Obesity is an epidemic and a public health threat. Medical weight management remains one of the options for the treatment of excess weight and recent advances have revolutionized how we treat, and more importantly how we will be treating obesity in the near future. Metreleptin and Setmelanotide are currently indicated for rare obesity syndromes, and 5 other medications (orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, liraglutide, semaglutide) are approved for non-syndromic obesity. Tirzepatide is about to be approved, and other drugs, with exciting novel mechanisms of action primarily based on incretins, are currently being investigated in different phases of clinical trials. The majority of these compounds act centrally, to reduce appetite and increase satiety, and secondarily, in the gastrointestinal tract to slow gastric emptying. All anti-obesity medications improve weight and metabolic parameters, with variable potency and effects depending on the specific drug. The currently available data do not support a reduction in hard cardiovascular outcomes, but it is almost certain that such data are forthcoming in the very near future. The choice of the anti-obesity medication needs to take into consideration the patient's clinical and biochemical profile, co-morbidities, and drug contra-indications, as well as expected degree of weight loss and improvements in cardio-renal and metabolic risk. It also remains to be seen whether precision medicine may offer personalized solutions to individuals with obesity, and whether it may represent the future of medical weight management along with the development of novel, very potent, anti-obesity medications currently in the pipeline. None.

The history of antiobesity pharmacotherapies is marked by disappointments, often entangled with societal pressure promoting weight loss and the prevailing conviction that excess body weight signifies a lack of willpower. However, categories of emerging pharmacotherapies generate hope to reduce obesity rates. This systematic review of phase 2 and phase 3 trials in adults with overweight/obesity investigates the effect of novel weight loss pharmacotherapies, compared to placebo/control or US Food and Drug Administration-approved weight loss medication, through searching Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov (2012-2024). We identified 53 phase 3 and phase 2 trials, with 36 emerging antiobesity drugs or combinations thereof and 4 withdrawn or terminated trials. Oral semaglutide 50 mg is the only medication that has completed a phase 3 trial. There are 14 ongoing phase 3 trials on glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) (ecnoglutide, orforglipron, and TG103), GLP-1 RA/amylin agonist (CagriSema), GLP-1/glucagon RAs (mazdutide and survodutide), GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon RA (retatrutide), dapagliflozin, and the combination sibutramine/topiramate. Completed phase 2 trials on incretin-based therapies showed a mean percent weight loss of 7.4% to 24.2%. Almost half of the drugs undergoing phase 2 trials are incretin analogs. The obesity drug pipeline is expanding rapidly, with the most promising results reported with incretin analogs. Data on mortality and obesity-related complications, such as cardio-renal-metabolic events, are needed. Moreover, long-term follow-up data on the safety and efficacy of weight maintenance with novel obesity pharmacotherapies, along with studies focused on underrepresented populations, cost-effectiveness assessments, and drug availability, are needed to bridge the care gap for patients with obesity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Obesity is the epidemic of the 21st century. Except for the newer injectable medications, drugs with suboptimal efficacy have been available in the clinician's armamentarium for weight management. However, emerging alternatives of novel agents and combinations populate the current obesity therapeutic pipeline. This systematic review identifies the state and mechanism of action of emerging pharmacotherapies undergoing or having completed phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. The information provided herein furthers the understanding of obesity management, implying direct clinical implications and stimulating research initiatives.

This narrative review summarizes data on classical and nonclassical manifestations of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). It is based on a rigorous literature search, inclusive of a Medline search for systematic reviews from 1940 to December 2020, coupled with a targeted search for original publications, covering four databases, from January 2013–December 2020, and relevant articles from authors’ libraries. We present the most recent information, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest a research agenda. The shift in the presentation of PHPT from a predominantly symptomatic to an asymptomatic disease, with its varied manifestations, has presented several challenges. Subclinical nephrolithiasis and vertebral fractures are common in patients with asymptomatic disease. The natural history of asymptomatic PHPT with no end organ damage at diagnosis is unclear. Some observational and cross-sectional studies continue to show associations between PHPT and cardiovascular and neuropsychological abnormalities, among the different disease phenotypes. Their causal relationship is uncertain. Limited new data are available on the natural history of skeletal, renal, cardiovascular, neuropsychological, and neuromuscular manifestations and quality of life. Normocalcemic PHPT (NPHPT) is often diagnosed without the fulfillment of rigorous criteria. Randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated a consistent long-term benefit of parathyroidectomy (PTX) versus observation on nonclassical manifestations. We propose further refining the definition of asymptomatic disease, into two phenotypes: one without and one with evidence of target organ involvement, upon the standard evaluation detailed in our recommendations. Each of these phenotypes can present with or without non-classical manifestations. We propose multiple albumin-adjusted serum calcium determinations (albumin-adjusted and ionized) and exclusion of all secondary causes of high parathyroid hormone (PTH) when establishing the diagnosis of NPHPT. Refining the definition of asymptomatic disease into the phenotypes proposed will afford insights into their natural history and response to interventions. This would also pave the way for the development of evidence-based guidance and recommendations. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Context: The growing number of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) on vitamin D (± calcium) for fracture prevention has led to contradictory guidelines. Objective: This umbrella review aims to assess the quality and explore the reasons for the discrepancy of SR/MAs of trials on vitamin D supplementation for fracture risk reduction in adults. Methods: We searched 4 databases (2010-2020), Epistemonikos, and references of included SRs/MAs, and we contacted experts in the field. We used A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) for quality assessment. We compared results and investigated reasons for discordance using matrices and subgroup analyses (PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129540). We included 13 SR/MAs on vitamin D and calcium (Ca/D) and 19 SR/MAs on vitamin D alone, compared to placebo/control. Results: Only 2 from 10 SRs/MAs on Ca/D were of moderate quality. Ca/D reduced the risk of hip fractures in 8 of 12 SRs/MAs (relative risk [RR] 0.61-0.84), and any fractures in 7 of 11 SR/MAs (RR 0.74-0.95). No fracture risk reduction was noted in SRs/MAs exclusively evaluating community-dwelling individuals or in those on vitamin D alone compared to placebo/control. Discordance in results between SRs/MAs stems from inclusion of different trials, related to search periods and eligibility criteria, and varying methodology (using intention to treat, per-protocol, or complete case analysis from individual trials). Conclusion: Ca/D reduces the risk of hip and any fractures, possibly driven by findings from institutionalized individuals. Individual participant data meta-analyses of patients on Ca/D with sufficient follow-up periods, and subgroup analyses, would unravel determinants for a beneficial response to supplementation.