Post on 12-Oct-2019
Confidential: For Review Only
Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low Energy total
diet replacement Treatment (DROPLET): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial
Journal: BMJ
Manuscript ID BMJ.2018.044188
Article Type: Research
BMJ Journal: BMJ
Date Submitted by the Author: 19-Mar-2018
Complete List of Authors: ASTBURY, Nerys; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary
Care Health Sciences
Aveyard, Paul; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Health Sciences
Nickless, Alecia; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Health Sciences
Hood, Kathryn; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Corfield, Kate; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Health Sciences
Lowe, Rebecca; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Health Sciences
Jebb, Susan; Univerof Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences
Keywords: Obesity, Primary Care
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
Confidential: For Review OnlyDoctor Referral of Overweight People to Low Energy total diet replacement Treatment (DROPLET):
a pragmatic randomised controlled trial
Nerys M Astbury PhD 1, Prof Paul Aveyard PhD
1, Alecia Nickless MSc
1, Kathryn Hood
1, Kate
Corfield1, Rebecca Lowe
1, Prof Susan A Jebb PhD
1
1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
Word Count : 3859
Running title: Total diet replacement programme for weight loss
Keywords: Obesity, total diet replacement programme, randomised controlled trial
Page 1 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
2
Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness and safety of a total diet replacement programme
(TDR) for routine treatment of obesity in a primary care setting.
Design
Pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, individually randomised controlled trial
Setting
Ten primary care practices in Oxfordshire, UK
Participants
278 adult participants who were obese and seeking support to lose weight were recruited from
primary care registers and 73% were re-measured at 12 months. We excluded people already
following weight loss programmes or after bariatric surgery or who had contraindications to the
meal replacements. Participants were allocated to the total diet replacement programme (TDR) or
usual care (UC) groups using an independently generated randomisation sequence using randomly
permuted block sizes, stratified by general practice and BMI (more or less than 35kg/m2) with
concealed allocation.
Interventions
The TDR programme comprised weekly behavioural support for 12 weeks and monthly support for
three months with meal replacement products providing 810kcal/day as the sole food during the
first eight weeks followed by food re-introduction. Usual care comprised behavioural support for
weight loss from a practice nurse and a diet programme with modest energy restriction.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months analysed as intention-to-treat with mixed
effects models. Secondary outcomes included biomarkers of cardiovascular risk. We recorded any
adverse events.
Results
Participants in the TDR group lost more weight (-10.7kg) than usual care (-3.1kg); adjusted mean
difference of -7.2 kg (95% CI: -9.4, -4.9). Weight losses ≥10% occurred in 45% and 15% of participants
in TDR and UC groups respectively. There were greater improvements in biomarkers of
cardiovascular and metabolic risk in the TDR programme than in usual care. Adverse events classed
as moderate or greater occurred in 11% and 12% of participants in TDR and UC respectively.
Conclusions
Compared with regular weight loss support from a practice nurse, a programme of weekly
behavioural support and total food replacement providing 810kcal per day appears safe and
Page 2 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
3
tolerable, and leads to substantially greater weight loss and greater improvements in the risk of
cardiometabolic disease. It is suitable for routine use for the treatment of obesity in generalist
healthcare settings.
Trial registration: ISRCTN75092026
Page 3 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
4
What we already know on this topic
A systematic review of trials recommending energy intakes of 800kcal/d or less showed weight loss
at 1 year was -10.3 kg, a difference of −3.9 kg (95% CI −6.7 to −1.1) greater than the comparator
behavioural support programmes, but all were conducted in specialist obesity clinics or research
centres and none were conducted in routine primary care.
Recent results from the DiRECT trial among people with Type 2 diabetes showed that a total diet
replacement programme provided by healthcare professionals led to similar weight losses and 45%
of patients were in remission after 1 year1.
What this study adds
This study shows that similar weight losses can be achieved in a generalist primary care setting for a
people who are obese, through referral to a commercial provider offering a total diet replacement
programme.
Mean weight loss in the TRD groups was -10.7 kg, and -7.2 kg (95% CI: -9.4, -4.9) greater than usual
care. 45% of people achieved a weight loss of >10% at 1 year.
This model of primary care referral offers the potential for rapid roll out at scale across the NHS to
prevent and treat obesity-related disease.
Page 4 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
5
Introduction
Excess adiposity is one of the main risk factors for preventable morbidity and mortality.2 Weight loss
ameliorates the risk, improves functioning and wellbeing, 2 with growing evidence that benefits can
persist even if weight is regained.3 4
Primary care physicians have the opportunity to offer
treatments for obesity at the scale required to have a discernible effect on the prevalence of obesity
and related diseases5 and are encouraged to screen patients and offer support to lose weight.
6
Despite this, physicians rarely offer support to lose weight.7
There is good evidence that weight loss programmes provided in community groups by commercial
providers are more effective than comparator interventions delivered by primary care clinicians. 8-10
Moreover, such programmes are cost-effective and, over the long-term, cost-saving.9
Notwithstanding the population benefits, individuals who are referred lose only an additional 2kg
compared with self-help interventions and would benefit from interventions that lead to greater
weight loss.11
One option is a total diet replacement (TDR) programme, combining a low energy diet
with behavioural support. In a systematic review of trials we found that very low energy diets (VLED)
providing <800kcal/day led to significantly greater weight loss than behavioural weight management
programmes based on usual foods.12
Today, TDR programmes offer up to 1200 kcal/day, but
similarly use meal replacement products as the sole source of nutrition alongside a behavioural
support programme. Most trials of these programmes have been small scale, conducted in research
settings or specialist obesity clinics. There is a common perception that such programmes are
unacceptable to most people, possibly unsafe and lead to rapid weight regain, and guidelines do not
recommend their use for general treatment of obesity.13 14
The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of primary
care physician referral to a commercially-provided low-energy total diet replacement programme
compared with usual care. Consistent with the pragmatic nature of the trial we did not attempt to
match treatment intensity in the two groups, rather we compared the Cambridge Weight Plan
programme, comprising specially formulated products and behavioural support, with the usual type
of weight management programmes offered by primary care staff, based on dietary advice and
behavioural support.
Methods
This trial was a pragmatic, individually randomised, two arm, open-label, parallel design allocating
participants to a TDR programme or routine support from a practice nurse.15
Ethical approval was
obtained from South Central Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 15/SC/0337) and all
Page 5 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
6
participants gave written informed consent. The protocol was amended after registration to reduce
the number of secondary outcomes on the advice of the independent trial steering committee.
Participants and settings
Participants were recruited from primary care practices in Oxfordshire, UK who were willing and able
to offer a weight management programme within the practice. GPs searched their electronic health
records for adult patients with a BMI of at least 30kg/m2 and whose health would benefit with
weight loss and invited them by letter to participate. We excluded people who had received or were
scheduled for bariatric surgery, people participating in a weight management programme, or with
contraindications to the TDR according to the protocol.15
(Full inclusion and exclusion criteria are
presented in Supplementary Appendix) Following telephone screening, eligible participants
scheduled an appointment with a nurse at their local practice.
Randomisation and masking
An independent statistician generated a random computer-generated randomisation list with 1:1
allocation using stratified block randomisation with randomly permuted block sizes of 2, 4 and 6,
stratified by general practice and BMI (more or less than 35kg/m2). After participants’ eligibility was
confirmed by the nurse, they were enrolled in the study and the allocation was revealed using an
online randomisation programme, which ensures full allocation concealment. Due to the nature of
the intervention it was not possible to blind participants, clinicians or some of the researchers
working in the field to treatment allocation.
Interventions
The TDR programme was provided by Cambridge Weight Plan UK Ltd who manage a network of
counsellors providing behavioural support and food products.15
Participants were asked to contact a
local counsellor who was aware of the research study and the protocol for the provision of meal
replacement products, but who had not received any additional training to deliver the behavioural
support programme. For the first 12 weeks participants met with the counsellor weekly for support
which comprised goal setting and feedback, encouragement, reassurance and problem-solving.
Participants replaced all food with four meal replacement products daily (soups, shakes and bars),
750ml of skimmed milk, 2.25l of water or other very low/no energy drinks and a fibre supplement,
comprising 810kcal/day (3389kJ/d)(Supplementary Table S1). After eight weeks, there was a four-
week stepwise reduction in the use of the meal replacement products and re-introduction of
conventional food-based meals. During the weight maintenance phase from week 13 to 24
counsellors encouraged participants to attend monthly appointments and to consume one meal
replacement a day, with the remainder of the diet provided by food. If weight was regained,
Page 6 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
7
participants were recommended to return to the total diet replacement stage for periods of up to
four weeks. This programme was free of charge to week 24. Participants could choose to pay for
continued support thereafter.
Clinicians adjusted medication for hypertension and diabetes at the start of the programme at a
scheduled assessment at one month and as needed thereafter. We supplied guidelines for this to
clinicians (Supplementary Appendix).
For the comparator, participants followed each practice’s usual weight management protocol.15
Participants also received a copy of the 47-page booklet “ So you want to lose weight … for good”16
which includes information on goal setting, monitoring and feedback and advice about food types,
portion control and physical activity. They were not prohibited from undertaking any other weight
management intervention but none were offered by their healthcare provider.
Procedures
We measured height at baseline only, blood samples at baseline and 12 months and all other
measurements at baseline, three, six, and 12 months. Weight and body fat were measured on a
digital scale (TANITA SC-240). We measured waist circumference at the top of the iliac crest and
seated blood pressure in triplicate using an automated blood pressure monitor with the mean of the
last two measurements recorded. We recorded quality of life using the EQ5D and OWL-QOL.17 18
Fasting blood samples were collected to measure blood glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and
cholesterol fractions. Measurements were made by practice personnel at baseline and by the
research team at 3, 6 and 12 months.
Outcomes
The primary outcome was change in body weight from baseline to 12 months. The secondary
outcomes were: change from baseline in body weight at 3 and 6 months, the proportion of
participants achieving 5% and 10% weight loss at 12 months and change in fat mass, LDL cholesterol,
HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 12 months.
Pre-specified exploratory outcomes were change in fat mass and blood pressure at 3 and 6 months
and in waist circumference at 3, 6 and 12 months. The change from baseline to 12 months in fasting
triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, glucose, insulin was measured. We derived HOMA-IR, HOMA-%β and
HOMA-%S and calculated the change in 10-year cardiovascular risk using QRISK2.19 20
We measured
the change in self-reported quality of life using the EQ-5D18
and OWL-QOL17
between baseline and
12 months.
Page 7 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
8
We recorded all adverse events during the first three months of the programme and at six months
for gallstone-related events only, to allow for diagnostic delay. These were coded using MedDRA
version 18.1 and presented at the system organ class and preferred term level. We present events
that occurred in at least 2% of the participants.
Statistical Analysis
We determined that a difference between groups of 4kg was clinically relevant. Using data from
published studies on standard deviation and assuming 90% power with two-sided significance of 5%,
and 20% loss to follow-up, we needed a sample of 270 people. Accounting for multiple testing of
secondary outcomes, this gave 90% power to detect a standardized difference of 0.56 with 5%
significance for the secondary outcomes.
We followed a statistical analysis plan approved by the independent trial steering committee prior to
database lock. The primary, secondary and exploratory outcomes were analysed using an intention-
to-treat analysis using PROC MIXED in SAS Version 9.4 by an independent trial statistician. We used
linear mixed effects models with unstructured correlation matrix for repeated measures and
adjusted for baseline stratification variables, with practice set as a random effect. For binary
outcomes, we used analogous logistic models. Prior to analysis of outcomes, we assessed
association between baseline variables and loss to follow-up at 12 months. Age and gender were
associated with loss to follow-up and so were included as covariates as planned.
We assessed the sensitivity of the results to missing data using different imputation methods;
baseline and last observation carried forward, completers only, multiple imputation, and a pattern
mixture model assuming different degrees of missing not at random. We performed pre-specified
exploratory subgroup analyses to assess whether treatment effects differed by age, gender, BMI,
socio-economic status (based on the postcode of the participant) and practice. Following our
statistical plan, we did not compare quality of life using inferential statistics.
Patient involvement
Our extensive public involvement activities have shown that a large proportion of people are
interested to know whether weight-loss interventions are effective and welcome this kind of
research. In a previous trial involving opportunistic offers of support for weight loss patients
overwhelmingly reported that this was appropriate and helpful.6 Members of the public who have
expressed an interest in our research were invited to comment on the design of the study and the
patient-facing materials prior to ethical submission. Two lay people were members of the trial
Page 8 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
9
steering committee. Participants in the trial were offered the opportunity to hear the results of the
study upon completion and a lay summary and infographic have been provided.
Role of the funding source
This was an investigator-initiated study. The funders of the study had no role in the design of the
protocol, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the results. The study was conducted in
collaboration with an NIHR accredited Clinical Trials Unit. All authors had access to all data after the
statistical analysis was complete. The funders had no access to the data. SAJ had final responsibility
for submission for publication. The investigators have no personal financial relationships with the
funder.
Results
Participants were recruited between 12th
January 2016 and 28th
July 2016. We screened 283
participants from 10 practices and 278 were eligible and randomly allocated to either a total diet
replacement programme or usual care. Follow-up was completed on 4th
August 2017.
Most participants were middle aged, 61% were women, and 88% were white British. The average
BMI was 37.2 kg/m2. On enrolment 23% had a diagnosis of hypertension and 15% had diabetes
(Table 1).
We randomised 138 participants to the TDR group and 140 to UC. Four and two participants
withdrew consent for their data to be used after randomization and we followed-up 104 (78%) and
95 (69%) participants in the TDR and UC group respectively at 12 months (Figure 1).
Primary outcome
Weight loss was greater in the TDR group at all time points. At three months, the difference was -
9.6kg (-11.0; -8.2), p<0.0001 and at six months it was -9.6kg (-11.6; -7.7), p<0.0001. The difference
between groups reduced thereafter, with a difference in mean weight loss at 12 months, the
primary outcome, of -7.2kg, (-9.4; -4.9), p<0.0001. At this point, the TDR group had lost 10.7kg
(SD=9.6) and the control group 3.1kg (7.0) (Figure 2). This conclusion was unchanged by sensitivity
analyses for loss to follow-up (Table S2). In the pattern mixture modelling, even assuming extreme
bias in loss to follow-up in either the TDR or UC group, there was a treatment difference of more
than 5kg in favour of TDR. There was no evidence that the intervention effect on weight differed by
gender (p=0.22), age group (p=0.85), socioeconomic status (p=0.65), BMI (p=0.094), diabetes status
(p= 0.42), or practice (p=0.22) (Figure S2).
Page 9 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
10
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included change in fat mass (incidentally measured at the same time as body
weight) which showed similar, albeit slightly smaller differences in favour of the TDR group. The
exploratory outcome, change in waist circumference, showed a similar pattern (Table 2). At 12
months 73% and 32% of participants in the TDR and UC group respectively had lost ≥5% of their
baseline weight, an odds ratio of 6.5 (3.4; 12.2), p<0.0001. Forty-five percent and 15% participants
lost ≥10% baseline weight in the TDR and UC groups respectively; odds ratio 4.9 (2.4; 9.9), p<0.0001
(Figure S2). The number needed to treat to observe these benefits was 2.4 (1.8; 3.5) and 3.3 (2.5;
3.5) for ≥5% and ≥10% weight loss respectively.
At 12 months, participants in the TDR group had greater reductions in HbA1c (-2.2 mmol/mol [-4.4;
0.0]) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.1 mmHg [-5.5; -0.7]), but there was no significant difference in
the reduction in systolic blood pressure (-2.9 mmHg [-6.4; 0.6]) or LDL-cholesterol (0.0 mmol/l [-0.2;
0.2]). The exploratory outcomes assessed changes in glucose regulation, blood pressure and other
lipid fractions. These reflected the secondary outcomes, showing marked improvements in the TDR
group in glucose regulation, modestly greater reductions in blood pressure, a slight improvement in
triglycerides, but no difference in cholesterol fractions (Table 2). Thus, the TDR reduced overall
cardiovascular risk to a greater extent than UC (Table 2).
Summary statistics are presented for exploratory analyses of the effect of treatment on quality of
life. The EQ-5D-5L index, VAS scores and OWLQOL score all showed greater improvements from
baseline at 6 months and 12 months in the TDR group than in the UC group (Table 2).
Adverse events
Overall, adverse events were frequent and mild in both groups. Sixty-nine (51.5%) participants in
the TDR group experienced at least one AE and 41 (29.7%) did so in the UC group (Fisher’s Exact
Test: p = 0.0003) (Table S3), representing an additional one in five AEs in the TDR group. The most
frequent AEs where there was a greater incidence in TDR than UC were constipation, fatigue,
headache, and dizziness affecting approximately one in 7, one in 12 ,one in 17 and one in 22
respectively (Table 4). Most of these AEs were mild, with only 15 (11.2%) in the TDR and 17 (12.3%)
in the UC groups classed as moderate or severe, meaning they interfered with normal functioning
(Fisher’s Exact Test: p=0.82) (Table S2). There was one serious adverse event which occurred after
randomization but before the participant initiated the TDR programme.
Page 10 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
11
Discussion
Main findings
Primary care referrals of people who are obese to treatment within a total diet replacement
programme in the community reduced weight by 7.2 kg (-9.4; -4.9) more than usual care at one year,
with significantly greater improvements in glucose control, diastolic blood pressure and triglycerides
but not other lipid fractions. Among patients randomised to receive the total diet replacement
programme 73% and 45% lost ≥5 or ≥10% of their baseline weight respectively, compared to 32%
and 15% who received usual care.
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of this trial include recruiting patients who are typical of those seen in primary care
and who were seeking support for weight loss. There was no special training for clinicians to deliver
the programme other than written guidance since the intervention was delivered by a commercial
provider and weight loss did not vary by age, gender or SES. Together these factors mean this
programme could be readily implemented and realize benefits across the population. Loss to follow-
up was slightly lower than most weight loss trials9 and the observed difference in weight between
treatment groups was greater than 5 kg in all sensitivity analyses. It is however limited by the
relatively short duration of follow-up and the absence of direct evidence on the incidence of weight-
related disease or the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The meal replacement products are
designed to be nutritionally complete, but we do not have data on nutrient intake during the
programme or following food reintroduction, nor did we measure physical activity. Although the
population we sampled was heterogeneous with respect to socioeconomic status they were not as
deprived as the UK population as a whole. The proportion of participants from non-white ethnic
groups, whilst representative of the population, was too small to allow any meaningful subgroup
analyses. Although the subgroup analysis showed no evidence that more deprived people received
less benefit, there is only weak evidence to suggest this effect applies to this group.
Comparisons with other studies
The TDR programme comprised 12 weekly support sessions followed by a further three monthly
sessions together with the use of food replacement products and it is likely that both the support
and food replacement were important. In the meta-analysis of VLED programmes, a very low energy
(<800kcal/day) diet proved less effective than behavioural support that aimed for modest energy
restriction, whereas programmes incorporating behavioural support alongside a very low energy diet
were more effective than support programmes aiming at modest energy restriction. 12
Currently
behavioural support for weight loss in primary care is constrained by limited interest in the topic, the
Page 11 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
12
lack of a defined programme, and competing demands and few patients receive support for weight
loss.7 In this pragmatic trial the nurse programme was planned to comprise about four sessions of
support over 12 weeks. This is likely to be more than the ‘usual care’ received by most people who
are obese in primary care, however it provided considerably less input than the TDR programme.
However, the level of behavioural support in the TDR group is comparable to that provided in
intensive lifestyle intervention studies such as the US Diabetes Prevention Program which offered 16
sessions in the first 24 weeks. The 10.7 kg weight loss seen with TDR is greater than the 7 kg weight
loss observed in the US Diabetes Prevention Program. Thus it appears that the weight loss observed
in the TDR programme reflects both the TDR diet component and the support provided, and it is
likely that either alone would be less effective than the package together.
Participants in this trial had a BMI of at least 30kg/m2 and many were at risk of weight-related
morbidity, though at baseline only 15% had diabetes and 23% hypertension. There was evidence
that the intervention enhanced blood glucose control across a number of measures and a
significantly greater improvement in triglycerides though not in cholesterol fractions. There were
greater improvements in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, though the former were not
significant beyond three months. However, we assessed blood pressure on one occasion only and
therefore this was subject to measurement error. Thus regression to the mean is likely to have
underestimated the benefit to mean blood pressure. Overall the changes we observed were
consistent with the magnitude of weight loss achieved 21
and comparable to those observed in the
DiRECT trial.1 Data from other weight loss studies would suggest that this is likely to reduce the
incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and prevent premature mortality, commensurate
with the greater reduction in 10-year cardiovascular risk seen in the TDR group.4 22
Changes in quality
of life suggested greater improvements in the TDR group than usual care, consistent with evidence
from a systematic review that greater weight loss produces improvements in quality of life.23
In the
longer term there may be additional QALY gains as a result of a lower incidence of disease.
Anecdotal reports suggest that many people fear TDR programmes with severe energy restriction
will be unpopular and intolerable, but our results suggest otherwise. We used a similar recruitment
method to other trials and achieved a very similar take-up,9 suggesting that people did not
discriminate against this type of programme. Recruitment rates in this general sample of people who
were obese were 17%, which is similar to the DiRECT trial, which specifically recruited people with
type 2 diabetes.1 Adverse events were more common in the TDR group but almost all mild and there
was no significant difference in events of moderate or greater severity. Clinicians who were initially
unfamiliar with these programmes were able to adjust medication appropriately. Together these
data suggest that TDR programmes would not only be effective, but acceptable and well-tolerated if
Page 12 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
13
offered broadly. The system of referring patients to a commercial provider used in this study
achieved similar weight losses as seen in the DiRECT trial 1 where the behavioural support
component of the programme was provided by a healthcare professional. Referral to a commercial
provider, is already used for other types of weight loss support, and offers the potential to reduce,
rather than increase the workload for healthcare professionals.
Implications of this research
Current clinical guidelines recommend that this type of diet is reserved for patients in whom the
priority is short-term weight loss, for example, prior to bariatric or knee replacement surgery and
they are not recommended as routine weight loss interventions.13 14
This presumably reflects
concerns that weight loss is short-lived. This trial shows this treatment leads to greater weight loss
at one year than interventions based on usual food, nine months after the total diet replacement
phase of treatment. Although, on average, some weight was regained after the programme end at
24 weeks until the final follow up, this also occurred in the usual care group, and is common to all
weight-loss programmes.24
A previous experimental study in which patients were supported to
achieve 15% weight loss using either a very low energy diet or more moderate energy restriction
over a longer duration, observed similar rates of weight regain in the two groups after programme
end.25
Since the adverse health consequences of obesity relate both to the duration and magnitude
of excess weight this implies that the greater initial weight loss achieved with total diet replacement
programmes will be associated with greater improvements in long-term health outcomes.
The NHS does not routinely offer this type of programme and many primary care physicians are wary
about supporting patients who choose to use a total diet replacement programme because they are
unfamiliar with this approach or because of concerns about the safety of such interventions. This
trial should provide considerable reassurance. We included detailed elicitation of adverse events and
there were no unexpected and related adverse events during the 12 weeks of total diet replacement
and no cases of cholecystitis during an extended reporting period to 24 weeks. Moreover, there was
no excess of adverse events that interfered with participants’ ability to live their lives as normal,
showing that this approach was well-tolerated. GPs were provided with guidance to reduce, or
cease, medications for patients taking oral hypoglycaemic agents or treatments for hypertension at
the start of the diet and to monitor at 4 weeks. Weight loss at 4 weeks is a strong predictor of long
term success and provides an opportunity to adjust medication based on early weight change and
this approach appears to have been managed without giving rise to adverse events.26
In conclusion, a total diet replacement programme combining nutritionally complete meal
replacement products with behavioural support appears to be acceptable, well-tolerated and leads
Page 13 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
14
to greater weight loss with larger improvements in cardiovascular risk than currently available
weight loss programmes offered in primary care.
Page 14 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
15
Figure 1: Consort flowchart
286 Participants screened for eligibility
4 excluded:
4 BMI < 30kg/m2
4 declined to participate
278 were randomised
138 assigned to TDR programme 140 assigned to Usual Care
125 had weight measured at 1 month 114 had weight measured at 1 month
114 had weight measured at 3 months 97 had weight measured at 3 months
108 had weight measured at 6 months 94 had weight measured at 6 months
104 had weight measured at 12 months
17 Withdrawals
17 Loss to follow-up
4 Excluded from analysis
(Withdrew consent for use of data)
134 Were included in primary outcome
analysis
95 had weight measured at 12 months
25 Withdrawals
20 Loss to follow-up
2 Excluded from analysis
(Withdrew consent for use of data)
138 Were included in primary outcome
analysis
Page 15 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
16
Figure 2: Estimated weight change over 12 months in the intention to treat population
Page 16 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
17
Table 1: Baseline characteristics *
N Usual Care
Total Diet
Replacement
Age (yrs) 272 47.4 ± 12.8 48.2 ±11.5
Gender n (%)
Female 165 84 (60.9) 81 (60.5)
Male 107 54 (39.1) 53 (39.6)
Ethnicity
White British 240 119 (86.2) 121 (90.3)
Not White British 32 19 (13.8) 13 (9.7)
IMD decile § 272 7.3 ± 2.0 7.6 ± 2.0
Weight (kg) 272 105.2 ± 20 107.9 ± 18.9
Height (cm) 272 168.7 ± 9.7 169.2 ± 9.5
BMI (kg/m2) 272 36.8 ± 5.1 37.6 ± 5.7
Waist circumference (cm) 270 115.0 ± 12.5 116.4 ±13.5
Body fat (%) 268 42.1 ± 7.7 43.0 ± 7.8
Blood pressure (mmHg)
Systolic 269 130.1 ± 15.8 130.6 ± 16.4
Diastolic 269 81.3 ± 9.9 83.1 ± 9.7
Medical conditions n (%)
Diabetes 272 20 (14.5) 21 (15.7)
Hypertension 272 30 (21.7) 33 (24.6)
HbA1c (mmol/mol) 260 38.6 ± 10.9 39.6 ± 12.4
Fasting blood glucose (mmol/L) 261 5.6 ± 1.9 5.9 ± 2.4
Fasting insulin (pmol/L) 256 105.3 ± 85.7 96.4 ± 48.1
Page 17 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
18
Cholesterol (mmol/L)
Total 264 5.1 ± 1.1 5.1 ± 1.1
High-density lipoprotein 264 1.2 ± 0.4 1.2 ± 0.3
Low-density lipoprotein 256 3.2 ± 0.9 3.2 ± 0.9
Triglycerides (mmol/L) 264 1.6 ± 0.9 1.6 ± 0.8
*values represent means ± SD
§ IMD decile is an indicator of deprivation, with decile 1 being most deprived, and decile 10 the least
deprived.
Page 18 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
19
Table 2: Primary, secondary and exploratory outcomes by group
Change from baseline (mean ± SD) Treatment difference
Usual Care n
Total Diet
Replacement
n Adjusted difference (95% CI) p value
3 month
Weight (kg)2 -3.3 ± 4.2 97 -13.3 ± 6.3 114 -9.6 (-11.0, -8.2) <0.0001
Waist circumference (cm)3 -4.6 ± 4.9 94 -13.1 ± 7.7 111 -8.1 (-9.9, -6.4) <0.0001
Fat mass (kg)3 -3.0 ± 4.3 95 -10.7 ± 6.2 109 -7.1 (-8.6; -5.6) <0.0001
Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)3 3.5 ± 15.2 96 -2.6 ± 15.8 113 -5.8 (-9.1; -2.4) 0.0008
Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)3 0.5 ± 8.9 96 -4.4 ± 9.3 113 -3.9 (-5.9; -1.8) 0.0002
6 months
Weight (kg)2 -4.5 ± 6.2 94 -15.1 ± 8.7 108 -9.6 (-11.6, 7.7) <0.0001
Waist circumference (cm)3 -7.0 ± 7.2 89 -15.4 ± 9.7 102 -8.3 (-10.6; -6.0) <0.0001
Fat mass (kg)3 -4.8 ± 5.6 86 -12.8 ± 9.6 94 -7.9 (-9.9; -5.9) <0.0001
Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)3 4.0 ± 14.0 92 0.3 ± 16.7 105 -3.3 (-6.9; 0.3) 0.0741
Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)3 0.4 ± 9.3 92 -3.5 ± 11.4 105 -2.8 (-5.2; -0.4) 0.0202
Page 19 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
20
Quality of life:
EQ-5D (Index)3 0.03 ± 0.15 73 0.07 ± 0.20 92
EQ-5D (VAS)3 7.0 ± 17.5 74 15.5 ± 18.2 93
OWL-QOL3 10.6 ± 14.8 74 17.4 ± 20.5 92
12 months
Weight (kg)1 -3.1 ± 7.0 95 -10.7 ± 9.6 104 -7.2 (-9.4,-4.9) <0.0001
Waist circumference (cm)3 -5.5 ± 7.3 91 -10.5 ± 9.1 99 -6.0 (-8.2; -3.7) <0.0001
Fat mass (kg)2 -4.1 ± 6.5 93 -10.4 ± 8.5 100 -5.8 (-7.9; -3.7) <0.0001
Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)2 2.9 ± 15.2 93 -1.6 ± 16.4 100 -2.9 (-6.4; 0.6) 0.1072
Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)2 0.3 ± 9.3 93 -4.2 ± 11.1 100 -3.1 (-5.5; -0.7) 0.0117
HbA1c (mmol/mol)2 -1.0 ± 7.7 75 -3.2 ± 8.8 91 -2.2 (-4.4; 0.0) 0.0511
Fasting glucose (mmol/L)3 0.1 ± 1.3 75 -0.5 ± 1.8 89 -0.4 (-0.8; -0.1) 0.0201
Fasting insulin (pmol/L)3 -10.4 ± 91.6 72 -21.8 ± 41.8 87 -18.0 (-32.0; -4.0) 0.0119
HOMA- IR3 -0.1 ± 1.5 70 -0.5 ± 1.2 86 -0.4 (-0.7;-0.2) 0.0026
HOMA β (%)3 -15.0 ± 83.8 70 -12.5 ± 39.7 86 -9.8 (-22.9; 3.4) 0.1452
HOMA S (%)3 -4.6 ± 70.4 70 28.8 ± 47.5 86 30.9 (16.4; 45.5) <0.0001
Page 20 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
21
Total Cholesterol (mmol/L) 0.0 ± 0.9 78 -0.2 ± 0.9 91 -0.2 (-0.5, 0.04) 0.1050
HDL cholesterol (mmol/L)3 0.1 ± 0.3 78 0.2 ± 0.3 91 0.1 (0.0; 0.2) 0.0911
LDL Cholesterol (mmol/L)2 -0.1 ± 0.7 73 -0.1 ± 0.6 87 0.0 (-0.2; 0.2) 0.8184
Triglycerides (mmol/L)3 0.1 ± 0.6 76 -0.3 ± 1.0 89 -0.4 (-0.6; -0.1) 0.0022
QRISK2 (%)3 0.0 ± 2.1 88 -0.9 ± 2.6 100 -1.0 (-1.7; -0.3) 0.0061
Quality of Life:
EQ-5D (Index)3 0.07 ± .014 93 0.09 ± 0.17 100
EQ-5D (VAS)3 9.2 ± 17.0 96 13.0 ± 18.7 101
OWL-QOL3 14.0 ± 16.7 94 17.0 ± 20.9 99
1 Primary outcome
2Secondary outcome
3Exploratory outcome
Page 21 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
22
Table 3: Frequency of all adverse events*
Participants reporting an event n (%)
Usual Care
Total Diet
Replacement Total
Gastrointestinal disorders:
Abdominal discomfort 3 (2.2) 3 (2.2) 6 (2.2)
Abdominal pain upper 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Breath odour 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Constipation 0 (0) 20 (14.9) 20 (7.4)
Dry mouth 0 (0) 4 (3.6) 4 (1.5)
Nausea 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Painful defaecation 0 (0) 4 (3.0) 4 (1.5)
General disorders and administration site conditions:
Asthenia 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Fatigue 1 (0.7) 12 (9.0) 13 (4.8)
Influenza like illness 4 (2.9) 3 (2.2) 7 (2.6)
Thirst 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Infections and infestations:
Lower respiratory tract infection 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Nasopharyngitis 7 (5.1) 4 (2.9) 11 (4.0)
Investigations:
Scan 3 (2.2) 0 (0) 3 (1.1)
Nervous system disorders:
Dizziness 2 (1.4) 6 (4.5) 8 (2.9)
Headache 3 (2.2) 11 (8.2) 14 (5.1)
Page 22 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
23
Psychiatric disorders:
Irritability 0 (0) 3 (2.2) 3 (1.1)
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders:
Oropharyngeal pain 2 (1.4) 2 (1.5) 4 (1.5)
*Events of any severity that occurred in >2% of the sample.
Page 23 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
24
References
1. Lean ME, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, et al. Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2
diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2017 doi: 10.1016/s0140-
6736(17)33102-1.
2. World Health Organization. Global Health Risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to
selected major risks., 2009.
3. Zomer E, Gurusamy K, Leach R, et al. Interventions that cause weight loss and the impact on
cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev
2016;17(10):1001-11 doi: 10.1111/obr.12433.
4. Diabetes Prevention Program Research G. Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin
on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the
Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinology
2015;3(11):866-75 doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00291-0.
5. Tsai AG, Wadden TA. Treatment of obesity in primary care practice in the United States: a
systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24(9):1073-9 doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1042-5.
6. Aveyard P, Lewis A, Tearne S, et al. Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: a
parallel, two-arm, randomised trial. The Lancet 2016;388(10059):2492-500 doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31893-1.
7. Booth HP, Prevost AT, Gulliford MC. Access to weight reduction interventions for overweight and
obese patients in UK primary care: population-based cohort study. BMJ Open
2015;5(1):e006642 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006642.
8. Jebb SA, Ahern AL, Olson AD, et al. Primary care referral to a commercial provider for weight loss
treatment versus standard care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378(9801):1485-
92 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61344-5.
9. Ahern AL, Wheeler GM, Aveyard P, et al. Extended and standard duration weight loss referrals for
adults in primary care (WRAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. The Lancet
2017;389(10085):2214-25.
10. Jolly K, Daley A, Adab P, et al. A randomised controlled trial to compare a range of commercial or
primary care led weight reduction programmes with a minimal intervention control for
weight loss in obesity: the Lighten Up trial. BMC Public Health 2010;10:439 doi:
10.1186/1471-2458-10-439.
11. Hartmann-Boyce J, Johns DJ, Jebb SA, et al. Behavioural weight management programmes for
adults assessed by trials conducted in everyday contexts: systematic review and meta-
analysis. Obesity Reviews 2014;15(11):920-32 doi: 10.1111/obr.12220.
12. Parretti HM, Jebb SA, Johns DJ, et al. Clinical effectiveness of very-low-energy diets in the
management of weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Obesity Reviews 2016;17(3):225-34 doi: 10.1111/obr.12366.
13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Obesity: identification, assesment and
management London, 2014.
14. Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Guideline for the Management of
Overweight and Obesity in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American
Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society. Journal of the
American College of Cardiology 2014;63(25):2985-3025 doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.004.
15. Jebb SA, Astbury NM, Tearne S, et al. Doctor Referral of Overweight People to a Low-Energy
Treatment (DROPLET) in primary care using total diet replacement products: a protocol for a
randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7(8):e016709 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-
016709.
16. British Heart Foundation. So you want to lose weight... for good. London: BHF Publications, 2005.
17. Niero M, Martin M, Finger T, et al. A new approach to multicultural item generation in the
development of two obesity-specific measures: the Obesity and Weight Loss Quality of Life
Page 24 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
25
(OWLQOL) questionnaire and the Weight-Related Symptom Measure (WRSM). Clin Ther
2002;24(4):690-700.
18. EuroQol G. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health
Policy 1990;16(3):199-208.
19. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and
Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 2008;336(7659):1475-82 doi:
10.1136/bmj.39609.449676.25.
20. Levy JC, Matthews DR, Hermans MP. Correct homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) evaluation
uses the computer program. Diabetes Care 1998;21(12):2191-2.
21. Zomer E, Gurusamy K, Leach R, et al. Interventions that cause weight loss and the impact on
cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews
2016;17(10):1001-11 doi: 10.1111/obr.12433.
22. Ma C, Avenell A, Bolland M, et al. Effects of weight loss interventions for adults who are obese
on mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ
2017;359:j4849 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4849.
23. Warkentin LM, Das D, Majumdar SR, et al. The effect of weight loss on health-related quality of
life: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obesity Reviews
2014;15(3):169-82 doi: 10.1111/obr.12113.
24. Dombrowski SU, Knittle K, Avenell A, et al. Long term maintenance of weight loss with non-
surgical interventions in obese adults: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised
controlled trials. BMJ 2014;348:g2646 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2646.
25. Purcell K, Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, et al. The effect of rate of weight loss on long-term
weight management: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
2014;2(12):954-62 doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70200-1.
26. Unick JL, Hogan PE, Neiberg RH, et al. Evaluation of early weight loss thresholds for identifying
nonresponders to an intensive lifestyle intervention. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2014;22(7):1608-
16 doi: 10.1002/oby.20777.
Page 25 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
26
Funding
Funding for this study was provided through a research grant from Cambridge Weight Plan UK Ltd to
the University of Oxford and also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS
Foundation Trust. SAJ, PA and NA are supported by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health
Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing
of the report. The views are those expressed by the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS,
the NIHR or the Department of Health. The University of Oxford holds the relevant clinical trials
insurance policy for this study and acted as the study sponsor.
Acknowledgements
We thank participants and the staff at the primary care practices who contributed to this study. We
also thank staff in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care NIHR Clinical Trials Unit for support in
the running of this trial, in particular Dr Sadie Kelly for acting as data manager and Mrs Sarah Tearne
who assisted in setting up the study.
Contributors
SAJ and PA designed the study, NA was the trial manager and AN was the trial statistician. NA, KH,
KC and RL were responsible for data collection. SAJ and NA drafted the paper and all authors
contributed to the interpretation of the data and critical review of the paper.
Potential Conflicts
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf
and declare: The trial was in part funded by the Cambridge Weight Plan but the authors receive no
personal financial benefit. The study was an investigator-initiated protocol and the funder has no
access to the data. PA and SAJ have previously conducted studies in which weight-loss interventions
were provided to the NHS by WeightWatchers, Slimming World or Rosemary Conley.
Ethical Approval
The trial was approved by South Central Oxford B NHS Research Ethics Service Committee, (NHS REC
No 15/SC/0337 )
Data sharing
Requests for access to data from the DROPLET study should be addressed to the principal
investigator at susan.jebb@phc.ox.ac.uk. All the individual participant data collected, after de-
identification (including the data dictionary) will be available on request following publication. All
proposals requesting data access will need to complete a data request form with details of the
Page 26 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
27
research question and analysis plan. All proposals will require the approval of the investigator team
before any data are released.
Transparency
The guarantor (SAJ) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of
the study bring reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any
discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Page 27 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Appendix
Table of Contents:
Full Inclusion and Exclusion criteria 1
Medication adjustment guidelines 2
Figure S1: Proportion of participants losing ≥5% or ≥10% baseline weight 3
Table S1: Typical Nutritional Composition of meal replacements used in TDR 6
Table S2: Adjusted treatment effects under different missing data approaches 7
Table S3: Adverse events analysis 8
Page 28 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
2
Full list of Inclusion and Exclusion criteria
Inclusion:
Participants were included in the study if the met the following criteria:
• Participant is willing and able to give informed consent for participation in the study.
• Aged 18 years or above.
• Body Mass Index ≥30 kg/m2.
• Likely to benefit from weight loss in the Primary Care physician’s opinion.
Exclusion:
The following criteria were used to exclude individuals for whom weight loss might not be safe, those
who may have difficulty adhering to TDR intervention, or those with medical conditions that were a
contraindication to the TDR programme.
• Currently or recently (within 3 months of study entry) attended a weight management
programme or currently participating in another weight loss study.
• Had bariatric surgery, or scheduled bariatric surgery.
• Pregnant, breastfeeding, or planning to become pregnant during the course of the study.
• Receiving insulin therapy
• Heart attack or stroke within the last 3 months
• Heart failure of grade II New York Heart Association and more severe
• Angina, arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation or prolonged QT syndrome
• Taking MAOI medication
• Taking anticoagulant medication (e.g. warfarin)
• Taking varenicline (smoking cessation medication)
• Chronic renal failure of stage 4 or 5
• Active liver disease (except NAFLD) a past history of hepatoma or within 6 months of onset of
acute hepatitis.
• People having active treatment for cancer other than skin cancer treated with curative intent by local
treatment only or people taking hormonal or other long-term secondary prevention treatment after
initial cancer treatment.
• Active treatment or investigation for possible or confirmed gastric or duodenal ulcer.
Maintenance treatment with acid-suppression is not a contra-indication.
• Porphyria
• Scheduled for surgery within 12 months
• A member of household is already enrolled in the study
• Unwilling to provide blood samples
• Patients that the Primary Care physician judges not able to meet the demands of either
treatment programme or measurement schedule. This may include severe medical problems
not listed above or severe psychiatric problems including substance misuse that make following
the treatment programme or adhering to the protocol unlikely.
Page 29 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
3
Medication adjustment guidelines
Page 30 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
4
Figure S1: Proportion of participants losing ≥5% or ≥10% baseline weight*
*Proportion of participants in each group in the intention to treat population who had lost ≥5% and
≥10% baseline weight at 12 months. (Participants with complete data at baseline and follow-up
only N=199). For ≥5% weight loss the OR (95% CI) was 6.5 (3.4, 12.2) and for ≥10% weight loss was
4.9 (2.4, 9.9) favouring the TDR group.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
≥ 5% ≥ 10%
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
art
icia
pn
ts (
%)
Weight change from baseline at 12 months
Usual Care
Total Diet Replacement
P<0.0001
P<0.0001
Page 31 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
5
Figure S2: Treatment effect by sub-groups
*IMD decile is an indicator of deprivation, with decile 1 being most deprived, and decile 10 the least deprived. IMD groups were compared using
median split. IMD was not a pre-specified sub-group analysis, and was added after the statistical analysis plan was written, but before the
primary analysis was conducted.
Primary analysis
Practice 10
Practice 9
Practice 8
Practice 7
Practice 6
Practice 5
Practice 4
Practice 3
Practice 2
Practice 1
Practice
IMD decile >8
IMD decile ≤ 8
IMD decile*
BMI >35
BMI ≤ 35
BMI
55-78
44-54
19-43
Age group
Female
Male
Sex
Type 2
None
Diabetes status
Subgroup
-7.20 [ -9.40, -4.90]
-9.10 [ -24.70, 6.40]
-3.80 [ -19.10, 11.40]
4.90 [ -13.90, 23.70]
-10.60 [ -19.00, -2.30]
-5.80 [ -12.80, 1.10]
-2.10 [ -8.70, 4.50]
-2.70 [ -9.70, 4.40]
-11.80 [ -17.10, -6.50]
-14.00 [ -20.90, -7.00]
-6.30 [ -10.70, -1.80]
-7.70 [ -10.50, -4.90]
-5.90 [ -9.60, -2.20]
-8.70 [ -11.80, -5.70]
-5.00 [ -8.30, -1.70]
-8.80 [ -12.00, -4.50]
-6.90 [ -10.60, -3.20]
-7.10 [ -9.40, -4.80]
-5.90 [ -8.80, -2.90]
-9.20 [ -12.60, -5.80]
-10.20 [ -15.60, -4.80]
-6.60 [ -9.00, -4.10]
Treatment effect [95% CI]
199
4
4
3
15
21
22
21
36
21
52
73
123
105
94
78
67
54
113
86
35
164
N
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Difference in weight change from baseline (kg) at 12 months (95% CI)
Favours intervention Favours control
Page 32 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
6
Table S1: Typical Nutritional Composition of meal replacement products used in the total diet
replacement programme
Per 100g Per serving
Energy
kJ 1565 845
kcal 370 200
Fat (g) 4.8 2.6
of which saturates (g) 0.9 0.5
Carbohydrate (g) 50.1 27.0
Of which sugars (g) 35.1 18.9
Fibre 5.2 2.8
Protein 29.2 15.8
Salt 1.2 0.6
Page 33 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
7
Table S2: Adjusted treatment effects under different missing data approaches
BOCF LOCF Multiple imputation Completers only
Usual Care TDR Usual care TDR Usual Care TDR Usual Care TDR
(N = 138) (N=134) (N= 138) (N=134) (N=138) (N= 134) (N=95) (N=104)
Unadjusted weight change from baseline* -2.1 ± 6.0 -8.3 ± 9.6 -2.7 ± 6.3 -10.2 ± 9.2 -3.5 ± 8.2 -10.2 ± 9.7 -3.1 ± 7.0 -10.7 ± 9.6
Difference between groups † -6.1 (-8.0, -4.3) -7.5 (-9.4, -5.6) -6.4 (-8.5, -4.4) -7.5 (-9.8, -5.1)
p-value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
*Mean weight (kg) ± SD
† Adjusted mean difference (kg) (95% CI) using linear mixed effects model with fixed effects for randomisation group, baseline weight, visit and
randomised group x visit interaction. Random effects accounting for practice and participant and within subject variance covariance matrix
specified as unstructured. Age and sex were included as covariates as baseline values were predictive of missingness.
Page 34 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
8
Table S3: Adverse Events analysis*
Usual Care Total Diet Replacement p value
Participants reporting at least one AE n (%) 41 (29.7) 69 (51.5) 0.0003
Participants reporting a moderate or severe AE n (%) 17 (12.3) 15 (11.2) 0.85
*A logistic model would not converge, therefore a Fisher’s exact test was used to test the associations between groups.
Page 35 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
1Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
AbstrActIntroduction The global prevalence of obesity has risen significantly in recent decades. There is a pressing need to identify effective interventions to treat established obesity that can be delivered at scale. The aim of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to a Low-Energy Treatment (DROPLET) study is to determine the clinical effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of referral to a low-energy total diet replacement programme compared with usual weight management interventions in primary care.Methods and analysis The DROPLET trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing a low-energy total diet replacement programme with usual weight management interventions delivered in primary care. Eligible patients will be recruited through primary care registers and randomised to receive a behavioural support programme delivered by their practice nurse or a referral to a commercial provider offering an initial 810 kcal/d low-energy total diet replacement programme for 8 weeks, followed by gradual food reintroduction, along with weekly behavioural support for 24 weeks. The primary outcome is weight change at 12 months. The secondary outcomes are weight change at 3 and 6 months, the proportion of participants achieving 5% and 10% weight loss at 12 months, and change in fat mass, haemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 12 months. Data will be analysed on the basis of intention to treat. Qualitative interviews on a subsample of patients and healthcare providers will assess their experiences of the weight loss programmes and identify factors affecting acceptability and adherence.Ethics and dissemination This study has been reviewed and approved by the National Health ServiceHealth Research Authority (HRA)Research Ethics Committee (Ref: SC/15/0337). The trial findings will be disseminated to academic and health professionals through presentations at meetings and peer-reviewed journals and to the public through the media. If the intervention is effective, the results will be communicated to policymakers and commissioners of weight management services.trial registration number ISRCTN75092026.
IntroductIonThe prevalence of obesity worldwide has more than doubled since 1980.1 According to the latest estimates from the WHO, more than 1.9 billion adults were overweight, of whom 600 million were obese, representing 39% and 13% of the world’s adult popula-tion, respectively.2 Obesity is associated with premature mortality,3 but also substantial morbidity, including significantly increased risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and most non-smoking-related cancers, as well as physical impairments linked to excess weight such as breathlessness, joint problems and back pain.4 Collectively this creates a burden of ill-health and reduced quality of life for individuals, additional treatment costs to
Doctor Referral of Overweight People to a Low-Energy Treatment (DROPLET) in primary care using total diet replacement products: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Susan A Jebb, Nerys M Astbury, Sarah Tearne, Alecia Nickless, Paul Aveyard
To cite: Jebb SA, Astbury NM, Tearne S, et al. Doctor Referral of Overweight People to a Low-Energy Treatment (DROPLET) in primary care using total diet replacement products: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
► Prepublication history and additional material are available. To view these files please visit the journal online (http:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2017- 016709).
Received 3 March 2017Revised 13 June 2017Accepted 21 June 2017
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford UK
correspondence toDr Nerys M Astbury; nerys. astbury@ phc. ox. ac. uk
Protocol
strengths and limitations of this study
► This study is the largest randomised controlled trial to date of a low-energy total diet replacement programme for weight management in routine primary care.
► This intervention is based on a model of care where general practitioners refer patients to a programme delivered in the community by a commercial provider using non-National Health Service staff, which, if successful, could be readily adopted into practice without the need for specialist training for the primary care workforce.
► The primary outcome is weight at 1 year. Although this is 9 months after the low-energy total diet replacement, epidemiological evidence suggests that any weight lost will continue to be regained beyond 1 year.
► The intention of obesity treatment programmes is to improve long-term health, but this study does not include morbidity or mortality outcomes.
► Longer term follow-up data would be helpful to better estimate the longer health impact and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 36 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
2 Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
the National Health Service (NHS) and reductions in economic productivity.5 While high priority must be given to prevent future cases of obesity, in the short term, there is a pressing need to identify effective interven-tions to treat established obesity. Research has shown that even modest reductions in weight can bring significantly reduced risks of disease. For example, in the US Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), individuals randomised to an intensive lifestyle intervention lost 7 kg by the end of the first year. Although some of this weight was regained, the intensive lifestyle group remained 4 kg lighter than the usual care group at 4 years, and this reduced the inci-dence of diabetes by 58% relative to usual care,6 with benefits persisting to at least 15-year follow-up despite weight regain.7
Primary care is an important setting for weight manage-ment interventions to reduce multimorbidity. However, although a number of interventions have been shown to be effective in intensive research studies, this success has not always been replicated in routine settings. For example, there was no significant reduction in weight when a weight loss programme adapted from the DPP was delivered by primary care teams.8 Our recent review of interventions suitable for use in routine care9 and a second review, using slightly different inclusion criteria, of interventions specifically delivered in primary care10 both concluded that behavioural weight management interventions led by primary care practitioners were ineffective. This may relate in part to the complexity of advice needed for successful dietary change and the need for frequent contact to provide support, which exceeds the capacity of routine primary care systems. However, although a number of interventions have been shown to be effective in intensive research studies, this success has not always been replicated in routine settings. General practitioner (GP) referral to a commercial provider offering group-based support is an effective option for weight management in primary care, and our meta-anal-ysis showed a mean reduction in weight of 2.3 kg over no intervention at 1 year.9 However, greater weight losses would be expected to bring greater health gains.
Very low-energy diets (VLEDs) have been used for weight loss over many years in specialist settings. A VLED is defined as a diet providing ≤800 kcal a day, based on the use of specially formulated products designed as the sole source of nutrition during periods of total diet replacement. When used as directed, these formula products meet 100% of the dietary reference values for vitamins, minerals and trace elements for healthy, weight-stable people and are enriched with high biolog-ical-value protein. Although most contain some dietary fibre, a fibre supplement may also be recommended. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomised controlled trials showed that behavioural weight management interventions incorporating a VLED led to 3.9 kg greater weight loss at 1 year compared with intensive specialist-delivered behavioural programmes.11 However, most of the trials included in this review were
small, typically including only 50–100 participants who were treated by obesity specialists, and many trials had methodological limitations.
UK guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that VLEDs may only be used for a maximum of 12 weeks in people who have a clinical need to lose weight rapidly, such as prior to a knee replacement surgery or those seeking fertility services, but recommends against their routine use to manage obesity.12 Clinical guidance in the USA does not recommend the routine use of VLEDs, but rather suggests that their use ‘may be reasonable in limited circum-stances, but only when provided by trained practitioners in a medical care setting where medical monitoring and high intensity lifestyle intervention can be provided’.13
Nevertheless, there has been growing interest in the potential for routine use of weight loss programmes similar to traditional VLEDs, in so far as they incorpo-rate a period of total diet replacement using specially formulated products as the sole source of nutrition, but where the energy content is more than 800 kcal/day but less than 1200 kcal/day. The NICE guidelines suggest that this type of low-energy diet could be consid-ered for weight management, providing care is taken to ensure they are nutritionally complete.12 There is one observational report (n=91) on the use of these low-en-ergy total diet replacement programmes in primary care which found that 64% of participants completed the 810 kcal/day dietary programme, defined as either 12 weeks or reaching 20 kg weight loss, with a mean weight loss of 16.9 kg (SD=6.0 kg). One-third of partici-pants starting the programme maintained a weight loss of ≥15 kg at 12 months.14 A large randomised controlled trial, the DiRECT (Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial) study, is currently underway to investigate whether this type of low-energy total diet replacement programme can be used to treat type 2 diabetes among people who are also overweight.15 It will compare the health effects of the current best-available type 2 diabetes care with those achieved through weight management based on a low-energy total diet replacement programme. While this will provide important mechanistic evidence on the links between weight loss and diabetes risk, it will be deliv-ered by NHS staff, whereas the present study will test the effectiveness of referral outside the NHS to a commercial provider.
To fill this evidence gap, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial to specifically test the effectiveness of a GP referral to a community-based low-energy total diet replacement programme for patients who are obese and likely to benefit from weight loss. It will assess the clinical effectiveness of a weight loss intervention by measuring weight loss and the change in biomarkers of cardiovascular risk at 12 months relative to weight loss advice provided by practice nurses. This comparator is intended to represent ‘usual care’, although in practice most patients who are obese are not offered support to lose weight.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 37 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
3Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
The context for this trial follows the established model for GP referral to community group-based weight loss programmes.16 This uses the generic authority and cred-ibility of health professionals to motivate patients to consider weight management and the specialist knowl-edge of the commercial provider to guide the intervention and offer frequent contact and behavioural support to the patient. If successful, it will provide another option for weight management that can be offered to patients in primary care, and GPs will be able to guide patients towards the treatment that best fits their circumstances and preferences. This trial will specifically test whether a partnership between GPs and providers will allow for the safe provision of low-energy total diet replacement programmes even for patients with multimorbidity who may gain the greatest benefits from such interventions but who may also need clinical oversight and adjust-ments to some of their medications as they lose weight. It will provide the opportunity for qualitative research to investigate the perspectives of patients and healthcare practitioners on this type of treatment.
objectiveThe aim of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to a Low-Energy Treatment (DROPLET) trial is to determine the clinical effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of referral to a low-energy total diet replacement programme compared with usual weight management interventions in primary care.
MEthodsDesign and settingThe study will take place in general practices in England. The study is designed as an individually randomised, two-arm and parallel group superiority trial with the primary endpoint as objectively measured changes in body weight from baseline to 12 months. Due to the nature of the intervention, it will not be possible to blind participants, clinicians or some of the study team to the treatment allocation after randomisation.
recruitmentAround 10 general practices will be identified to take part through the clinical research networks. Recruited prac-tices will be asked to conduct a search of their electronic health records in order to identify suitable patients for the DROPLET study. As a result of this search, eligible patients will be sent an invitation letter from their GP as part of a staggered mailout. Patients will be encouraged to call the research team if they are interested in taking part.
GPs may also identify eligible patients during routine consultations. The GP will provide the patient with an invitation letter and suggest that the patient ring the study team. The study team will provide the potential partici-pants with information on what taking part in the study will entail, and an initial assessment of suitability to take part. Those who make contact and self-report meeting
the eligibility criteria will be scheduled for a baseline/enrolment appointment.
Inclusion criteria ► participant is willing and able to give informed con-
sent for participation in the study ► aged 18 years or above ► body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2
► likely to benefit from weight loss in the GP’s opinion.
Exclusion criteria ► unable to understand English ► currently or recently (within 3 months of study entry)
attended a weight management programme or cur-rently participating in another weight loss study
► had bariatric surgery or scheduled bariatric surgery ► pregnant, breast feeding or planning to become preg-
nant during the course of the study ► receiving insulin therapy ► heart attack or stroke within the last 3 months ► heart failure of grade II New York Heart Association
and more severe ► angina, arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation or
prolonged QT syndrome ► taking monoamine- oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) medi-
cation ► taking anticoagulant medication (eg, warfarin) ► taking varenicline (smoking cessation medication) ► chronic renal failure of stage 4 or 5 ► active liver disease (except non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease (NAFLD), a history of hepatoma or within 6 months of onset of acute hepatitis
► people having active treatment for cancer other than skin cancer treated with curative intent by local treat-ment only, or people taking hormonal or other long-term secondary prevention treatment after initial can-cer treatment
► active treatment or investigation for possible or con-firmed gastric or duodenal ulcer; maintenance treat-ment with acid suppression is not a contraindication
► porphyria ► scheduled for surgery within 12 months ► a member of household is already enrolled in the
study ► unwilling to provide blood samples ► patients that the GP judges not able to meet the de-
mands of either treatment programme or measure-ment schedule; this may include severe medical prob-lems not listed above or severe psychiatric problems including substance misuse that make following the treatment programme or adhering to the protocol unlikely.
Participant flowThe baseline/eligibility assessment will be scheduled with a practice nurse or healthcare assistant at their own GP practice, where informed consent for participation in the study will be obtained before eligibility will be formally
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 38 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
4 Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
assessed. After demographic information and all base-line measurements have been collected, the participant will be randomised to the allocated treatment group using the online randomisation system. The patients’ own GP will be notified by letter of the enrolment and randomisation of their patient, so that it may be docu-mented on their medical record. Participants allocated to the low-energy total diet replacement programme and taking medications for type 2 diabetes, hypertension or high cholesterol will have their medications reviewed by a prescribing member of the clinical care team, usually the GP or trained nurse prescriber. During this medication review, the clinician will decide what changes to medica-tions are required at the time the participant commences the low-energy total diet replacement programme, with guidance provided by the study team (see online supple-mentary figure 1). In addition, participants randomised to the low-energy total diet replacement group and who take antihypertensive medications will be provided with a home blood pressure monitor and asked to record blood pressure once daily during the weight loss phase (weeks 1–12). These readings can be used to guide clinicians with any further changes in hypertension medications.
All participants will be invited to attend a 4-week follow-up appointment with the practice nurse. The main purpose of the visit is a clinical review of medica-tion, including any adjustments required. Any changes in medication will be recorded on the concomitant medi-cation log. Participants will be invited to attend further follow-up visits with a member of the trial team at the GP practice at 12 weeks, 6 months and 12 month following randomisation. Participant flow through the study is outlined in figure 1.
sample sizeThe total number of participants to be recruited for this study is 270. This is based on a sample size calculation for the primary outcome using equal variance indepen-dent samples t-test assuming a difference between groups at 12 months of 4 kg with an SD in both groups of 9 kg, obtained from a meta-analysis of published studies.11 The sample size has been inflated by 20% to account for attri-tion, and assumes 90% power and two-sided alpha of 5%.
randomisationAll eligible, consenting participants will be randomised with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to low-energy total diet replacement or usual care programmes using an online programme, which reveals group allocation as per a computer-generated randomisation list. The rando-misation criteria will be validated by an independent statistician. Allocation will be stratified by GP practice and baseline BMI (≤35 kg/m2 or >35 kg/m2) using stratified block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes of 2, 4 and 6. The randomisation software ensures full allocation concealment, with the allocation group only revealed to the person performing the randomisation once a study identifier and required stratification details have been entered.
InterventionsLow-energy total diet replacementThe programme offered to participants randomised to the active intervention will be provided by Cambridge Weight Plan, Northants, UK.
Following randomisation participants allocated to this group will be referred to a local Cambridge Weight Plan counsellor who will invite the participant to attend regular appointments for 24 weeks. These appointments consist of motivational support, encouragement, reassurance and problem-solving. All counsellors attend a 1-day in-person training course covering screening for suitability, nutri-tion, behavioural approaches and medical monitoring. They must pass an accreditation examination before they are allowed to deliver the programme in the community. Thereafter, they have a yearly training updates, a nomi-nated sponsor (experienced counsellor) and access to an online chat forum for sharing queries. Cambridge Weight Plan has a healthcare professional available for the counsellors to consult for advice on specific medical and nutritional queries. Counsellors delivering the inter-vention for the purposes of this trial received short trial specific training before being allocated study participants.
During the first 12 weeks the participant will meet with their counsellor weekly. Patients will be asked to follow a programme based on using formula meal replacement products (soups, shakes and bars) and milk comprising 810 kcal/day (3389 kJ/day). For the first 8 weeks, patients will be advised to replace all their usual foods and drinks with four of the formula products daily: 750 mL of skimmed milk, 2.25 L of water or other non-calorific drinks and a fibre supplement (total diet replacement stage). During the first 2 weeks, the formula products will be limited to liquid products (soups and shakes), but from week 3 onwards participants will have the option to include meal replacement bars as part of the formula product allowance. After 8 weeks there will be a 4-week stepwise reduction in the use of formula meal replacement products and a gradual reintroduction of food-based meals. The weight maintenance phase from week 12 to 24 participants attend monthly appointments at 16, 20 and 24 weeks, during this phase participants are advised to consume only one formula product a day, with the remainder of the diet to consist of self-selected food. This weight maintenance phase will include a recom-mendation to return to the total diet replacement stage for periods of up to 4 weeks if participants regain 1 kg or more than their weight measured at 12 weeks.
All consultations with counsellors and formula prod-ucts will be provided to participants by their nominated counsellor and will be free of charge for the first 24 weeks, after which the intervention will end. Participants in both groups will be free to choose whether or not to continue with the programme, but at their own cost.
ComparatorThe comparator intervention will consist of the usual weight management programme provided by a member
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 39 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
5Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
Figure 1 Participant flow through the study. BMI, body mass index; GP, general practitioner.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 40 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
6 Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
Figure 2 Schedule of measurements.18
of the practice nurse team who has been trained to offer a weight loss programme. The trial will take place only in practices where this is routine care. Participants
allocated to the usual care group will not be prevented from attending other weight management groups if they choose to do so, but no NHS referrals to these schemes
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 41 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
7Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
will be offered during the trial. The practice nurse will give participants a copy of the booklet ‘So you want to lose weight … for good’.17 This 47-page booklet provides advice akin to a behavioural weight management programme. The aim is to produce a weight loss goal of 0.5–1 kg/week. It includes goal setting, advice on portion control and physical activity, other behavioural strate-gies, and monitoring and feedback on progress. Nurses will be asked to offer a programme for 12 weeks, at a frequency that is usually used in the practice (eg, weekly or biweekly).
Physical activityWe recognise the importance of the role of aerobic and resistance exercise in facilitating weight loss and maintaining lean body mass to facilitate weight loss main-tenance.
Participants randomised to the low-energy total diet replacement arm are given appropriate advice based on their previous exercise history, current ability and what is appropriate for their stage weight loss programme. Clin-ical guidelines in the UK emphasise the importance of advice to increase physical activity, and we would expect this to be incorporated into the control ‘usual care’ inter-vention.
outcomesPrimary outcome
► change in body weight from baseline to 12 months.
Secondary outcomes ► change in body weight from baseline at 3 and 6
months ► proportion of participants achieving 5% and
10% weight loss at 12 months ► change in fat mass between baseline and 12 months ► change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol
concentrations between baseline and 12 months ► change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between base-
line and 12 months ► change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure be-
tween baseline and 12 months.
Exploratory outcomes ► change in fat mass from baseline to 12 weeks and from
baseline to 6 months ► change in waist circumference from baseline to 3, 6
and 12 months ► change in triglyceride and high-density lipopro-
tein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations between base-line and 12 months
► change in fasting glucose and insulin concentra-tions and change in Homeostatic Model Assesment (HOMA)of insulin resistance (HOMA- IR), insulin sensitivity (HOMA-%S) and beta cell function (HO-MA-%B) between baseline and 12 months
► change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure be-tween baseline and 3 months and between baseline and 6 months
► change in QRISK between baseline and 12 months ► change in the quality of Life measured using the EQ-
5D scale between baseline and 12 months ► change in obesity-related quality of life measured with
the Obesity-Specific Quality of Life (OWLQOL) be-tween baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
► proportion of people continuing their weight loss at-tempt and following the prescribed programme at 4, 8 and 12 weeks
► the number of weight control behaviours that partic-ipants are using assessed using the Oxford Food and Activity Behaviours (OxFAB) questionnaire18 at 3 and 6 months
► qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants at 6 and 12 months
► adverse event (AE) reports up to 12 weeks, the end of the weight loss intervention or 6 months for AEs known or presumed to be related to gallstones.
MeasurementsFigure 2 provides a summary of the measurements collected.
Sociodemographic characteristicsParticipants will be asked to self-report age, sex and ethnicity.
Medical historyRelevant medical history and all concomitant medication will be recorded and checked against the participants’ medical record. Participants will also be asked to self-re-port items required to determine cardiovascular risk score using QRISK2.19
Physical measurementsHeight will be measured to the nearest 1 cm using stadi-ometers available in the practice. Weight will be recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg using an electronic scale (SC-240 MA, Tanita Japan), which will also record the proportion of body fat using bioelectrical impedance. Waist circum-ference will be measured in the horizontal plane at the upper border of the iliac crest at the end of expiration20 using a fibreglass non-stretch tape measure fitted with a tensioning device (Gulick II Tape Measure, Fitness Mart USA). Seated blood pressure will be measured in triplicate with 1 min between each measure. All physical measures are performed by assessors trained according to the study manual of procedures.
Fasting blood sampleA fasting venous blood sample will be collected (to be analysed for glucose, insulin, HbA1c, HDL and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides). When baseline/enrolment appointments are scheduled at times when it may be inappropriate to fast, participants will be asked to arrange for a fasting blood sample to be collected at an alterna-tive appointment within 7 days of the enrolment visit and before the participant commences the allocated weight loss programme.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 42 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
8 Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
QuestionnairesParticipants will be provided with a questionnaire booklet which they will be asked to complete and return to the trial team in a postage paid envelope provided. The ques-tionnaire booklet contains the following measures:
► OWLQOL: a weight-specific instrument intended to be used to assess obesity-specific symptoms and quality of life, general functional status and well-being, and per-son-specific preference measurement.21
► Quality of life: EQ-5D will be used as a standardised val-idated instrument used for measuring general health status.22
► Programme adherence: self-reported adherence to the allocated programme and methods participants are using to attempt to lose weight will be recorded by questionnaire.
► Programme feedback: will be assessed using several 5-point Likert scales, including whether there is an aim to continue with the programme.
► OxFAB: a questionnaire to assess personal strategies used by individuals for the purposes of weight loss.18
Retention and withdrawalWe will seek to follow up all participants except those who expressly withdraw from the study. Participants who decide to withdraw from or discontinue the intervention allocated as part of the study will be asked to return for follow-up visits to collect outcome measures. To promote participant retention and complete follow-up, partici-pants will be offered a £10 gift card for attending each of the 6-month and 12-month follow-up visits.
Adverse eventsAEs are of relevance in this trial because many prac-titioners feel these programmes are poorly tolerated and unsuitable for routine use in primary care. We will record AEs following Good Clinical Practice. All serious and non-serious AEs that occur during the first 12 weeks of the study or until the termination of the weight loss programme will be recorded in participants who initiate one of the weight loss interventions. We will also record all AEs that are presumed to be or known to be related to gallstones up to 6 months.
data managementData will be recorded in a web-based data capture system (OpenClinica), which is hosted by the Primary Care Clin-ical Trials Unit of the University of Oxford. This system is customised and has an audit trail facility. Ranges and programmed validation checks are implemented in the system in order to aid reliable data entry.
statistical analysisThe primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis by an independent statistician. Each continuous outcome will be assumed to follow the normal distribution and be analysed by means of a linear mixed-effects model, adjusted for outcome at baseline. The model will include fixed-effects terms for
randomised group, visit, interaction between randomised group and visit, and baseline BMI (for non-weight outcomes only), and random effects to account for repeated measures on the same participant at 3, 6 and 12 months. No adjustment will be made for baseline BMI in the analysis of the weight outcomes due to its strong collinearity with baseline weight. A random effect will also be included for individual practice. An unstructured variance–covariance matrix will be specified between repeated measurements on the same individual, and the random effects for patient and practice will be assumed to be independent. The adjusted treatment effect together with the 95% CI and p value will be reported. The analysis will be performed using PROC MIXED in SAS Version 9.4. The proportion of participants who lose 5% and 10% of their initial weight at 12 months, respectively, will be presented, and the adjusted difference between the two arms and 95% CI will be reported. The binary outcome will be analysed by means of a logistic mixed-ef-fects model, adjusting for baseline BMI (fixed effect) and practice (random effect). The number needed to treat to achieve 5% or 10% weight loss, defined as the inverse of the absolute difference in proportions, will be reported if the differences between the treatment and control groups are statistically significant. A full statistical analysis plan will be prepared prior to any data analysis.
Qualitative substudyThe purpose of this study is to examine participants’ views of the programmes. In particular, we aim to examine the features that helped or hindered adherence to the programme and participants’ views of the behavioural support provided in the respective programmes. We will therefore purposively sample participants based on their responses to the satisfaction questionnaire, reflecting posi-tive, neutral and negative evaluations. Where possible, we will select participants to reflect both genders, socioeco-nomic status and ethnic group differences. We anticipate interviewing around 20 participants in the intervention group and 10 in the control group, but sampling will continue until saturation is reached, evidenced by no new themes occurring.
We will develop a semistructured topic guide for the interviews. The interviewer will encourage respondents to discuss their perceptions and experiences freely and in depth. The interview will set the context by asking about previous experience of weight management. Thereafter, we will ask for participants’ views on which component parts of their treatment they felt were effective and which they felt were not effective; thoughts about ability to continue to manage their weight when treatment has ended; and their views on medication adjustments where these occurred. The acceptability of the weight manage-ment treatment programmes and any preference they initially had for the total diet replacement programme or the usual care programme will be explored.
Data from participants will be collected in a confiden-tial, telephone interview, which will be audio-recorded.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 43 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
9Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
All interviews will be transcribed. To examine saturation, analysis will proceed concurrently with interviewing.
trial steering committeeAn independent Trial Steering Committee (TSC) will provide oversight of all matters relating to participant safety and data quality and value to the public. Due to the low risk nature of the DROPLET trial and that it is an open-label trial, the TSC also has the role of the Data Monitoring Committee, in addition to its role as the TSC. However, there are no early stopping rules, and all AEs are evaluated unblinded to allocation by the trial manage-ment group as well as the TSC.
The TSC includes an independent clinician, dietitian, statistician and two patient representatives. The TSC has reviewed the trial protocol, statistical analysis plan and the suitability of the proposed safety data to be collected. No interim analysis is planned for this trial due to the short recruitment period and low risk nature of the two dietary approaches.11 The trial may be subject to inspection and audit by the University of Oxford, under their remit as sponsor, the trial coordinating centre as the Sponsor’s delegate and other regulatory bodies.
Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol (V.4.0; 5 October 2016) was reviewed and approved by the South Central Oxford B REC Committee (Ref: 157/SC/0337). Any protocol modi-fications will be sent for review by the research ethics committee and will be amended at the trial registry.
It is planned that results will be disseminated to academic and health professional audiences via presen-tations at conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Participants will be sent a summary of the trial findings at the time when the main article is published. If the trial shows this intervention is effective, the results will be communicated to policymakers and commissioners of weight management services through briefing papers summarising the main findings. We will also provide the results to all participants coincident with publication and disseminate the results to the public through a press release, regardless of what the results show.
Acknowledgements The low-energy total diet replacement programme including the formula meal replacement products will be provided by Cambridge Weight Plan, Northants, UK.
contributors SAJ and PA designed the study and secured the funding. NMA and ST helped to develop the protocol. NMA is the trial manger and AN is the trial statistician.
Funding This research is funded by research grants from Cambridge Weight Plan Ltdand NIHR Collaboration forLeadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Oxford at Oxford HealthNHS Foundation to the University of Oxford. The sponsor of the trial isthe University of Oxford. The protocol was initiated and designed by the investigators who have nopersonal financial relationships with the Cambridge Weight Plan Ltd. Although Cambridge Weight Plan were consultedand commented on the protocol, the final decisions lay with the investigators.There are no restrictions on publication of results arising from this study andthe contract between the funder and the University ensures that the fundingbody will have no input into the decisions regarding publication.
competing interests SAJ and PA have led publicly funded trials in which the weight management intervention was provided free of charge by other commercial companies. They receive no personal financial benefits from these trials. NMA,
ST and AN have no competing interests. Cambridge Weight Plan, as the funder of this trial, is also the manufacturer of the nutritional products used in the trial and provided the products used in the trial free of charge to the participants.
Ethics approval NHS Research Ethics Committee (South Central Oxford B Committee).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
data sharing statement For access to the data set, a formal request should be sent to theDROPLET study group. The request will only be considered when the principalresults of the study have been published.
open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http:// creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by/ 4. 0/
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
rEFErEncEs 1. Kelly T, Yang W, Chen CS, et al. Global burden of obesity in 2005 and
projections to 2030. Int J Obes 2008;32:1431–7. 2. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight: fact sheet
Geneva: world Health Organization. 2016. http://www. who. int/ mediacentre/ factsheets/ fs311/ en/.
3. Whitlock G, Lewington S, Sherliker P, et al. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet 2009;373:1083–96.
4. Guh DP, Zhang W, Bansback N, et al. The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2009;9:88.
5. Butland B, Jebb SA, McPherson K, et al. Tackling obesities: foresight report: government Office for Science. 2007.
6. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403.
7. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:866–75.
8. Vermunt PW, Milder IE, Wielaard F, et al. Lifestyle counseling for type 2 diabetes risk reduction in Dutch primary care: results of the APHRODITE study after 0.5 and 1.5 years. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1919–25.
9. Hartmann-Boyce J, Johns DJ, Jebb SA, et al. Behavioural weight management programmes for adults assessed by trials conducted in everyday contexts: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2014;15:920–32.
10. Booth HP, Prevost TA, Wright AJ, et al. Effectiveness of behavioural weight loss interventions delivered in a primary care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fam Pract 2014;31:643–53.
11. Parretti HM, Jebb SA, Johns DJ, et al. Clinical effectiveness of very-low-energy diets in the management of weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev 2016;17:225–34.
12. (NICE) National Institute for Health and clinical excellence obesity: identification, assesment and management (NICE clinical guideline). London: NICE, 2006.
13. Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice guidelines and the Obesity Society. Circulation 2014;129(25 Suppl 2):S102–38.
14. Lean M, Brosnahan N, McLoone P, et al. Feasibility and indicative results from a 12-month low-energy liquid diet treatment and maintenance programme for severe obesity. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63:115–24.
15. Leslie WS, Ford I, Sattar N, et al. The Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT): protocol for a cluster randomised trial. BMC Fam Pract 2016;17:20.
16. Ahern AL, Olson AD, Aston LM, et al. Weight Watchers on prescription: an observational study of weight change among adults referred to Weight Watchers by the NHS. BMC Public Health 2011;11:434.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 44 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
10 Jebb SA, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016709
Open Access
17. British Heart Foundation. So you want to lose weight. for good. London: BHF Publications, 2005.
18. Hartmann-Boyce J, Aveyard P, Koshiaris C, et al. Development of tools to study personal weight control strategies: OxFAB taxonomy. Obesity 2016;24:314–20.
19. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 2008;336:1475–82.
20. NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative. The practical guide: identification, evaluation and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: national Institutes of Health (NIH Publication Number 00-4084. 2000.
21. Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Rothman M. Performance of two self-report measures for evaluating obesity and weight loss. Obes Res 2004;12:48–57.
22. EuroQol G. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208.
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 45 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlyprotocol for a randomised controlled trialcare using total diet replacement products: a
primaryLow-Energy Treatment (DROPLET) in Doctor Referral of Overweight People to a
AveyardSusan A Jebb, Nerys M Astbury, Sarah Tearne, Alecia Nickless and Paul
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-0167092017 7: BMJ Open
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/8/e016709Updated information and services can be found at:
These include:
References http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/8/e016709#ref-list-1
This article cites 17 articles, 4 of which you can access for free at:
Open Access
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercialthe Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of
serviceEmail alerting
box at the top right corner of the online article. Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
CollectionsTopic Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
(346)Nutrition and metabolism (724)General practice / Family practice
Notes
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissionsTo request permissions go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintformTo order reprints go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/To subscribe to BMJ go to:
group.bmj.com on March 19, 2018 - Published by http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from Page 46 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960