Ibero-American Consensus on Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners: Safety, Nutritional Aspects and Benefits in Food and Beverages

International scientific experts in food, nutrition, dietetics, endocrinology, physical activity, paediatrics, nursing, toxicology and public health met in Lisbon on 2-4 July 2017 to develop a Consensus on the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) as substitutes for sugars and other caloric sweeteners. LNCS are food additives that are broadly used as sugar substitutes to sweeten foods and beverages with the addition of fewer or no calories. They are also used in medicines, health-care products, such as toothpaste, and food supplements. The goal of this Consensus was to provide a useful, evidence-based, point of reference to assist in efforts to reduce free sugars consumption in line with current international public health recommendations. Participating experts in the Lisbon Consensus analysed and evaluated the evidence in relation to the role of LNCS in food safety, their regulation and the nutritional and dietary aspects of their use in foods and beverages. The conclusions of this Consensus were: (1) LNCS are some of the most extensively evaluated dietary constituents, and their safety has been reviewed and confirmed by regulatory bodies globally including the World Health Organisation, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority; (2) Consumer education, which is based on the most robust scientific evidence and regulatory processes, on the use of products containing LNCS should be strengthened in a comprehensive and objective way; (3) The use of LNCS in weight reduction programmes that involve replacing caloric sweeteners with LNCS in the context of structured diet plans may favour sustainable weight reduction. Furthermore, their use in diabetes management programmes may contribute to a better glycaemic control in patients, albeit with modest results. LNCS also provide dental health benefits when used in place of free sugars; (4) It is proposed that foods and beverages with LNCS could be included in dietary guidelines as alternative options to products sweetened with free sugars; (5) Continued education of health professionals is required, since they are a key source of information on issues related to food and health for both the general population and patients. With this in mind, the publication of position statements and consensus documents in the academic literature are extremely desirable

X-PERT: weight reduction with orlistat in obese subjects receiving a mildly or moderately reduced-energy diet. Early response to treatment predicts weight maintenance

The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com Article first published online: 6 APR 2005AimTo determine the effect of two different levels of energy deficit on weight loss in obese patients treated with orlistat.MethodsPatients (n=430) were randomized in a 1-year, multicentre, open-label, parallel group study conducted at 23 hospital centres and university medical departments worldwide. Obese outpatients (body mass index 30--43 kg/m(2)) aged 18--70 years with a body weight of >or=90 kg and a waist circumference of >or=88 cm (women) or >or=102 cm (men) were treated with orlistat 120 mg three times daily plus a diet that provided an energy deficit of either 500 or 1,000 kcal/day for 1 year. Orlistat treatment was discontinued in patients who did not achieve >or=5% weight loss after assessment at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was change in body weight from baseline at week 52.ResultsReported mean difference in energy intake between the two groups (500-1,000 kcal/day deficit) at weeks 24 and 52 was actually 111 and 95 kcal/day respectively. Of the 430 patients involved in the study, 295 achieved >or=5% weight loss at both 3 and 6 months. In this population, at week 52, weight loss from baseline was similar for patients randomized to either the 500 or the 1,000 kcal/day deficit diet (-11.4 kg vs. -11.8 kg, respectively; p=0.778). After 12 months of treatment with orlistat, 84% (n=118/141) and 85% (n=131/154) of patients in the 500 and 1,000 kcal/day deficit groups, respectively, achieved >or=5% weight loss, and 50% (n=70/141) and 53% (n=82/154) of patients, respectively, achieved >or=10% weight loss. Patients in both the diet treatment groups showed similar significant improvements in blood pressure, lipid levels and waist circumference at week 52.ConclusionsTreatment with orlistat was associated with a clinically beneficial weight loss, irrespective of the prescribed dietary energy restriction (-500 or -1000 kcal/day). Patients who achieved >or=5% weight loss at 3 months achieved long-term, clinically beneficial weight loss with orlistat plus either diet. Therefore, identifying patients who lose at least 5% weight after 3 months and who maintain this weight loss up to 6 months is a valuable treatment algorithm to select patients who will benefit most from orlistat treatment in combination with diet.H. Toplak, O. Ziegler, U. Keller, A. Hamann, C. Godin, G. Wittert, M.-T. Zanella, S. Zúñiga-Guajardo and L. Van Gaa

Effect of sibutramine on cardiovascular outcomes in overweight and obese subjects.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of sibutramine treatment on the rates of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death among subjects at high cardiovascular risk have not been established. METHODS: We enrolled in our study 10,744 overweight or obese subjects, 55 years of age or older, with preexisting cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or both to assess the cardiovascular consequences of weight management with and without sibutramine in subjects at high risk for cardiovascular events. All the subjects received sibutramine in addition to participating in a weight-management program during a 6-week, single-blind, lead-in period, after which 9804 subjects underwent random assignment in a double-blind fashion to sibutramine (4906 subjects) or placebo (4898 subjects). The primary end point was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a primary outcome event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or cardiovascular death). RESULTS: The mean duration of treatment was 3.4 years. The mean weight loss during the lead-in period was 2.6 kg; after randomization, the subjects in the sibutramine group achieved and maintained further weight reduction (mean, 1.7 kg). The mean blood pressure decreased in both groups, with greater reductions in the placebo group than in the sibutramine group (mean difference, 1.2/1.4 mm Hg). The risk of a primary outcome event was 11.4% in the sibutramine group as compared with 10.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke were 4.1% and 2.6% in the sibutramine group and 3.2% and 1.9% in the placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P=0.02; hazard ratio for nonfatal stroke, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.77; P=0.03). The rates of cardiovascular death and death from any cause were not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with preexisting cardiovascular conditions who were receiving long-term sibutramine treatment had an increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke but not of cardiovascular death or death from any cause. (Funded by Abbott; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00234832.