BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are underused healthcare professionals who are well positioned to provide weight management interventions; however, a systematic review of the literature supporting the role of pharmacists in weight management is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to assess the body of evidence supporting the role of pharmacists in the management of obesity.
METHODS: A literature search of OVID MEDLINE, Embase (OVID), Web of Science, and CINAHL was conducted from inception through February 23, 2023, to identify studies involving pharmacist interventions for weight management. Included studies were retrospective or prospective studies reporting a change in body weight, body mass index (BMI), or waist circumference as a primary endpoint; and a weight management intervention involving a pharmacist. Studies were excluded if they did not report the desired outcomes, involved pediatric populations, or lacked a pharmacist in the intervention.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 6,423 study participants were enrolled with a mean BMI of 27 to 46 kg/m2. The included studies were conducted across 8 different countries with 15 from the United States. The primary approach was a pre-post/quasi-experimental study design, typically conducted in community pharmacies. The pharmacists' role varied widely but mainly involved educational counseling as the pharmacist made medication recommendations in only 5 studies. Multidisciplinary collaboration was infrequent. All but 3 studies reported a significant improvement in the weight loss outcome of interest, although most study durations were less than 6 months. A critical appraisal of the 29 studies found the overall quality of the available studies to be relatively poor.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacist interventions for weight management were mostly effective in reducing body weight; however, more robust clinical trials with a comparator group and for longer duration are warranted. The pharmacist's role in managing weight loss medications also requires further study.
Background and aims Behavioural smoking cessation trials have used comparators that vary considerably between trials. Although some previous meta‐analyses made attempts to account for variability in comparators, these relied on subsets of trials and incomplete data on comparators. This study aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness of (individual) smoking cessation interventions while accounting for variability in comparators using comprehensive data on experimental and comparator interventions. Methods A systematic review and meta‐regression was conducted including 172 randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months follow‐up and biochemically verified smoking cessation. Authors were contacted to obtain unpublished information. This information was coded in terms of active content and attributes of the study population and methods. Meta‐regression was used to create a model predicting smoking cessation outcomes. This model was used to re‐estimate intervention effects, as if all interventions have been evaluated against the same comparators. Outcome measures included log odds of smoking cessation for the meta‐regression models and smoking cessation differences and ratios to compare relative effectiveness. Results The meta‐regression model predicted smoking cessation rates well (pseudo R2 = 0.44). Standardising the comparator had substantial impact on conclusions regarding the (relative) effectiveness of trials and types of intervention. Compared with a ‘no support comparator’, self‐help was 1.33 times (95% CI = 1.16–1.49), brief physician advice 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.31–1.90), nurse individual counselling 1.76 times (95% CI = 1.62–1.90), psychologist individual counselling 2.04 times (95% CI = 1.95–2.15) and group psychologist interventions 2.06 times (95% CI = 1.92–2.20) more effective. Notably, more elaborate experimental interventions (e.g. psychologist counselling) were typically compared with more elaborate comparators, masking their effectiveness. Conclusions Comparator variability and underreporting of comparators obscures the interpretation, comparison and generalisability of behavioural smoking cessation trials. Comparator variability should, therefore, be taken into account when interpreting and synthesising evidence from trials. Otherwise, policymakers, practitioners and researchers may draw incorrect conclusions about the (cost) effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions and their constituent components. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: There is little consensus regarding effective digital health interventions for diverse populations, which is due in part to the difficulty of quantifying the impact of various media and content and the lack of consensus on evaluating dosage and outcomes. In particular, digital smoking behavior change intervention is an area where consistency of measurement has been a challenge because of emerging products and rapid policy changes. This study reviewed the contents and outcomes of digital smoking interventions and the consistency of reporting to inform future research.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review digital smoking behavior change interventions and evaluate the consistency in measuring and reporting intervention contents, channels, and dose and response outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and PAIS databases were used to search the literature between January and May 2021. General and journal-based searches were combined. All records were imported into Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation) and duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts were screened by 4 trained reviewers to identify eligible full-text literature. The data synthesis scheme was designed based on the concept that exposure to digital interventions can be divided into intended doses that were planned by the intervention and enacted doses that were completed by participants. The intended dose comprised the frequency and length of the interventions, and the enacted dose was assessed as the engagement. Response measures were assessed for behaviors, intentions, and psychosocial outcomes. Measurements of the dose-response relationship were reviewed for all studies.
RESULTS: A total of 2916 articles were identified through a database search. Of these 2916 articles, the title and abstract review yielded 324 (11.11%) articles for possible eligibility, and 19 (0.65%) articles on digital smoking behavior change interventions were ultimately included for data extraction and synthesis. The analysis revealed a lack of prevention studies (0/19, 0%) and dose-response studies (3/19, 16%). Of the 19 studies, 6 (32%) reported multiple behavioral measures, and 5 (23%) reported multiple psychosocial measures as outcomes. For dosage measures, 37% (7/19) of studies used frequency of exposure, and 21% (4/19) of studies mentioned the length of exposure. The assessment of clarity of reporting revealed that the duration of intervention and data collection tended to be reported vaguely in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed a lack of studies assessing the effects of digital media interventions on smoking outcomes. Data synthesis showed that measurement and reporting were inconsistent across studies, illustrating current challenges in this field. Although most studies focused on reporting outcomes, the measurement of exposure, including intended and enacted doses, was unclear in a large proportion of studies. Clear and consistent reporting of both outcomes and exposures is needed to develop further evidence in intervention research on digital smoking behavior change.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness of dietary macronutrient patterns and popular named diet programmes for weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor improvement among adults who are overweight or obese.
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and CENTRAL from database inception until September 2018, reference lists of eligible trials, and related reviews.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials that enrolled adults (≥18 years) who were overweight (body mass index 25-29) or obese (≥30) to a popular named diet or an alternative diet.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in body weight, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and C reactive protein at the six and 12 month follow-up.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study participants, interventions, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach. A bayesian framework informed a series of random effects network meta-analyses to estimate the relative effectiveness of the diets.
RESULTS: 121 eligible trials with 21 942 patients were included and reported on 14 named diets and three control diets. Compared with usual diet, low carbohydrate and low fat diets had a similar effect at six months on weight loss (4.63 v 4.37 kg, both moderate certainty) and reduction in systolic blood pressure (5.14 mm Hg, moderate certainty v 5.05 mm Hg, low certainty) and diastolic blood pressure (3.21 v 2.85 mm Hg, both low certainty). Moderate macronutrient diets resulted in slightly less weight loss and blood pressure reductions. Low carbohydrate diets had less effect than low fat diets and moderate macronutrient diets on reduction in LDL cholesterol (1.01 mg/dL, low certainty v 7.08 mg/dL, moderate certainty v 5.22 mg/dL, moderate certainty, respectively) but an increase in HDL cholesterol (2.31 mg/dL, low certainty), whereas low fat (-1.88 mg/dL, moderate certainty) and moderate macronutrient (-0.89 mg/dL, moderate certainty) did not. Among popular named diets, those with the largest effect on weight reduction and blood pressure in comparison with usual diet were Atkins (weight 5.5 kg, systolic blood pressure 5.1 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure 3.3 mm Hg), DASH (3.6 kg, 4.7 mm Hg, 2.9 mm Hg, respectively), and Zone (4.1 kg, 3.5 mm Hg, 2.3 mm Hg, respectively) at six months (all moderate certainty). No diets significantly improved levels of HDL cholesterol or C reactive protein at six months. Overall, weight loss diminished at 12 months among all macronutrient patterns and popular named diets, while the benefits for cardiovascular risk factors of all interventions, except the Mediterranean diet, essentially disappeared.
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence shows that most macronutrient diets, over six months, result in modest weight loss and substantial improvements in cardiovascular risk factors, particularly blood pressure. At 12 months the effects on weight reduction and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors largely disappear.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015027929.
Background: Community pharmacists could provide effective smoking cessation treatment because they offer easy access to members of the community. They are well placed to provide both advice on the correct use of smoking cessation products and behavioural support to aid smoking cessation. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to assist people to stop smoking, with or without concurrent use of pharmacotherapy. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP, for smoking cessation studies conducted in a community pharmacy setting, using the search terms pharmacist* or pharmacy or pharmacies. Date of the most recent search: January 2019. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to promote smoking cessation amongst their clients who were smokers, compared with usual pharmacy support or any less intensive programme. The main outcome measure was smoking cessation rates at six months or more after the start of the intervention. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study screening, data extraction and management. We conducted a meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to generate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results: We identified seven studies including 1774 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias and four to be at unclear risk. Each study provided face-to-face behavioural support delivered by pharmacy staff, and required pharmacy personnel training. Typically such programmes comprised support starting before quit day and continuing with weekly appointments for several weeks afterwards. Comparators were either minimal or less intensive behavioural support for smoking cessation, typically comprising a few minutes of one-off advice on how to quit. Participants in both intervention and control arms received equivalent smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in all but one study. All studies took place in high-income countries, and recruited participants visiting pharmacies. We pooled six studies of 1614 participants and detected a benefit of more intensive behavioural smoking cessation interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel compared with less intensive cessation interventions at longest follow-up (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.97; I2 = 54%; low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: Community pharmacists can provide effective behavioural support to people trying to stop smoking. However, this conclusion is based on low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Further research could change this conclusion.
Effective strategies to achieve weight loss and long-term weight loss maintenance have proved to be elusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore whether the choice of weight loss strategy is associated with greater weight loss. An electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, or MEDLARS Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO (Database of Abstracts of Literature in the Field of Psychology, produced by the American Psychological Association and distributed on the association's APA PsycNET) databases for clinical trials and randomized controlled trials, investigating the role of choice in weight loss strategies. A total of nine studies were identified as meeting the pre-specified criteria. All of the studies included a 'Choice' or preference arm and a 'No Choice' arm or group who did not receive their preference as a control. A total of 1804 subjects were enrolled in these studies, with weight loss observed in both experimental and control groups of all studies, irrespective of dietary intervention, study duration, or follow-up length. Twelve interventions in nine trials were used for the meta-analysis, with results indicating a greater weight loss in the control groups, 1.09 ± 0.28 (overall mean difference in weight loss between groups ± standard error; p = 0). There was no significant effect of duration or attrition. In this meta-analysis, the choice of weight loss strategy did not confer a weight loss benefit.
BACKGROUND: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted this systematic review to support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its 2012 recommendation on screening for and treatment of adult obesity. Our review addressed three key questions: 1) Do primary care–relevant behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions lead to improved health outcomes among adults who are overweight or have obesity and are a candidate for weight loss interventions? 2) Do primary care–relevant behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions lead to weight loss, weight loss maintenance, or a reduction in the incidence or prevalence of obesity-related conditions among adults who are overweight or have obesity and are a candidate for weight loss interventions? 3) What are the adverse effects of primary care–relevant behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions in adults who are overweight or have obesity and are a candidate for weight loss interventions?
DATA SOURCES: We performed a search of MEDLINE, PubMed Publisher-Supplied, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for studies published through June 6, 2017. Studies included in the 2011 USPSTF review were re-evaluated for potential inclusion. We supplemented searches by examining reference lists from related articles and expert recommendations and searched federal and international trial registries for ongoing trials. We conducted ongoing surveillance through March 23, 2018 to identify any major studies published in the interim.
STUDY SELECTION: Two researchers reviewed 15,483 titles and abstracts and 572 full-text articles against prespecified inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were those that focused on weight loss in adults who are overweight or have obesity, or maintenance of previous weight loss. Trials among populations selected based on the presence of a chronic disease in which weight loss or maintenance is part of disease management (e.g., known cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes) were excluded. Studies included for health and intermediate outcomes (including weight loss) were randomized or clinically controlled trials that report data at least 12 months following the start of the intervention. In addition, for studies of potential harms of interventions we included large cohort, case-control, or event monitoring studies in addition to trials with fewer than 12 months of followup. Included interventions were those conducted in or recruited from primary care or a health care system or were judged to be feasible for implementation or referral from primary care and included behavior-based interventions as well as five U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for long-term chronic weight management (liraglutide, lorcaserin, naltrexone and bupropion, orlistat, and phentermine-topiramate). Studies of surgical and nonsurgical weight loss devices and procedures were excluded. We conducted dual, independent critical appraisal of all provisionally included studies and abstracted all important study details and results from all studies rated fair or good quality. Data were abstracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another.
DATA ANALYSIS: We synthesized data for behavior- and medication-based weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions separately. Health outcomes and harms were sparsely reported and the specific outcomes measured differed across trials, precluding meta-analysis, so we summarized those data in tables and narratively. For weight loss outcomes related to behavior-based weight loss interventions, we ran random-effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird method to calculate the pooled differences in mean changes (for continuous data) and pooled risk ratio (for binary data). We examined statistical heterogeneity among the pooled studies using standard χ2 tests and estimated the proportion of total variability in point estimates using the I2 statistic. Meta-regression was used to explore potential effect modification by various study, population, and intervention characteristics. We generated funnel plots and conducted tests for small-study effects for all pooled analyses. Meta-analysis of the medication trials was not performed due to the small number of included trials and inconsistency in outcome reporting; therefore, results from these trials were summarized narratively and in illustrative forest plots. Using established methods, we assessed the strength of evidence for each question.
RESULTS: We included 124 studies that were reported in 238 publications. We carried forward 41 studies from our previous review and 83 new studies were added. Of the 124 included studies, 89 trials focused on behavior-based weight loss (80 trials) or weight loss maintenance (nine trials) interventions. Thirty-five studies addressed medications for weight loss (32 studies) or weight loss maintenance (three trials). The majority of trials took place in the United States. Over half (73 trials) represented a general, unselected population of adults who were eligible for participation based on being overweight or having obesity; the remaining trials specifically enrolled participants who were also at elevated clinical or subclinical risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The mean baseline body mass index ranged from 25 to 42 kg/m2 and mean age ranged from 22 to 66 years. Eleven trials focused on specific racial/ethnic groups (African American, Asians and South Asians, American Indian, or those of Hispanic ethnicity). In the remaining trials, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status were not well reported and when described, the majority of participants were white, with medium to high socioeconomic status. The behavior-based interventions were highly variable across the included trials in terms of the modes of delivery, number of sessions and contacts, and interventionists. Across the 120 intervention arms, the primary mode of intervention delivery was: group based (41 arms), individual-based (37 arms), technology-based (22 arms), “mixed” (18 arms), or print only (two arms). Twenty-three interventions included interaction with a primary care provider. The 41 medication-based studies addressed: liraglutide (four trials), lorcaserin (four trials), naltrexone and bupropion (three trials), orlistat (19 trials, two observational studies), and phentermine-topiramate (three trials).HEALTH OUTCOMES: Health outcomes were minimally reported in the behavior-based weight loss and maintenance trials (k=20; n=9910). In four weight loss trials (n=4442) reporting mortality, there were no significant differences between groups over 2 to 16 years. Two weight loss trials (n=2666) reported on cardiovascular events, with neither finding differences between groups over 3 and 10 years, respectively. Health-related quality of life (QOL) was evaluated in 17 weight loss and maintenance trials (n=7120), with almost all showing no differences between groups. Trials of medication-based weight loss interventions examined few health outcomes beyond QOL (k=10; n=13,145). Although most studies showed evidence of a greater improvement in obesity-specific QOL among those on medication compared with placebo, the differences were small and of unclear clinical significance. In addition, interpretation of these finding was limited given high study dropout rates (≥35% in half the included trials). Two medication-based trials (n=6210) examined cardiovascular events, finding few events in any group. None of the medication-based maintenance trials reported the effects of the interventions on health outcomes. WEIGHT OUTCOMES: Pooled results of 67 behavior-based weight loss trials indicated greater weight loss from interventions compared to control conditions at 12 to 18 months (mean difference in weight change [MD], −2.39 kg [−5.3 lb] [95% CI, −2.86 to −1.93]; k=67; n=22,065; I2=90.0%). Mean absolute changes in weight ranged from −0.5 kg (−1.1 lb) to −9.3 kg (−20.5 lb) among intervention participants and from 1.4 kg (3.0 lb) to −5.6 (−12.3 lb) among control participants. Weight change at followup beyond 12 to 18 months was not as well reported but effects were consistent with short-term weight loss, although generally attenuated, over time. A meta-analysis of 38 trials found that intervention participants had a 1.94 times greater probability of losing 5 percent of their initial weight compared with control groups over 12 to 18 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.94 [95% CI, 1.70 to 2.22]; k=38; n=12,231; I2=67.2%), which translated into a number needed to treat of 8. Among the majority of trials of behavior-based weight loss maintenance interventions, both intervention and control participants regained weight over 12 to 18 months of maintenance; however, the intervention participants experienced less weight regain (pooled MD, −1.59 kg [−3.5 lb] [95% CI, −2.38 to −0.79]; k=8; n=1408; I2=26.8%). Among 32 medication-based weight loss trials, those randomized to medications experienced greater weight loss compared to those on placebo at 12 to 18 months (mean/least squares mean [LSM] MD ranged from −1.0 kg [−2.2 lb] to −5.8 kg [−12.8 lb]; no meta-analysis conducted). Absolute changes in weight ranged from mean/LSM of −3.3 kg (−7.3 lb) to −10.5 kg (−23.4 lb) among medication participants compared to −0.9 kg (−2.0 lb) to −7.6 kg (−16.8 lb) among placebo participants over 12 to 18 months. Medication participants had a 1.2 to 3.9 times greater probability of losing 5 percent of their initial weight compared with placebo participants over 12 to 18 months. Three medication-based trials indicate greater weight maintenance in medication than placebo participants over 12 to 36 months (MD ranged from −0.6 to −3.5; no meta-analysis conducted). INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES: Thirteen trials (n=4095) examined incident diabetes among those in behavior-based interventions compared to control conditions. Absolute cumulative incidence of diabetes at up to 3 years of followup ranged from 0 to 15 percent in the intervention group and 0 to 29 percent in controls. The DPP and Finnish DPS trials found statistically significant lower incidences of developing diabetes at 3 to 9 years; no other trial found differences between groups. However, these trials generally had smaller sample sizes and shorter followup. The pooled relative risk of developing incident diabetes was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; k=9; n=3140; I2=49.2%). Four trials of weight loss medications (three weight loss and one maintenance trial) examined incident diabetes. Absolute cumulative incidence of diabetes at up to 4 years of followup ranged from 0 to 6 percent in medication arms and 1 to 11 percent in placebo arms; between-group differences were statistically different in most medication trials. Prevalence of hypertension, metabolic syndrome, use of CVD medications, and estimated 10-year risk of CVD were sparsely reported. There was limited evidence from larger trials that those in behavior-based weight loss arms had reduced prevalence of hypertension and use of CVD medications compared to control conditions; data were limited and mixed for metabolic syndrome and 10-year CVD risk. Four medication trials reported on use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications, prevalence of metabolic syndrome, and 10-year CVD risk score with mixed results. ADVERSE EVENTS: There were no serious harms related to the behavior-based interventions and most trials noted no differences between groups in the rates of adverse events, including cardiovascular events. In the three behavior-based trials large enough to examine musculoskeletal issues between groups, results were mixed. Although serious adverse events were relatively uncommon in medication trials and generally similar between groups, adverse event rates were high in both groups by 12 months, with 80 to 96 percent experiencing an adverse event in the medication arms compared with 63 to 94 percent in the placebo arms. The higher rates of adverse events in the medication arms resulted in higher dropout rates than in the placebo arms.
CONCLUSION: We found that behavior-based weight-loss interventions with or without weight loss medications resulted in more weight loss than usual care conditions. The degree of weight loss we observed with the behavior-based weight loss interventions in the current review is slightly smaller but consistent in magnitude with our 2011 review on this topic. As in the previous review, we noted that weight loss interventions resulted in a decreased risk of developing diabetes, particularly among those with prediabetes, although the prevalence of other intermediate health outcomes was less well reported. Limited evidence exists regarding health outcomes associated with weight loss interventions. Weight loss medications, but not behavior-based interventions, were associated with higher rates of harms compared with control arms. Heterogeneity within each individual intervention arm confounded with differences in the populations, settings, and trial quality, making it difficult to disentangle which variables may be driving larger effects. Long-term weight and health outcomes data, as well as data on important subgroups (e.g. those who are older, nonwhite, or overweight) were lacking and should be a high priority for future study.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: None
STUDY DESIGN: randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series.
INTERVENTION: any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language.
RESULTS: 19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 'strong', 4 'moderate' and 9 'weak'. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacy-based weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and has a substantial impact on people's health and quality of life. CVD also causes an increased use of health care resources and services, representing a significant proportion of health care expenditure. Integrating evidence-based community pharmacy services is seen as an asset to reduce the burden of CVD on individuals and the health care system.
OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify community pharmacy evidence-based services designed to help prevent CVD and (b) provide fundamental information that is needed to assess their potential adaptation to other community pharmacy settings.
METHODS: This review used the DEPICT database, which includes 488 randomized controlled trials (RCT) that address the evaluation of pharmacy services. Articles reviewing these RCTs were identified for the DEPICT database through a systematic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). The DEPICT database was reviewed to identify evidence-based services delivered in the community pharmacy setting with the purpose of preventing CVD. An evidence-based service was defined as a service that has been shown to have a positive effect (compared with usual care) in a high-quality RCT. From each evidence-based service, fundamental information was retrieved to facilitate adaptation to other community pharmacy settings.
RESULTS: From the DEPICT database, 14 evidence-based community pharmacy services that addressed the prevention of CVD were identified. All services, except 1, targeted populations with a mean age above 60 years. Pharmacy services encompassed a wide range of practical applications or techniques that can be classified into 3 groups: activities directed at patients, activities directed at health care professionals, and assessments to gather patient-related information in order to support the previous activities.
CONCLUSIONS: This review provides pharmacy service planners and policymakers with a comprehensive list of evidence-based services that have the potential to be adapted to different settings from which they were originally implemented and evaluated in order to reduce the burden of CVD.
DISCLOSURES: Funding for this review was provided by the University of Technology Sydney Chancellor's Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to Sabater-Hernández. No other potential conflict of interest was declared. Study concept and design were contributed by Sabater-Hernández, Fernandez-Llimos, Rotta, and Correr. Sabater-Galindo and Sabater-Hernández took the lead in data collection, along with Franco-Trigo and Rotta. Data interpretation was performed by Sabater-Hernández, Durks, and Lopes. The manuscript was written primarily by Sabater-Hernández, along with Hossain, and revised by Fernandez-Llimos, Rotta, and Benrimoj, with assistance from Durks, Sabater-Galindo, Franco-Trigo, and Correr.
Pharmacists are underused healthcare professionals who are well positioned to provide weight management interventions; however, a systematic review of the literature supporting the role of pharmacists in weight management is lacking.
OBJECTIVES:
To conduct a systematic review to assess the body of evidence supporting the role of pharmacists in the management of obesity.
METHODS:
A literature search of OVID MEDLINE, Embase (OVID), Web of Science, and CINAHL was conducted from inception through February 23, 2023, to identify studies involving pharmacist interventions for weight management. Included studies were retrospective or prospective studies reporting a change in body weight, body mass index (BMI), or waist circumference as a primary endpoint; and a weight management intervention involving a pharmacist. Studies were excluded if they did not report the desired outcomes, involved pediatric populations, or lacked a pharmacist in the intervention.
RESULTS:
Twenty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 6,423 study participants were enrolled with a mean BMI of 27 to 46 kg/m2. The included studies were conducted across 8 different countries with 15 from the United States. The primary approach was a pre-post/quasi-experimental study design, typically conducted in community pharmacies. The pharmacists' role varied widely but mainly involved educational counseling as the pharmacist made medication recommendations in only 5 studies. Multidisciplinary collaboration was infrequent. All but 3 studies reported a significant improvement in the weight loss outcome of interest, although most study durations were less than 6 months. A critical appraisal of the 29 studies found the overall quality of the available studies to be relatively poor.
CONCLUSION:
Pharmacist interventions for weight management were mostly effective in reducing body weight; however, more robust clinical trials with a comparator group and for longer duration are warranted. The pharmacist's role in managing weight loss medications also requires further study.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
