Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Pharmacotherapy for obesity: a quantitative analysis of four decades of published randomized clinical trials


AIM: This article provides the first comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of medications for obesity.

METHOD: Based on stringent inclusionary criteria, a total of 108 studies were included in the final database. Outcomes are presented for comparisons of single and combination drugs to placebo and for comparisons of medications to one another.

RESULT: Overall, the medications studied produced medium effect sizes. Four drugs produced large effect sizes (ie d>0.80; amphetamine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine and sibutramine). The placebo-subtracted weight losses for single drugs vs placebo included in the meta-analysis never exceeded 4.0 kg. No drug, or class of drugs, demonstrated clear superiority as an obesity medication. Effects of methodological factors are also presented along with suggestions for future research.


No comprehensive meta-analytic studies of obesity pharmacotherapy have been published to date, but three meta-analyses have been published on single drugs. Lijesen et al1 meta-analyzed eight controlled and 16 uncontrolled trials of human chorionic gonadotropin and concluded that it was not effective for the treatment of obesity. Four placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of sibutramine efficacy for reducing visceral fat were meta-analyzed by Van Gaal et al,2 who concluded that it was effective in reducing waist circumference and visceral fat when compared to placebo. Greenway3 examined phenylpropanolamine (PPA) trials since 1973, including trials that were reviewed by previous investigators4,5 and concluded that the average weight loss in excess of placebo (kg/week) at the end of studies had decreased since 1985.

Two multi-drug reviews that have been cited as meta-analytic confirmation of obesity pharmacotherapy's efficacy6 were authored by Goldstein and Potvin7 and the National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity.8 Goldstein and Potvin7 conducted a detailed review of 20 long-term (ie those lasting 6 months or longer) phentermine, mazindol, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine and fluoxetine studies from 1967 to 1993. While they presented a comprehensive review of clinical trials on these drugs and concluded that extended treatment was beneficial for those patients unable to lose weight without pharmacotherapy, they did not provide a quantitative synthesis of these drugs' efficacy. The National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity8 also provided a comprehensive review of the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved and selected non-approved anti-obesity medications, ie (bold drugs are those that were identified as FDA-approved) amphetamine/dexamphetamine, benzphetamine hydrochloride, dexfenfluramine, diethylpropion, fenfluramine, fluoxetine, mazindol, methamphetamine hydrochloride, phendimetrazine tartrate, phentermine (hydrochloride and resin), phenlypropanolamine, the combination of phentermine–fenfluramine, sibutramine and sertraline, but they also did not quantitively synthesize outcomes of the drug therapies. The Task Force reviewed English-language trials that evaluated drug safety and efficacy that lasted for a minimum of 24 weeks and concluded that pharmacotherapy for obesity, when combined with appropriate behavioral approaches, helped many obese patients lose weight or maintain their weight loss.8

The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic review of anti-obesity agents, both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC), and drugs that are/were FDA-approved and are/were used off-label for obesity.8 The specific aims are to evaluate the clinical efficacy of obesity medications and determine whether methodological factors (eg length of treatment, year of publication) are systematically related to treatment outcome. In addition, based on the results of this meta-analysis, suggestions for future research are discussed.


Literature search

Inclusion criteria.

For this meta-analysis, we evaluated only anti-obesity agents that are/were FDA-approved for the treatment of obesity, both prescription and OTC, and drugs that are FDA-approved and are used off-label for obesity (see Table 1). We compiled this list by examining those that were highlighted by the National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity8 as being currently approved for the treatment of obesity in the United States, those that were used off-label, and including recently approved drugs that were not reviewed by the Task Force.8 In addition, we based our selection of drugs on extensive consultation with several experts in the field of obesity research.

Table 1 Anti-obesity agents

We retained fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine in the review because they were widely studied and used in clinical settings even though they were removed from the market in 1997. We did not include experimental obesity agents such as acarbose, beta-adrenoreceptor agonist (BRL 26830A), bromocriptine, buspar, cimetidine, fluvoxamine, human chorionic gonadotropin, human growth hormone, leptin, naloxone/naltrexone or synthyroid. We also did not include dietary supplements, which are defined by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 19949 as products intended to supplement the diet that contain one or more of the following ingredients: (1) a vitamin; (2) a mineral; (3) a herb or other botanical; (4) an amino acid; (5) a dietary substance for use to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or (6) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of the previously described ingredients. Examples of substances in this category include 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), ma huang (ephedrine), guarana (caffeine), chitosan, chromium (picolinate and nicotinate), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), garcinia cambogia/hydroxycitric acid, pyruvate and St John's Wort (hypericin).

Studies which met the following stringent criteria were included in the review: (1) the data were contained in published reports in peer-reviewed journals; (2) only human studies were included; (3) an English version of the study was available; (4) a direct comparison between an obesity drug therapy designed to produce weight loss and another treatment modality or a control group of obese individuals was provided; (5) participants were assigned randomly to treatment groups and the randomization scheme was not broken during assignment (ie some participants assigned randomly, some haphazardly); (6) groups were distinguishable on relevant parameters (eg drug type, use of lifestyle intervention); (7) the study provided sufficient outcome data to compute an effect size based on weight loss (see effect size definition below); (8) the study was published on or before December 1999 (to provide a point to begin coding and data analysis). Unfortunately, we were not able to code a large number of studies that address drug treatments for obesity. Uncodable studies typically did not present data in a manner where group outcomes could be precisely distinguished (eg cross-over studies where data were only presented at the conclusion of the study) or did not present sufficient data to compute an effect size (typically these studies presented no data on outcome variability nor information where outcome variance could be estimated). Finally, there were some studies where drugs were used for weight maintenance following obesity treatment, but were not used as part of a primary treatment to produce weight loss.10,11,12 We located a small number of maintenance articles and, although codeable, they were not included in the analyses.

Studies were located by computer searches of databases (eg Medline, PsychInfo), reviewing tables of content/reference sections of journals, abstracts, previous reviews, past empirical studies, relevant book chapters, and recent issues of journals which regularly publish obesity research (eg American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; and Obesity Research). In addition, a number of individuals who regularly publish in the obesity literature were asked to provide personal lists of obesity studies that address pharmacotherapy. Based on inclusionary criteria and the search procedures, a total of 108 randomized clinical trials (published in 103 articles) were located. The characteristics of these studies are outlined in the results section below.

Coding of studies

A Pharmacotherapy for Obesity: a Meta-Analysis of Control Trials Coding Manual containing the operational definitions of the variables used in this review was developed (available via email in MS Word for Windows format upon request from the first author). Reliability of coding was maintained by providing intensive training of the project assistants, including approximately 20 h of didactic and coding practice. Each coder was required to reach perfect agreement with sample studies coded by the principal investigator (CKH) prior to coding other studies. Finally, another project research assistant independently verified all coding. Because the majority of codes used in this review required little judgement (eg average weight of subjects, drug name), consistent coding was easily achieved. When parameters varied during the course of a study (eg drug dose), an average of that parameter was coded for the meta-analysis.

Coding and combining effect sizes

The standardized mean difference, d, based on change scores (reduction in weight), used as the measure of effect size in this review, is defined as:

where Δ X t i is the mean weight loss in the treatment group of the ith study, Δ X c i is the mean of the control or alternative treatment in the ith study, and Δ X s i is the pooled standard deviation of change for the two groups. When sufficient data were not reported to directly compute d, standard alternative methods of deriving the effect size were used if possible.13 This effect size controls for both placebo effects and lifestyle treatments in estimating the effect of the drugs. Because effect sizes based on change scores tend to be large compared to those based on post-test mean differences,14 direct comparisons to reviews using effect sizes based on post-test scores should be avoided.

The statistical procedures for combining effect sizes in this review weight each study by an inverse function of its sample variance—as the sampling variance becomes small, the weight becomes large (Shadish and Haddock,15 formula 18–7). When a single study provided more than one relevant effect size for an analysis, all within-study effect sizes were aggregated to avoid statistical dependency. Consistent with conventions in meta-analysis, results described only as insignificant where adequate data were not presented to compute an effect size were conservatively coded as zero. Hedges' correction for small sample bias (Hedges,16 Formula 4) was applied to all effect sizes.

In addition to providing d as a measure of effect size, raw differences between treatment group weight losses are also provided for each study. Although meta-analytic methods have been developed for statistically combining raw data in their original metric, many studies did not provide sufficient data on the variance of weight changes with which to compute appropriate weights.15 Thus, these unweighted raw differences between treatment groups are provided for descriptive purposes only and should be interpreted with caution.

Statistical analyses

Standard statistical procedures for meta-analysis were used for data analysis.17,18 Outcomes were considered a post-test if they (1) occurred at the end of an intact treatment package, (2) were the only outcome provided by the authors, or (3) were designated as a post-test by the study authors. For many studies, coding follow-up or long-term (ie after the initial post-test outcomes) effect sizes proved challenging. Although several studies continued to monitor the weights of patients past initial or post-test assessments of drug effects, many significantly altered the original study design and thus precluded our ability to present directly interpretable treatment effect sizes. Thus, these studies essentially present a new research trial based on previously treated patients. Only clinical trials that maintained the basic structure of their research design and allowed for ‘clean’ examination of long-term treatment effects were coded as follow-ups.


Characteristics of studies

Appendix 1 contains a complete list of studies included in the meta-analysis. Of the 108 clinical trials included, 102 were primarily concerned with pharmacologically induced weight loss. In the remaining six studies weight loss was a secondary outcome, with factors such as macronutrient intake serving as the primary endpoint of concern. However, these six studies used medication designed to promote weight loss and reported sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. Publication dates of the studies ranged from 1960 to 1999, with 9.3% in the 1960s, 42.6% in the 1970s, 12.0% in the 1980s and 36.1% published in the 1990s. Average age of the subjects included in the clinical trials was 40.7 y, although actual ages ranged from 5 y (Stewart et al,94 Appendix 1) to 77.0 y.

Single drug vs placebo: post-treatment outcomes

Table 2 presents design characteristics of studies providing drug–placebo comparisons. Weeks of treatment varied greatly by drug, with more recently introduced medications employing longer treatment periods (eg PPA and benzphetamine with an average of 7.4 and 8.9 weeks, respectively, and sibutramine and orlistat averaging 14.5 and 47.5 weeks of treatment). The majority of patients were female, with the proportion of females ranging from 57.6 to 88.5%. Consistent with published guidelines, most studies used some form of lifestyle management program even though these guidelines were published long after many studies were in print.19 This partially reflects the multidisciplinary nature of obesity treatment and the recognition that successful drug interventions must address eating and activity behaviors in obese patients.

Table 2 Single drug vs placebo: post-treatment outcomes

With the exception of benzocaine, patients receiving drug therapy, whether or not it was combined with lifestyle modification, experienced greater average weight loss than patients in the placebo groups. Unweighted weight loss differences ranged from −0.80 to 3.82 kg, with most drugs demonstrating modest weight losses relative to placebo. It is interesting to note that five drugs (benzocaine, dexfenfluramine, diethylpropion hydrochloride, fenfluramine and mazindol) had studies in which no weight loss or weight gain occurred relative to the placebo groups, as noted by the negative values in the drug-placebo value ranges.

Figure 1 presents the effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals for drug–placebo comparisons. Confidence intervals for the effect sizes are presented only for those drugs with three or more studies in the meta-analysis database. These results represent the post-test outcome of studies without consideration of possible design differences such as study length, drug dose etc. Outcomes suggest that the various drugs generally produced comparable weight losses. However, it could be argued that amphetamine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine and sibutramine produced the largest mean effect sizes among the drugs studied, each of which were in the ‘large’ range of effect size magnitude (ie>0.80) as is typically defined in meta-analysis.20 Furthermore, fenfluramine and sibutramine produced significantly better weight losses (based on the effect size 95% confidence intervals) than five of the other drugs studied, ie benzocaine, dexfenfluramine, fluoxetine, mazindol and orlistat. Nevertheless, both drugs overlapped with amphetamine, benzphetamine, diethylpropion, phentermine and PPA, suggesting that there were no statistically significant differences between these drugs' effect sizes.

Figure 1

Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of drug—placebo comparisons. Note: high/low lines were not constructed for amphetamine and benzocaine due to insufficient studies (<3). Horizontal line at an effect size of zero represents no treatment effect.

Effect of length of treatment

Not surprisingly, there was a strong correlation between the year of publication of a study and the length of the study's treatment (r=0.436, P<0.001) among studies providing single drug vs placebo outcomes. However, there was no overall relationship between treatment length and effect size (r=0.016, P=0.875), suggesting that many drugs may have their greatest impact on weight early in treatment. Seven drugs were judged to have a sufficient number of studies and variance in treatment length to be examined in within-drug analyses (ie dexfenfluramine, diethylpropion hydrochloride, fenfluramine, mazindol, orlistat, phentermine and PPA). Given the small number of studies within each drug type, the fact that each effect size is based on a group of patients rather than a single subject's outcome and, because a correlation coefficient represents an effect size,21 it was a priori decided that a correlation coefficient of 0.30 would be judged to be a potentially important indicator of association. However, traditional inferential tests also are reported. The correlations between effect size and treatment length and publication year are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Relationships among treatment length and year of publication on post-treatment single drug vs placebo outcomes

There were no significant associations between effect size and treatment length for any of the seven drugs examined, although the magnitude of the correlation for phentermine was large, suggesting that treatment length did influence phentermine's effect size. Table 3 also presents correlations between the amount of weight (kg) lost in both treatment and placebo groups for the seven drugs. Overall, longer treatment was associated with greater weight loss in both drug and placebo groups. Treatment length and amount of weight loss (kg) were significantly correlated only for dexfenfluramine (both drug and placebo) and the placebo groups in diethylpropion hydrochloride studies. Patients receiving diethylpropion hydrochloride or orlistat (or those participating in diethylpropion hydrochloride or orlistat study placebo groups) also demonstrated greater weight loss with increased treatment time, but the correlations were not statistically significant. Patients receiving placebo in both fenfluramine and mazindol studies experienced less weight loss with increasing treatment time. Thus, with a few exceptions, increasing treatment length was associated with greater weight loss among patients receiving drug or placebo.

Effect of publication year

Overall, there was no relationship between year of publication and effect size, suggesting that the placebo-controlled outcomes of drug studies are not changing over time (r=0.055, P=0.592). Most of the seven selected drugs demonstrated no or positive, but statistically insignificant, relationships between publication year and effect size except for dexfenfluramine. The correlation between dexfenfluramine's effect size and year of publication was strong and negative, suggesting that effect size in dexfenfluramine studies decreased over time. This was also demonstrated in the negative correlation between publication year and the amount of weight (kg) lost in patients taking dexfenfluramine, suggesting that later dexfenfluramine studies that met our inclusion criteria demonstrated less weight loss than earlier studies. While the same trend was noted in patients receiving placebos in dexfenfluramine studies, the correlation was not statistically significant.

Single drug vs placebo: follow-up outcomes

Nineteen studies provided data where (1) the research design remained intact and (2) data were presented for a follow-up assessment period after the formal study was complete. Lengths of the follow-ups ranged from 1 to 136 weeks (mean=17.3; median 6.0). The relationship between length of follow-up and effect size was not significant (P=0.066), although the magnitude of the correlation was moderate (r=−0.430). Table 4 presents follow-up effect sizes from these randomized clinical trials.

Table 4 Single drug vs placebo: follow-up outcomes

All studies discontinued drug treatment during the follow-up period. In addition, most studies did not provide booster sessions during this time. Thus, the follow-up periods for the majority of studies examined represent post-treatment observation periods without any extension of the treatments, not reflecting the current long-term treatment paradigm in obesity management. With the exception of amphetamine and mazindol, all drugs with follow-up periods demonstrated sustained weight loss. Phentermine and sibutramine maintained fairly large placebo subtracted weight losses (ie 2.43 and 2.37 kg, respectively) and had the largest effect sizes, ranging from 0.810 to 1.05. Dexfenfluramine had a smaller placebo-subtracted weight loss and a more modest effect size, but results are based on a larger number of studies than the effect sizes for phentermine and sibutramine. Given the small number of studies providing follow-up assessments, the effects of moderators of outcome were not explored.

Combination drug vs placebo: post-treatment outcomes

Six studies provided comparisons of combination drugs vs placebo and met study inclusionary criteria. None of the combination drug trials included assessments that met our definition of a follow-up. Outcomes for the combination drugs are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Combination drug vs placebo: post-treatment outcomes

Length of treatment for combination drug trials ranged from 6 to 32 weeks and the majority of patients were women. All patients in these trials received some form of lifestyle modification (ie modification of diet and/or physical activity). All drug combinations produced placebo-subtracted weight loss, ranging from 0.30 kg for PPA–benzocaine to 9.60 kg for fenfluramine–phentermine. Effect sizes for phentermine–fenfluramine (1.48), PPA–caffeine (2.58), and methamphetamine–phenobarbatol (5.04) were all very large. It also should be noted that, with one exception (PPA–benzocaine), all combination drugs produced larger effect sizes than any single drug except fenfluramine and sibutramine (see Figure 1). However, these effect sizes are based on a much smaller number of studies (n=1 for most) and some of the combinations are now viewed as having significant adverse health impacts (eg fenfluramine–phentermine, methamphetamine–phenobarbatol).

Drug–drug comparisons

There were few drug–drug comparisons to examine (ie 18 in total). Table 6 summarizes the data, including effect sizes, for all drug–drug comparisons. Most effect sizes for the drug–drug comparisons were in the medium range with the exception of diethylpropion vs PPA–caffeine and mazindol vs PPA–caffeine. No general patterns of effectiveness emerged based on drug pharmacology, eg PPA–caffeine, an OTC preparation, was consistently less effective than prescription drugs it was compared with, eg mazindol and diethylpropion. In contrast, ephedrine–caffeine, another OTC, performed moderately better than dexfenfluramine. Most drug–drug comparison trials were relatively short duration, ranging from 2 to 15 weeks. Overall, mazindol was compared to other drugs more often than any of the others that met our study inclusion criteria. Mazindol tended to demonstrate greater weight losses than the drugs it was compared with, with effect sizes in the medium range in most cases.

Table 6 Drug–drug comparisons: post-treatment outcomes


We meta-analyzed published, randomized, controlled trials of obesity pharmacotherapies identified by the National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity8 as being currently approved, those that were used off-label, recently approved drugs that were not reviewed by the Task Force,8 and recently removed drugs that were previously approved by the FDA for obesity management. Overall, the studied drugs produced medium effect sizes with only four drugs having effect sizes greater than 0.80 (amphetamine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine and sibutramine) and only one exceeding 0.90 (sibutramine). As noted in Table 2, the absolute placebo-subtracted weight losses associated with studies of single drugs included in the meta-analysis never exceeded 4.0 kg. Thus, the incremental benefit of obesity drug treatments, in addition to lifestyle interventions, appears to be modest. It is interesting that there was no drug, or class of drugs, that demonstrated clear superiority. As can be seen in Figure 1, many of the 95% confidence intervals for the studied drugs overlapped, indicating that the differences in effect sizes among many of the drugs were not statistically significant. For example, sibutramine, the drug with the largest effect size, had overlapping confidence intervals with benzphetamine, diethylpropion, fenfluramine, phentermine and PPA, and the effect size for amphetamine exceeded its lower boundary. The only clearly ineffective drug was benzocaine, with a negative effect size of −0.35 and a placebo-subtracted weight loss of −0.80 kg. However, the outcome of benzocaine was based on one randomized clinical trial.

Another surprising result was that treatment length and year of publication did not influence effect size over all drugs studied. While longer treatments were associated with greater weight loss, this was true for both drug and placebo groups and the relationships were roughly equivalent (ie r=0.430 and 0.395, respectively), suggesting that this effect was independent of drug treatments. When examining individual drugs, it was striking to note that several demonstrated negative relationships between treatment length and effect size (eg dexfenfluramine, diethylpropion, fenfluramine and PPA), suggesting that their effectiveness decreased with increasing treatment time, although these correlations were small and not statistically significant. While there was no overall relationship between publication year and effect size, it is interesting to note that there was a statistically significant negative correlation between publication year and effect size for dexfenfluramine, indicating that treatment effectiveness (and weight loss in drug treatment groups) decreased over the last decade of published studies. Mazindol and PPA also had negative, but small and statistically insignificant associations between effect size and publication year.

Few drug studies provided follow-up outcome data and those that did discontinued pharmacotherapy during this time. This is notable given that the current treatment paradigm emphasizes that obesity is a chronic disease requiring sustained treatment.22 Thus, having drug-free follow-ups in obesity treatment should be akin to expecting sustained anti-hypertensive effects after drug discontinuation in hypertension patients, ie there is no more reason to expect that obesity medications will have significant prolonged effects than would be expected with any other chronic disease pharmacotherapy. Given this new treatment paradigm, obesity pharmacotherapy studies may need to shift from the idea of using drug-free follow-up periods to studying long-term continuous or intermittent drug administration. Nevertheless, some drugs continued to provide important weight loss maintenance during drug free follow-up periods. For example, both phentermine and sibutramine demonstrated large effect sizes and modest placebo-subtracted weight loss (ie 2.43 and 2.37 kg, respectively) even though pharmacotherapy had been discontinued during the follow-up period and PPA provided sustained weight loss with continued administration.

With the exception of PPA–benzocaine, drug combinations appeared to be the most potent weight loss agents, producing large effect sizes ranging from 0.873 to 5.043 and placebo-subtracted weight losses ranged from 1.0 to 9.6 kg. Unfortunately, several of the constituent drugs in these combinations have demonstrated substantial negative side-effects and have been removed from the market or are not available (eg amphetamine, fenfluramine and methamphetamine) or have been or are under consideration for removal (eg PPA, ephedra).23,24,25,26,27

Prior to conducting this meta-analysis, several moderator variables were hypothesized to affect the outcomes of the clinical trials but were not included in this review. For instance, the effects of drug side effects and attrition due to side effects was a primary interest of the meta-analysis team. However, few studies provided useable data on either patterns of or attrition due to side effects. Further, many studies provided only scant description of controls used to ensure the internal validity of the trial or codeable descriptions of lifestyle components. As with all meta-analyses, we were limited to coding factors that are presented in primary studies. Therefore, standards for reporting important parameters in obesity drug clinical trials are needed to increase the utility of future reviews of this literature.

The results of this meta-analysis have several important implications for obesity pharmacotherapy. First, increasing length of drug treatment does not lead to more weight loss; thus, longer treatments appear to promote weight maintenance, but further weight loss beyond the typical plateau at 6 months is unlikely. In addition, the amount of weight lost above and beyond that achieved in placebo treatments, most of which included some form of lifestyle management (ie diet, exercise, or both) is typically modest (ie usually greater than 2 kg) and never exceeded 4 kg in the single drug vs placebo comparisons. Some may argue that this is a very small incremental improvement given the costs and risks associated with drug therapies; however, this amount of weight is important (ie nearly or exceeding 1 BMI unit) and drug treatments often can be more accessible and easier to use than structured lifestyle modification programs that typically are based in obesity treatment centers. In addition, obesity medications can result in important reductions in overall medication use and net costs associated with obesity-related comorbidites.27

Finally, more recent studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria and were not included in this meta-analysis10,11,12 suggest that pharmacotherapy may be particularly helpful in promoting long-term weight maintenance. For example, 75% of patients taking sibutramine following a 4-week very low calorie diet (VLCD) maintained 100% of their initial weight loss 1 y after completing the VLCD, compared with only 42% of placebo-treated patients.10 Similarly, James et al12 found that patients receiving sibutramine for an 18-month maintenance phase, following a 6-month 600 kcal diet+sibutramine weight loss segment, maintained a greater amount of their initial weight loss when compared to patients randomized to receive a placebo. Thus, 43% of the drug-treated patients maintained 80% of their initial weight loss as compared to only 16% of the placebo-treated patients. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of drug therapies as long-term weight maintenance agents.


  1. 1.

    Represents three independent studies.

  2. 2.

    Represents data from a single study published in multiple articles.

  3. 3.

    Represents two independent studies.


  1. 1

    Lijesen GK, Theeuwen I, Assendelft WF, Van Der Wal G . The effect of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) in the treatment of obesity by means of the Simeons therapy: a criteria-based meta-analysis Br J Clin Pharmac 1995 40: 237–243.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Van Gaal LF, Wauters MA, Peiffer FW, De Leeuw IH . Sibutramine and fat distribution: is there a role for pharmacotherapy in abdominal/visceral fat reduction? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998 22(Suppl): S38–S40.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Greenway FL . Clinical studies with phenylpropanolamine: a meta-analysis Am J Clin Nutr 1992 55: 203S–205S.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Scoville BA . Review of amphetamine like drugs by the Federal Drug Administration: clinical data and value judgments. In: G Bray (ed). Obesity in perspective, DHEW publication no. (NIH) 75–708. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Weintraub M . Phenylpropanolamine as an anorexiant agent weight control: a review of published and unpublished studies. In: JD Morgan, DV Kagan, JS Brody (eds). Phenylpropanolamine: risks, benefits, and controversies Praeger: New York 1985 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Committee on Nutrition, Massachusetts Medical Society . Obesity treatment using drug therapy. White paper The Massachusetts Medical Society: Waltham, MA 1998.

  7. 7

    Goldstein DJ, Potvin JH . Long-term weight loss: the effect of pharmacological agents Am J Clin Nutr 1994 60: 647–657.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity . Long-term pharmacotherapy in the management of obesity JAMA 1996 276: 1907–1915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Public Law 103–417: 103rd Congress, 2nd Session Senate, Report 103–410 Washington, DC 1–49.

  10. 10

    Apfelbaum M, Vague P, Ziegler O, Hanotin C, Thomas F, Leutenegger E . Long-term maintenance of weight loss after a very-low-calorie diet: a randomized blinded trial of the efficacy and tolerability of sibutramine Am J Med 1999 106: 179–184.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Wadden TA, Bartlett SJ, Foster GD, Greenstein RA, Wingate BJ, Stunkard AJ, Letizia KA . Sertraline and relapse prevention training following treatment by very-low-calorie diet: a controlled clinical trial Obes Res 1995 3: 549–557.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    James WPT, Astrup A, Finer N, Hilsted J, Kopelman P, Rossner S, Saris WHM, Van Gaal LF . Effects of sibutramine on weight maintenance after weight loss: a randomized trial Lancet 2000 356: 2119–2125.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rosenthal R . Parametric measures of effect size. In: H Cooper, LV Hedges (eds). The handbook of research synthesis Russell Sage: New York 1994 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Lipsey MW, Wilson DB . The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis Am Psychol 1993 48: 1181–1209.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Shadish, WR, Haddock, CK . Combining estimates of effect size. In: H Cooper, LV Hedges (eds). The handbook of research synthesis Russell Sage: New York 1994 261–281.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Hedges LV . Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments Psychol Bull 1982 92: 490–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Hedges LV, Olkin I . Statistical methods for meta-analysis Academic Press: San Diego, CA 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Cooper H, Hedges LV . The handbook of research synthesis (Part VI) Russell Sage: New York 1994.

  19. 19

    Cohen J . A power primer Psychol Bull 1992 112: 155–159.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) . Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity: the evidence report US Government Press: Washington DC 1998.

  21. 21

    Ozer DJ . Correlation and the coefficient of determination Psychol Bull 1985 97: 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Kopelman PG . Obesity as a medical problem Nature 2000 404: 635–643.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Brass LM, Broderick JP, Brott T, Feldmann E, Mogenstern LB, Wilterdink JL, Horwitz RI . Phenylpronanolamine and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke New Engl J Med 2000 343: 1826–1832.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Kolanowski J . A risk–benefit assessment of anti-obesity drugs Drug Safety 1999 20: 119–131.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Scheen AJ, Lefebvre PJ . Pharmacological treatment of obesity: present status Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999 23: 47–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Haller CA, Benowitz NL . Adverse cardiovascular and central nervous system events associated with dietary supplements containing ephedra alkaloids New Engl J Med 2000 343: 1833–1838.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Greenway FL, Ryan DH, Bray GA, Rood JC, Tucker EW, Smith SR . Pharmaceutical cost savings of treating obesity with weight loss medications Obes Res 1999 7: 523–531.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This paper was supported by a faculty research grant from the University of Missouri-Kansas City awarded to Dr Haddock and a minority scientist development grant from the American Heart Association, awarded to Dr Poston.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to CK Haddock.

Appendix 1: Studies included in the meta analysis

Appendix 1: Studies included in the meta analysis

  1. 1

    Abramson R, Garg M, Cioffari A, Rotman PA. An evaluation of behavioral techniques reinforced with an anoretic drug in a double-blind weight loss study. J Clin Psychiatry 1980; 41: 234–237.

  2. 2

    Alger S, Larson K, Boyce VL, Seagle H, Fontvielle A, Ferraro R, Rising R, Ravussin E. Effect of phenylpropanolamine on energy expenditure and weight loss in overweight women. Am J Clin Nutr 1993; 57: 120–126.

  3. 3

    Allen GS. A double-blind clinical trial of diethylpropion hydrochloride, mazindol, and placebo in the treatment of exogenous obesity. Curr Ther Res 1997; 22: 678–685.

  4. 4

    Altschuler S, Conte A, Sebok M, Marlin R, Winick C. Three controlled trials of weight loss with phenylpropanolamine. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1982; 6: 549–556.

  5. 5

    Altschuler S, Frazer DL. Double-blind clinical evaluation of the anorectic activity of phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride drops and placebo drops in the treatment of exogenous obesity. Curr Ther Res 1986; 40: 211–217.

  6. 6

    Atkinson RL, Greenway FL, Bray GA, Dahms WT, Molitch ME, Hamilton K, Rodin J. Treatment of obesity: comparison of physician and nonphysician therapists using placebo and anorectic drugs in a double-blind trial. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1977; 1: 113–120.

  7. 7

    Bacon GE, Lowery GH. A clinical trial of fenfluramine in obese children. Curr Ther Res 1967; 9: 626–630.

  8. 8

    Baird IM, Howard AN. A double-blind trial of mazindol using a very low calorie formula diet. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1977; 1: 271–278.

  9. 9

    Bandisode MS, Boshell BR. Double blind clinical evaluation of mazindol (42–548) in obese diabetics. Curr Ther Res 1975; 18: 816–824.

  10. 10

    Bolding OT. Diethylpropion hydrochloride: an effective appetite suppressant. Curr Ther Res 1974; 16: 40–48.

  11. 11

    Bradley MH, Raines J. The effects of phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride in overweight patients with controlled stable hypertension. Curr Ther Res 1989; 46: 74–84.

  12. 12

    Bray GA, Ryan DH, Gordon D, Heidingsfelder S, Cerise F, Wilson K. A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of sibutramine. Obes Res 1996; 4: 263–270.

  13. 13

    Breum L, Astrup A, Andersen T, Lammert O, Nielsen E, Garby L, Quaade F. The effect of long-term dexfenfluramine treatment on 24-hour energy expenditure in man: a double-blind placebo controlled study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1990; 14: 613–621.

  14. 14

    Breum L, Pedersen JK, Ahlstrom F, Frimodt-Moller J. Comparison of an ephedrine/caffeine combination and dexfenfluramine in the treatment of obesity: a double-blind multicentre trial in general practice. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1994; 18: 99–103.

  15. 15

    Brightwell DR, Naylor CS. Effects of a combined behavioral and pharmacologic program on weight loss. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1979; 3: 141–148.

  16. 16

    Brodbin P, O'Connor CA. A double-blind clinical trial of an appetite depressant, fenfluramine, in general practice. Practitioner 1967; 198: 707–710.

  17. 17

    Brun LD, Bielmann P, Gagne C, Moorjani S, Nadeau A, Lupien, PJ. Effects of fenfluramine in hypertriglyceridemic obese subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1988; 12: 423–431.

  18. 18

    Campbell CJ, Bhalla IP, Steel JM, Duncan LJP. A controlled trial of phentermine in obese diabetic patients. Practitioner 1977; 218: 851–855.

  19. 19

    Connolly VM, Gallagher A, Kesson CM. A study of fluoxetine in obese elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Med 1995; 12: 416–418.

  20. 20

    Footnote 1Conte A. Evaluation of Sanorex-a new appetite suppressant. J Obes Bariat Med 1973; 2: 104–107.

  21. 21

    *Conte A. Evaluation of Sanorex-a new appetite suppressant. J Obes Bariat Med 1973; 2: 104–107.

  22. 22

    *Conte A. Evaluation of Sanorex-a new appetite suppressant. J Obes Bariat Med 1973; 2: 104–107.

  23. 23

    Crommelin RM. Nonamphetamine, anorectic medication for obese diabetic patients: controlled and open investigations of mazindol. Clin Med 1974; 81: 20–24.

  24. 24

    Dahms WT, Molitch ME, Bray GA, Greenway FL, Atkinson RL, Hamilton K. Treatment of obesity: cost–benefit assessment of behavioral therapy, placebo, and two anorectic drugs. Am J Clin Nutr 1978; 31: 774–778.

  25. 25

    Davidson MH, Hauptman J, DiGirolamo M, Foreyt JP, Halsted CH, Heber D, Heimburger DC, Lucas CP, Robbins DC, Chung J, Heymsfield SB. Weight control and risk factor reduction in obese subjects treated for 2 y with orlistat: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999; 281: 235–242.

  26. 26

    DeFelice EA, Chaykin LB, Cohen A. Double-blind clinical evaluation of mazindol, dextroamphetamine and placebo in treatment of exogenous obesity. Curr Ther Res 1973; 15: 358–366.

  27. 27

    DeFelice E, Bronstein S, Cohen A. Double-blind comparison of placebo and 42–548, a new appetite suppressant, in obese volunteers. Curr Ther Res 1969; 11: 256–262.

  28. 28

    Drent ML, Larsson I, William-Olsson T, Quaade F, Czubayko F, von Bergmann K, Strobel W, Sjostrom L, van der Veen EA. Orlistat (RO 18-0647), a lipase inhibitor, in the treatment of human obesity: a multiple dose study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1995; 19: 221–226.

  29. 29

    Elliott BW. A collaborative investigation of fenfluramine: anorexigenic with sedative properties. Curr Ther Res 1970; 12: 502–515.

  30. 30

    Elmaleh, MK, Miller, J. Controlled clinical evaluation of a new anorectic agent in obese adults. Pa Med 1974; 77: 46–50.

  31. 31

    Enzi G, Baritussio A, Marchiori E, Crepaldi G. Short-term and long-term clinical evaluation of a non-amphetaminic anorexiant (mazindol) in the treatment of obesity. J Int Med Res 1976; 4: 305–318.

  32. 32

    Enzi G, Crepaldi G, Inelmen EM, Bruni R, Baggio B. Efficacy and safety of dexfenfluramine in obese patients: a multi-center study. Clin Neuropharmac 1988; 11(Suppl): S173–S178.

  33. 33

    Ferguson JM, Feighner JP. Fluoxetine induced weight loss in overweight non-depressed humans. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1987; 11: 163–170.

  34. 34

    Finer N, Finer S, Naoumova RP. Prolonged use of a very low calorie diet (Cambridge diet) in massively obese patients attending an obesity clinic: safety, efficacy, and additional benefit from dexfenfluramine. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1989; 13: 91–93.

  35. 35

    Galloway DB, Logie AW, Petrie JC. Prolonged action fenfluramine in nondiabetic patients with refractory obesity. Postgrad Med J 1975; 51: 155–157.

  36. 36

    Goldrick RB, Hevnstein N, Whyte HM. Effects of caloric restriction and fenfluramine on weight loss and personality profiles of pati-ents with long-standing obesity. Austr NZ J Med 1973; 3: 131–141.

  37. 37

    Goldstein DJ, Rampey AH, Potvin JH, Fludzinski LA. Fluoxetine in obese patients with noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Clin Res 1992; 40: 240A (abstract).

  38. 38

    Footnote 2Holman SL, Goldstein DJ, Enas GG. Pattern analysis method for assessing successful weight reduction. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1994; 18: 281–285.

  39. 39

    Goldstein DJ, Rampey AH Jr, Enas GG, Potvin JH, Fludzinski LA, Levine LR. Fluoxetine: a randomized clinical trial in the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1994; 18: 129–135.

  40. 40

    Gray DS, Fujioka K, Devine W, Bray GA. A randomized double-blind clinical trial of fluoxetine in obese diabetics. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992; 16: S67–S72.

  41. 41

    Footnote 3Greenway F, Herber D, Raum W, Morales S. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with non-prescription medications for the treatment of obesity. Obes Res 1999; 7: 370–378.

  42. 42

    Greenway F, Herber D, Raum W, Morales S. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with non-prescription medications for the treatment of obesity. Obes Res 1999; 7: 370–378.

  43. 43

    Guy-Grand B, Apfelbaum M, Crepaldi G, Gries A, Lefebvre P, Turner P. International trial of long-term dexfenfluramine in obesity. Lancet 1989; 2: 1142–1144.

  44. 44

    Pfohl M, Luft D, Blomberg I, Schmulling R-M. Long-term changes of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors after weight reduction with group therapy and dexfenfluramine. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1994; 18: 391–395.

  45. 45

    Hanotin C, Thomas F, Jones SP, Leutenegger E, Drouin P. Efficacy and tolerability of sibutramine in obese patients: a dose-ranging study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998; 22: 32–38.

  46. 46

    Hanotin C, Thomas F, Jones SP, Leutenegger E, Drouin P. A comparison of sibutramine and dexfenfluramine in the treatment of obesity. Obes Res 1998; 6: 285–291.

  47. 47

    Heber KR. Double-blind trial of mazindol in overweight patients. Med J Aust 1975; 2: 566–567.

  48. 48

    Hill JO, Hauptman J, Anderson JW, Fujioka K, O'Neil PM, Smith DK, Zavoral JH, Aronne LJ. Orlistat, a lipase-inhibitor, for weight maintenance after conventional dieting: a 1-y study. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 69: 1108–1116.

  49. 49

    Hoebel BG, Krauss IK, Cooper J, Willard D. Body weight decreased in humans by phenylpropanolamine taken before meals. J Obes Bariat Med 1975; 4: 200–206.

  50. 50

    Holdaway IM, Wallace E, Westbrooke L, Gamble G. Effect of dexfenfluramine on body weight, blood pressure, insulin resistance, and serum cholesterol in obese individuals. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1995; 19: 749–751.

  51. 51

    Hollander PA, Elbein SC, Hirsch IB, Kelley D, McGill J, Taylor T, Weiss SR, Crockett SE, Kaplan RA, Comstock J, Lucas CP, Lodewick PA, Canovatchel W, Chung J, Hauptman J. Role of orlistat in the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year randomized double-blind study. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1288–1294.

  52. 52

    Hooper ACB. Comparison of fenfluramine (with ad libitum food intake) with 1000 calorie diet in obesity. J Irish Med Assoc 1972; 65: 35–37.

  53. 53

    Johnson WG, Hughes JR. Mazindol: its efficacy and mode of action in generating weight loss. Addict Behav 1979; 4: 237–244.

  54. 54

    Kaplan NM, Jose A. Thyroid as an adjuvant to amphetamine therapy of obesity: a controlled double-blind study. Am J Med Sci 1970; 260: 105–111.

  55. 55

    Kolanowski J, Younis LT, Vanbutsele R, Detry JM. Effect of dexfenfluramine treatment on body weight, blood pressure and noradrenergic activity in obese hypertensive patients. Eur J Clin Pharmac 1992; 42: 599–606.

  56. 56

    Kornhaber A. Obesity-depression: clinical evaluation with a new anorexigenic agent. Psychosomatics 1973; 14: 162–167.

  57. 57

    Kornhaber A. Obesity-depression: clinical evaluation with a new anorexigenic agent. Psychosomatics 1973; 14: 162–167.

  58. 58

    Kutnowski M, Daubresse J, Friedman H, Kolanowski J, Krzentowski G, Scheen A, van Gaal L. Fluoxetine therapy in obese diabetic and glucose intolerant patients. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992; 16(Suppl): S63–S66.

  59. 59

    Lafreniere F, Lambert J, Rasio E, Serri O. Effect of dexfenfluramine treatment on body weight and postprandial thermogenesis in obese patients: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993; 17: 25–30.

  60. 60

    Langlois KJ, Forbes JA, Bell GW, Grant GF Jr. A double-blind clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of phentermine hydrochloride (Fastin) in the treatment of exogenous obesity. Curr Ther Res 1974; 16: 289–296.

  61. 61

    Lawson AAH, Roscoe P, Strong JA, Gibson A, Peattie P. Comparison of fenfluramine and metformin in the treatment of obesity. Lancet 1970; i: 437–441.

  62. 62

    Levine LR, Rosenblatt S, Bosomworth J. Use of a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, fluoxetine, in the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1987; 11: 185–190.

  63. 63

    Levine LR, Enas GG, Thompson WL, Byyny RL, Dauer, AD, Kirby RW, Kreindler TG, Levy B, Lucas CP, Mcllwain HH, Nelson EB. Use of fluoxetine, a selective serotonin-uptake inhibitor, in the treatment of obesity: a dose–response study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1989; 13: 635–645.

  64. 64

    Lucas CP, Sandage BW. Treatment of obese patients with dexfenfluramine: a multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Am J Ther 1995; 2: 962–967.

  65. 65

    Marbury TC, Angelo JE, Gulley RM, Krosnick A, Sugimoto DH, Zellner SR. A placebo-controlled dose-response study of dexfenfluramine in the treatment of obese patients. Curr Ther Res 1996; 57: 663–674.

  66. 66

    Mathus-Vliegen EMH, van de Voorde K, Kok AME, Res AMA. Dexfenfluramine in the treatment of severe obesity: a placebo-controlled investigation of the effects on weight loss, cardiovascular risk factors, food intake, and eating behavior. J Intern Med 1992; 232: 119–127.

  67. 67

    Mathus-Vliegen LMH, Res AMA. Dexfenfluramine influences dietary compliance and eating behavior, but dietary instruction may overrule its effect on food selection in obese subjects. J Am Diet Assoc 1993; 93: 1163–1165.

  68. 68

    Mathus-Vliegen EMH. Prolonged surveillance of dexfenfluramine in severe obesity. Neth J Med 1993; 43: 246–253.

  69. 69

    McKay RHG. Long-term use of diethylpropion in obesity. Curr Med Res Opin 1973; 1: 489–493.

  70. 70

    McQuarrie HG. Clinical assessment of the use of an anorectic drug in a total weight reduction program. Curr Ther Res 1975; 17: 437–443.

  71. 71

    Miach PJ, Thomson W, Doyle AE, Louis WJ. Double-blind cross-over evaluation of mazindol in the treatment of obese hypertensive patients. Med J Aust 1976; 2: 378–380.

  72. 72

    Munro JF, Seaton DA, Duncan LJP. Treatment of refractory obesity with fenfluramine. Br Med J 1966; 2: 624–625.

  73. 73

    Murphy JE, Donald JF, Molla AL, Crowder D. A comparison of mazindol (Teronac) with diethylpropion in the treatment of exogenous obesity. J Int Med Res 1975; 3: 202–206.

  74. 74

    Noble RE. A controlled study of a weight reduction regimen. Curr Ther Res 1971; 13: 685–691.

  75. 75

    Nolan GR. Use of an anorexic drug in a total weight reduction program in private practice. Curr Ther Res 1975; 18: 332–337.

  76. 76

    O'Connor HT, Richman RM, Steinbeck KS, Caterson ID. Dexfenfluramine treatment of obesity: a double blind trial with post trial follow-up. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1995; 19: 181–189.

  77. 77

    O'Kane M, Wiles PG, Wales JK. Fluoxetine in the treatment of obese type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetic Med 1994; 11: 105–110.

  78. 78

    Oster HL, Medlar RE. A clinical pharmacologic study of benzphetamine (Didrex®), a new appetite suppressant. Arizona Med 1960; 17: 398–404.

  79. 79

    Persson I, Andersen U, Deckert T. Treatment of obesity with fenfluramine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1973; 6: 93–97.

  80. 80

    Petrie JC, Bewsher PD, Mowat JA, Stowers, JM. Metabolic effects of fenfluramine-a double-blind study. Postgrad Med J 1975; 51: 139–144.

  81. 81

    Pijl H, Koppeschaar HPF, Willekens FLA, de Kamp IO, Veldhuis HD, Meinders AE. Effect of serotonin re-uptake inhibition by fluoxetine on body weight and spontaneous food choice in obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1991; 15: 237–242.

  82. 82

    Recasens MA, Barenys M, Sola R, Blanch S, Masana L, Salas-Salvado J. Effect of dexfenfluramine on energy expenditure in obese patients on a very-low-calorie-diet. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1995; 9: 162–168.

  83. 83

    Sainani GS, Fulambarkar AM, Khurana BK. A double blind trial of fenfluramine in the treatment of obesity. Br J Clin Pract 1973; 27: 136–138.

  84. 84

    Schteingart DE. Effectiveness of phenylpropanolamine in the management of moderate obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992; 16: 487–493.

  85. 85

    Schwartz LN. A non-amphetamine anorectic agent: preclinical background and a double-blind clinical trial. J Int Med Res 1975; 3: 328–332.

  86. 86

    Seagle HM, Bessesen DH, Hill JO. Effects of sibutramine on resting metabolic rate and weight loss in overweight women. Obes Res 1998; 6: 115–121.

  87. 87

    Sebok M. A double-blinded, placebo-controlled, clinical study of the efficacy of a phenylpropanolamine/caffeine combination product as an aid to weight loss in adults. Curr Ther Res 1984; 28: 701–708.

  88. 88

    Sedgwick JP. Mazindol in the treatment of obesity. Practitioner 1975; 214: 418–420.

  89. 89

    Silverstone JT, Solomon T. The long-term management of obesity in general practice. Br J Clin Pract 1965; 19: 395–398.

  90. 90

    Simkin BWL. A controlled clinical trial of benzphetamine (Didrex®) in the management of obesity. Curr Ther Res 1960; 2: 33–38.

  91. 91

    Simkin B, Wallace L. Some quantitative observations on a methampetamine–phenobarbital anorexic compound in obese outpatients. Am J Med Sci 1960; 239: 533–538.

  92. 92

    Sirtori C, Hurwitz A, Azarnoff DL. Hyperinsulinemia secondary to chronic administration of mazindol and d-amphetamine. Am J Med Sci 1971; 261: 341–349.

  93. 93

    Sjostrom L, Rissanen A, Andersen T, Boldrin M, Golay A, Koppeschaar HPF, Krempf M. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of orlistat for weight loss and prevention of weight regain in obese patients. Lancet 1998; 352: 167–172.

  94. 94

    Sonka J, Limanova Z, Zbirkova A, Kratochvil O. Effects of diet, exercise, and anorexigenic drugs on serum thryoid hormones. Endokrinologie 1980; 76: 351–356.

  95. 95

    Sproule BC. Double-blind trial of anorectic agents. Med J Aust 1969; 1: 394–395.

  96. 96

    Stewart DA, Bailey JD, Patell H. Tenuate dospan as an appetite suppressant in the treatment of obese children. Appl Ther 1970; 12: 34–36.

  97. 97

    Stewart GO, Stein GR, Davis TME, Findlater P. Dexfenfluramine in type II diabetes: effect on weight and diabetes control. Med J Austr 1993; 158: 167–169.

  98. 98

    Swinburn BA, Carmichael HE, Wilson MR. Dexfenfluramine as an adjunct to a reduced-fat, ad libitum diet: effects on body composition, nutrient intake, and cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996; 20: 1033–1040.

  99. 99

    Thorpe PC, Isaac PF, Rodgers J. A controlled trial of mazindol (Sanorex®, Teronao®) in the management of the obese rheumatic patients. Curr Ther Res 1975; 17: 149–155.

  100. 100

    Truant AP, Olon LP, Cobb S. Phentermine resin as an adjunct in medical weight reduction: a controlled, randomized, double-blind prospective study. Curr Ther Res 1972; 14: 726–738.

  101. 101

    Valle-Jones JC, Brodie NH, O'Hara H, O'Hara J, McGhie RL. A comparative study of phentermine and diethylpropion in the treatment of obese patients in general practice. Pharmatherapeutica 1983; 3: 300–304.

  102. 102

    Van Gaal LF, Broom JI, Enzi G, Toplak H. Efficacy and tolerability of orlistat in the treatment of obesity: a 6-month study dose-ranging study. Eur J Clin Pharmac 1998; 54: 125–132.

  103. 103

    Vernace BJ. Controlled comparative investigation of mazindol, d-amphetamine and placebo. J Obes Bariat Med 1974; 3: 124–129.

  104. 104

    Visser M, Seidell JC, Koppeschaar PF, Smits P. The effect of fluoxetine on body weight, body composition and visceral fat accumulation. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993; 17: 247–253.

  105. 105

    Waal-Manning HJ, Simpson FO. Fenfluramine in obese patients on various antihypertensive drugs: Double-blind controlled trial. Lancet 1969; 2: 1392–1395.

  106. 106

    Walker BR, Ballard IM, Gold JA. A multicentre study comparing mazindol and placebo in obese patients. J Int Med Res 1977; 5: 85–90.

  107. 107

    Wallace AG. AN 448 Sandoz (mazindol) in the treatment of obesity. Med J Aust 1976; 1: 343–345.

  108. 108

    Weintraub M. Long-term weight control: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute funded multimodal intervention study. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 581–585.

  109. 109

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Madan M, Schuster B, Balder A, Lasagna L, Cox C. Long-term weight control study I (weeks 0 to 34): the enhancement of behavior modification, caloric restriction, and exercise by fenfluramine plus phentermine versus placebo. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 51: 586–594.

  110. 110

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Schuster B, Ginsberg G, Madan M, Balder A, Stein EC, Byrne L. Long-term weight control study II (weeks 34–104): an open-label study of continuous fenfluramine plus phentermine versus targeted intermittent medication as adjuncts to behavior modification, caloric restriction, and exercise. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 595–601.

  111. 111

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Schuster B, Moscucci M, Stein EC. Long-term weight control study III (weeks 104 to 156): an open-label study of dose adjustment of fenfluramine and phentermine. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 602–607.

  112. 112

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Schuster B, Averbuch M, Stein EC, Cox C. Long-term weight control study IV (weeks 156 to 190): the second double-blind phase. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 608–614.

  113. 113

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Schuster B, Averbuch M, Stein EC, Byrne L. Long-term weight control study V (weeks 190 to 210): follow-up of participants after cessation of medicine. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 615–618.

  114. 114

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Cox C. Long-term weight control study VI: individual participant response patterns. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 619–633.

  115. 115

    Weintraub M, Sundaresan PR, Schuster B. Long-term weight control study VI (weeks 0 to 210): serum lipid changes. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 634–641.

  116. 116

    Weintraub M. Long-term weight control study: conclusions. Clin Pharmac Ther 1992; 51: 642–646.

  117. 117

    Weintraub M, Rubio A, Golik A, Byrne L, Scheinbaum ML. Sibutramine in weight control: a dose-ranging, efficacy study. Clin Pharamc Ther 1991; 50: 330–337.

  118. 118

    Wise PJ. Clinical experience with a new dosage form of phentermine hydrochloride. J Obes Bariat Med 1975; 4: 102–105.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haddock, C., Poston, W., Dill, P. et al. Pharmacotherapy for obesity: a quantitative analysis of four decades of published randomized clinical trials. Int J Obes 26, 262–273 (2002).

Download citation


  • pharmacotherapy
  • meta-analysis
  • clinical trials

Further reading


Quick links