DM: Weight Management (2007)

Citation:

McNulty SJ, Ur E, Williams G, for the Multicenter Sibutramine Study Group. A randomized trial of sibutramine in the management of obese type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin. Diabetes Care 2003;125-131.

PubMed ID: 12502668
 
Study Design:
Randomized Controlled Trial
Class:
A - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Positive POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:
To evaluate the effects of sibutramine (15 and 20 mg/day) on weight, metabolic control, and blood pressure in metformin-treated obese subjects with type 2 diabetes.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Type 2 diabetes (absence of ketonuria, rapid preceding weight loss, or need for insulin treatment);
  • diabetes duration >6 months, BMI >/=27 kg/m2;
  • duration of metformin treatment of 3 months to 2 years;
  • fasting serum glucose 7.0-15.0 mmol/L; and,
  • age 25-70 years.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Current or previous evidence of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, or stroke;
  • seated pulse rate >100 bpm;
  • diastolic blood pressure >95mmHg;
  • total fasting serum cholesterol >7.8 mmol/L;
  • fasting serum triglycerides >5.6 mmol/L;
  • serum creatinine >120 umol/L;
  • serum liver enzymes or bilirubin levels that exceeded twice the upper limit of normal;
  • weight change of >3 kg during the preceding 3 months;
  • malignancy; and,
  • significant neurological or psychiatric disturbances, including alcohol or drug abuse.

Women were excluded if they were pregnant, lactating or of child-bearing potential while not taking adequate contraceptive precautions.

Excluded medications (within the previous 3 months) were anorectic agents, laxatives, B-agonists (other than inhalers), cyproheptadine, phenothiazines, anti-depressants, anti-serotoninergics, barbiturates, anti-pyschotics, and oral corticosteroids.

Antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs were permitted if treatment was stable for at least 3 months.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Subjects were recruited from primary and secondary care centers in England, Canada, France, and Belgium.

Design

Multicenter randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial

Blinding used (if applicable)

Double-blind

Intervention (if applicable)

  • Placebo, 15 mg sibutramine per day, or 20 mg sibutramine per day for 12 months
  • Subjects in the 20 mg sibutramine group initially took 15 mg daily for the first 2 weeks because of tolerability issues
  • Patients were reviewed every 4 weeks, when dietetic advice was reinforced, medication compliance checked by capsule count, and adverse events and medication changes recorded.
  • Metformin dosage was adjusted if necessary.

Statistical Analysis

  • Power analysis indicated 60 subjects per group were needed to have a 90% power at the 5% significance level to detect a treatment effect of 0.8% in HbA1c, assuming a variability of 1.3%.
  • Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat populations using the last observation carried forward.
  • Changes from baseline to end point in body weight, anthropometry, and metabolic measures were analyzed using ANCOVA, with factors for treatment group and country and the relevant baseline as a covariate.
  • Pairwise comparisons between each sibutramine group and placebo were carried out using Fisher's protected least-squares difference test.
  • Metabolic measures were ranked before analysis and Hodges-Lehmann estimates of treatment differences were determined.
  • Analyses were also carried out on within-group changes, stratified by weight loss (<5, >/=5, and >/=10%), using one-sample t tests. The proportions of subjects within these categories were compared between sibutramine and placebo groups using Chi-square tests. All tests were two-tailed and carried out at the 5% level.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • Height, weight (in light clothes), and BMI were recorded at screening and weight was measured every 4 weeks thereafter.
  • At randomization and at 6 and 12 months, waist and hip circumference were measured and waist-to-hip ratio was calculated.
  • Fasting blood samples and urine were collected at screening and then every 3 months.

Dependent Variables

  • Weight in light clothes; change in body weight
  • BMI
  • Circumference: waist (cm); hip (cm); and waist-to-hip ratio
  • Fasting glucose, HbA1c, insulin, C-peptide, triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol
  • LDL cholesterol was calculated.
  • blood pressure
  • pulse rate

Independent Variables

  • Placebo
  • 15 mg sibutramine per day
  • 20 mg sibutramine per day

Control Variables

  • Factors for treatment group and country and the relevant baseline measure were used as covariates.
  • Tobacco and alcohol history were recorded.

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N:

85 men (44%) and 109 women (56%)

64 in the placebo group, 68 in 15 mg sibutramine group, and 62 in 20 mg sibutramine group

Attrition (final N):

Intent to treat analyses was performed; therefore, the final N remained the same even after withdrawals.

Fifty subjects withdrew prematurely; 18 in the placebo group; 19 in the 15 mg sibutramine group; and, 13 in the 20 mg sibutramine group.

There were no significant group differences in reasons or numbers of withdrawals, and an imputation analysis indicated that this drop-out rate is unlikely to have influenced the outcome.

Age:

range: 27-69 years

placebo: 51±1.1 years (mean±SE)

15 mg sibutramine: 49±1.0 years

20 mg sibutramine: 48±1.0 years

Ethnicity: not given

Other relevant demographics: not given

Anthropometrics

weight (kg): placebo 110.7±2.6; 15 mg sibutramine 103.5±2.2; 20 mg sibutramine 104.3±2.9

BMI (kg/m2): placebo 36.2±0.8; 15 mg sibutramine 36.3±0.7; 20 mg sibutramine 37.5±1.0

 

Disease and medication information:

Duration of diabetes (years: median, range): placebo 1.8 (0.4-13); 15 mg sibutramine 2.0 (0.4-17); 20 mg sibutramine 2.0 (0-22)

Duration of metformin (years: median, range): placebo 0.6 (0.2-2.0); 15 mg sibutramine 0.6 (0.1-2.9); 20 mg sibutramine 0.6 (0.1-2.0)

Fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L): placebo 9.1 (6.2-16.2); 15 mg sibutramine 9.5 (5.7-15.4); 20 mg sibutramine 9.2 (5.7-17.1)

HbA1c (%): placebo 9.73±0.3; 15 mg sibutramine 9.75±0.3; 20 mg sibutramine 9.14±0.2

There were no significant differences between centers in sex distribution, age, diabetes duration, or the dosage (mean 1,250 mg/day) or duration of metformin treatment.

Seventy subjects (36%) were hypertensive according to World Health Organization criteria, and 56 (29%) were taking antihypertensive treatment, with 17 (9%) receiving lipid-lowering drugs.    

Location:

Two centers were in the U.K. (n=28); eight were in Canada (n=116); five were in France (n=21); and, six were in Belgium (n=30).

Summary of Results:

 Table 2 - Overall effects on weight and anthrometry

Variable

Treatment group

 

Baseline

 

Change

 

Dc

95% CI

for Dc

Weight (kg)

 

 

 

 

Placebo

100.7 ± 2.6

-0.2 ± 0.5

   -

   -

15 mg sibutramine

103.5 ±2.2

-5.5 ± 0.6***

-5.1 ± 0.9*

-7.0 to -3.3

20 mg sibutramine

104.3 ± 2.9

-8.0 ± 0.9***

-7.8 ± 1.0*

-9.7 to -5.9

         

BMI (kg/m2)

       

Placebo

36.2 ± 0.8

 -0.1 ± 0.2

   -

  -

15 mg sibutramine

36.3 ± 0.7

-2.0 ± 0.2***

-1.9 ± 0.3*

-2.6 to -1.2

20 mg sibutramine

 37.5 ± 1.0

-2.9 ± 0.3***

-2.9 ± 0.3*

-3.6 to -2.2

Circumference

Waist (cm)

       
Placebo

112.0 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.6

   -

   -

15 mg sibutramine 113.5 ± 1.6 -4.7 ± 0.7***

-4.9 ± 0.9*

-6.7 to -3.0

20 mg sibutramine 113.0 ± 1.9

-6.6 ± 0.7***

-6.8 ± 1.0*

-8.7 to -4.9

Hip (cm)

       
Placebo 119.4 ± 1.6

0.0 ± 0.7

   -

   -

15 mg sibutramine 116.9 ± 1.6

-3.0 ± 0.6***

-3.0 ± 1.0*

-5.0 to -1.0

20 mg sibutramine

119.1 ± 2.1

-6.1 ± 1.0**

-6.1 ± 1.0*

-8.2 to - 4.1

Waist to hip ratio        

Placebo

93.9 ± 1.2 -0.3 ± 0.7

   -

   -

15 mg sibutramine

 

97.5 ± 1.2

 -1.6 ± 0.6**

-1.4 ± 0.9

-3.1 to 0.3

20 mg sibutramine

95.3 ± 1.2

-1.1 ± 0.7

-0.9 ± 0.9

-2.6 to 0.8

 Data are means ± SE or medians (range). Dc, treatment group difference (i.e., sibutramine minus placebo). *P<0.001, **P<0.01, ***  (rev: no P-value was given)

Table 3 - Overall effects on metabolic measures

Variable

Treatment group

 

Baseline

 

Change

 

Dc

95% CI

for Dc

Fasting glucose (mmol/L)

 

 

 

 

Placebo

9.1 (6.2-16.2)

0.2 (-6.8 to 9.3)

  -

   -

15 mg sibutramine

9.5 (5.7-15.4)

-0.3 (-6.3 to 8.5)

-0.2

-1.0 to 0.7

20 mg sibutramine

9.2 (5.7-17.1)  -0.1 (-5.7 to 7.7)  -0.2 -1.0 to 0.5 
         
HbA1c (%)        
Placebo 9.73 ± 0.27 -0.22 ± 0.24    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 9.75 ± 0.26 -0.56 ± 0.27 -0.34 to 0.33 -0.99 to 0.31
20 mg sibutramine 9.14 ± 0.24 -0.32 ± 0.23 -0.10 to 0.34 -0.76 to 0.57
         
Fasting insulin (pmol/L)        
Placebo 108.0 (30-402) -3.0 (-210 to 228)    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 114.0 (30-372) -7.2 (-168 to 246) -6.0 -24.0 to 12.0
20 mg sibutramine 96.0 (30-540) -33.0 (-492 to 84) -18.0* -30.0 to 0.0
         
Cholesterol (mmol/L)        
Placebo 5.8 (3.5-7.3) -0.2 (-1.3 to 1.4)    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 5.4 (3.4-7.4) -0.1 (-2.6 to 1.1) 0.0 -0.2 to 0.3
20 mg sibutramine 5.5 (2.8-8.0) 0.0 (-1.6 to 1.3) 0.1 -0.1 to 0.3
         
HDL        
Placebo 1.1 (0.6-5.7) 0.0 (-4.9 to 0.3)    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 1.0 (0.3-2.3) 0.1 (-1.4 to 0.6)* 0.1 0.0 to 0.2
20 mg sibutramine 1.1 (0.7-2.3) 0.1 (-0.8 to 0.7)** 0.1 0.0 to 0.1
         
LDL        
Placebo 3.5 (1.1-5.4) -0.2 (-1.8 to 1.2)    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 3.2 (0.6-5.2) -0.2 (-2.1 to 0.9) 0.0 -0.2 to 0.3
20 mg sibutramine 3.2 (1.1-5.8) -0.1 (-1.2 to 1.1) 0.1 -0.1 to 0.3
         
Total cholesterol-to-HDL cholesterol ratio        
Placebo 5.0 (1.1-10.2) 0.0 (-1.8 to 7.1)    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 5.8 (2.8-13.3) -0.3 (-3.3 to 13.5) -0.5*** -0.9 to -0.2
20 mg sibutramine 4.8 (2.2-7.9) -0.5 (-8.5 to 2.8) -0.2 -0.5 to 0.1
         
Triglycerides (mmol/L)        
Placebo 2.4 (0.6-5.7) 0.1 (-1.8 to 3.4)    -    -
15 mg sibutramine 2.4 (0.6-7.2) -0.2 (-3.3 to 3.4) -0.2 -0.6 to 0.1
20 mg sibutramine 2.2 (0.6-4.2) -0.2 (-1.7 to 6.3)** -0.3** -0.6 to 0.0

 Data are means ± SE or median (range). Dc, treatment group difference (i.e., sibutramine minus placebo). *P<0.001, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01.

 Table 4 - Overall cardiovascular effects (seated vital signs) 

Variable

Treatment group

 

Baseline

 

Change

 

Dc

95% CI

for Dc

Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)

 

 

 

 

Placebo

132.9 ± 1.9

-0.2 ± 2.0 

 

 

15 mg sibutramine

131.5 ± 2.1

4.4 ± 1.9*

4.6 ± 2.2**

0.3 to 8.8

20 mg sibutramine

130.5 ± 2.0 -1.5 ± 2.0 -1.3 ± 2.2 -5.6 to 3.1 
         
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)        
Placebo 82.1 ± 1.1 0.5 ± 1.1    
15 mg sibutramine 82.8 ± 1.2 3.3 ± 1.1** 2.8 ± 1.2** 0.4 to 5.3
20 mg sibutramine 81.3 ± 1.2 0.4 ± 1.0 0.0 ± 1.3 -2.5 to 2.4
         
Pulse (bpm)        
Placebo 74.8 ± 1.0 -0.8 ± 1.2    
15 mg sibutramine 76.4 ± 1.3 5.1 ± 1.5* 5.9 ± 1.7* 2.5 to 9.4
20 mg sibutramine 75.0 ± 1.2 5.0 ± 1.4*** 5.8 ± 1.8*** 2.3 to 9.3

 Data are means ± SE or median (range). Dc, treatment group difference (i.e., sibutramine minus placebo). *P<0.001, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01.

Other Findings

  •  Placebo-treated patients showed no consistent weight change at any time; 88% of subjects (56 of 63) either gained weight or lost <5%, whereas only 12% lost >/=5%, and none lost >/=10%.
  • With 15 mg sibutramine, average weight fell steadily over 6 months to 5.3 kg (~6%) below baseline and was then maintained throughout treatment.
  • The 20-mg dose caused consistently greater weight loss, averaging 8 kg (~8%) below baseline from 8 months to the end of treatment.
  • Significantly more sibutramine-treated subjects lost >/=5% weight (46 and 65% with 15 and 20 mg, respectively), whereas 14% of subjects receiving 15 mg/day and 27% of subjects taking 20 mg lost >/= 10%.
  • Overall, HbA1c concentrations did not change significantly among the treatment groups, but it fell significantly (0.7 ± 0.3%, P<0.02) in subjects who lost 5-10% of weight and significantly further (1.2 ± 0.4%, P<0.0001) in those losing >/= 10%.
  • Among sibutramine-treated patients, percentage weight loss was significantly correlated with the fall in HbA1c (r=0.43, P<0.001, for the 15-mg group and r=0.32, P<0.02, for the 20-mg group), but no correlation was seen in the placebo group, where average weight was unchanged (r=0.5, P=0.73).
  • Fall in HbA1c correlated significantly with percentage reduction in waist circumference in both sibutramine treatment groups (15 mg: r=0.43, P<0.001; 20 mg: r=0.30, P<0.05) and with placebo (r=0.51, P<0.001).
  • Fasting plasma glucose decreased significantly by 1.8 mmol/L (P<0.001) in patients (sibutramine-treated only) who lost >/=10%.
  • Metformin dosage was reduced in five patients (7%) receiving 15 mg sibutramine and in six patients (10%) with the 20-mg dosage, but in only one subject (2%) given placebo.
  • In sibutramine subjects who lost >/=5 or >/=10% weight, total cholesterol-to-HDL cholesterol also showed modest but significant falls of 8% (P=0.011) and 16% (P=0.002), respectively.
  • In subjects losing >/=5 and >/=10% weight, triglycerides fell significantly by 0.3 mmol/L (13%, P<0.01) and 0.8 mmol/L (29%, P<0.01), respectively.
  • A few sibutramine-treated patients showed marked pressure rises, but systolic and diastolic blood pressure also rose in some placebo-treated pateints, being higher at completion than at baseline in over 40% of cases.
  • Blood pressure rises during sibutramine treatment were more apparent when measured sitting; standing systolic pressure showed no consistent group differences.
  • For a diastolic blood pressure rise of >/= mmHg, the corresponding figures were 43% with 15 mg sibutramine (P<0.05 vs placebo), 26% with 20 mg sibutramine (NS vs placebo), and 25% with placebo.
  • With 15 mg sibutramine, systolic blood pressure did not change significantly in subjects who lost >/=5 or >/=10% weight, whereas the >/= 5% responders with 20 mg sibutramine showed a mean placebo-subtracted fall of 4.6 ± 2.0 mm Hg (P=0.053 vs all placebo subjects). 
  • Placebo-treated subjects who lost >/=5% weight showed a systolic decrease of 3.3 ± 1.4 mmHg.
  • For >5% weight loss, mean placebo-subtracted diastolic changes were 2.0 ± 1.5 with 15 mg sibutramine (NS vs placebo, 1.5 ± 1.0 mmHg) and -0.9 ± 1.4 mmHg (NS vs placebo) for 20 mg sibutramine.
  • For >10% weight loss, mean placebo-subtracted changes were 1.7 ± 2.2 and 1.0 ± 1.8 mmHg, respectively (both NS vs placebo).
Author Conclusion:
Sibutramine can be an effective adjunct to metformin treatment in selected obese type 2 diabetic subjects and improves metabolic control in individuals who lose weight.
Funding Source:
Government: Scottish Executive Dept. of Health
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
  2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
  3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
  4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
  5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? Yes
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
  6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
  7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
  8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
  10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes