Trial reportJAMA network open2024

Bone Health After Exercise Alone, GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment, or Combination Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Victor Sørensen, Rasmus Michael Sandsdal, Eva Winning Lehmann, Julie Rehné Lundgren, Christian Rimer Juhl, Charlotte Janus, Tummas Ternhamar, Bente Merete Stallknecht, Jens Juul Holst and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map: it favours the comparator in 2. Cited by 81 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

1number the graph read from it
2cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
9.800 · no effect
Body weight & compositionfavours the comparator · against placebo · obesityfeeds 2 cells of the map
estimated mean change 7.034.25 to 9.80
The total estimated mean change in weight losses during the study was 7.03 kg (95% CI, 4.25-9.80 kg) in the placebo group, 11.19 kg (95% CI, 8.40-13.99 kg) in the exercise group, 13.74 kg (95% CI, 11.04-16.44 kg) in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg (95% CI, 14.23-19.54 kg) in the combination group.

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

Diet, exercise & lifestyle×body weight & composition

ContradictsOpen on the map →What to test next →

3 readable studies in this cell: 2 favour the treatment, 0 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.12contested · 1 family supports, 2 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.17This paper moves it by −0.06.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2024
estimated mean change 7.034.25 to 9.80
Δ -5.40-9.00 to -1.70

GLP-1 receptor agonists×body weight & composition

ContradictsOpen on the map →What to test next →

40 readable studies in this cell: 83 favour the treatment, 15 find no difference, 11 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.90replicated · 64 families support, 7 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.91This paper moves it by −0.01.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2024
estimated mean change 7.034.25 to 9.80
NCT012722193,731 enrolled · 2011
Δ -5.39-5.82 to -4.95
Δ -17.3-18.1 to -16.6
NCT017204463,297 enrolled · 2013
Δ -2.95-3.47 to -2.44
NCT035489351,961 enrolled · 2018
Δ -12.4-13.4 to -11.5
NCT039879191,879 enrolled · 2019
Δ -1.70-2.60 to -0.70
NCT026078651,864 enrolled · 2016
Δ -2.50-3.00 to -2.00
NCT056467061,407 enrolled · 2023
Δ -14.8-16.2 to -13.4
NCT018365231,398 enrolled · 2013
Δ -4.90-5.65 to -4.16
NCT035527571,210 enrolled · 2018
Δ -6.21-7.28 to -5.15
NCT007344741,202 enrolled · 2008
Δ -1.50-2.08 to -0.92
Δ -10.4-11.2 to -9.50
NCT020581471,170 enrolled · 2014
Δ 14.38.37 to 20.3
4 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

6 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Simon Birk Kjær JensenDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Victor SørensenMental Health Centre Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, Denmark.
Rasmus Michael SandsdalDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Eva Winning LehmannDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Julie Rehné LundgrenDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian Rimer JuhlDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Charlotte JanusDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tummas TernhamarDepartment of Endocrinology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bente Merete StallknechtDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens Juul HolstDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niklas Rye JørgensenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark.
Jens-Erik Beck JensenDepartment of Endocrinology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sten MadsbadDepartment of Endocrinology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Signe Sørensen TorekovDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

Importance: A major concern with weight loss is concomitant bone loss. Exercise and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) represent weight loss strategies that may protect bone mass despite weight loss. Objective: To investigate bone health at clinically relevant sites (hip, spine, and forearm) after diet-induced weight loss followed by a 1-year intervention with exercise, liraglutide, or both combined. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a predefined secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted between August 2016 and November 2019 at the University of Copenhagen and Hvidovre Hospital in Denmark. Eligible participants included adults aged 18 to 65 years with obesity (body mass index of 32-43) and without diabetes. Data analysis was conducted from March to April 2023, with additional analysis in February 2024 during revision. Interventions: After an 8-week low-calorie diet (800 kcal/day), participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 52 weeks: a moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise program (exercise alone), 3.0 mg daily of the GLP-1 RA liraglutide (liraglutide alone), the combination, or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in site-specific bone mineral density (BMD) at the hip, lumbar spine, and distal forearm from before the low-calorie diet to the end of treatment, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in the intention-to-treat population. Results: In total, 195 participants (mean [SD] age, 42.84 [11.87] years; 124 female [64%] and 71 male [36%]; mean [SD] BMI, 37.00 [2.92]) were randomized, with 48 participants in the exercise group, 49 participants in the liraglutide group, 49 participants in the combination group, and 49 participants in the placebo group. The total estimated mean change in weight losses during the study was 7.03 kg (95% CI, 4.25-9.80 kg) in the placebo group, 11.19 kg (95% CI, 8.40-13.99 kg) in the exercise group, 13.74 kg (95% CI, 11.04-16.44 kg) in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg (95% CI, 14.23-19.54 kg) in the combination group. In the combination group, BMD was unchanged compared with the placebo group at the hip (mean change, -0.006 g/cm2; 95% CI, -0.017 to 0.004 g/cm2; P = .24) and lumbar spine (-0.010 g/cm2; 95% CI, -0.025 to 0.005 g/cm2; P = .20). Compared with the exercise group, BMD decreased for the liraglutide group at the hip (mean change, -0.013 g/cm2; 95% CI, -0.024 to -0.001 g/cm2; P = .03) and spine (mean change, -0.016 g/cm2; 95% CI, -0.032 to -0.001 g/cm2; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the combination of exercise and GLP-1RA (liraglutide) was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health. Liraglutide treatment alone reduced BMD at clinically relevant sites more than exercise alone despite similar weight loss. Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2015-005585-32.

Indexed as

Bone DensityExerciseGlucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor AgonistsLiraglutideAdultAgedCombined Modality TherapyDenmarkFemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedObesityWeight LossGlucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor AgonistsHypoglycemic AgentsLiraglutide

Identifiers

PMID38916894
PMCPMC11200146

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.