10.1123/kr.202… Image
In this paper, @NBTiller and I address the increasing prevalence of "spin" by examining 4 extraordinary claims that appeared in the HIIT research literature and subsequently made a splash as media headlines. We dissect the underlying research used as the basis for these claims. Image
What we find is a narrative that has run amok, becoming disconnected from the data; blatant neglect of basic methodological and statistical principles; serious errors of reporting; a striking absence of critical appraisal by journals, university press offices, and the mass media.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 10, 2022
When you read that power calculations determined that a sample size of "8 per group" sufficed to provide 80% power, do you get a queasy feeling in your stomach? Like something ain't right? And does the paper start to smell fishy all of a sudden? Don't you get the urge to verify?
So, your stomach would be correct. Let's set aside for a moment that expecting 50% superiority from an 8-week intervention is kind-of ludicrous. Since 50% of 15 is 7.5, comparing 15±5 to 22.5±5 gives d=0.61, which requires 43 per group (not 8) to reach 80% power.
Then, you read that VO2peak changed from 22.6±8.2 to 24.7±7.9 (+2.1 ml) in one group and from 23.2±5.4 to 26.7±5.8 (+3.5 ml) in the other but "improvements in CRF" were "larger" in the latter group (with N=10 per group). Don't you get a strange feeling that those means are close?
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(