Effect of the glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist liraglutide, compared to caloric restriction, on appetite, dietary intake, body fat distribution and cardiometabolic biomarkers: A randomized trial in adults with obesity and prediabetes

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo investigate the hypothesis that weight loss with the glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1RA) liraglutide alone would lead to a greater reduction in the proportion of fat to lean tissue mass when compared to caloric restriction (CR) alone, as well as when compared to treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor, that also enhances GLP‐1 activity ‐ to determine the independent effects of each treatment.MethodsA total of 88 adults with obesity and prediabetes were randomized to 14 weeks of intervention with CR (−390 kcal/d), liraglutide (1.8 mg/d), or the dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor sitagliptin (100 mg/d) as a weight‐neutral comparator. Changes between groups in appetite and hunger ratings measured via visual analogue scales, dietary intakes, body weight, body composition via dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry, and resting energy expenditure via indirect calorimetry were assessed using the Kruskal‐Wallis test or Pearson's chi‐squared test.ResultsWeight loss ≥5% of baseline body weight occurred in 44% of participants in the CR group, 22% of the liraglutide group and 5% of the sitagliptin group (p = 0.02). The ratio of fat to lean mass decreased by 6.5% in the CR group, 2.2% in the liraglutide group, and 0% in the sitagliptin group (p = 0.02). Visceral fat reduced by 9.5% in the CR group, 4.8% in the liraglutide group, and 0% in the sitagliptin group (p = 0.04). A spontaneous reduction in dietary simple carbohydrates in the CR group was associated with improved homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance score (HOMA‐IR).ConclusionsAlthough both liraglutide and CR are valuable strategies for cardiometabolic risk reduction, CR was associated with greater weight loss and more favourable improvements in body composition than treatment with liraglutide alone. Differences in the response to each of these interventions enables patients to be stratified to the most optimal intervention for their personal risk factors.