Abstract Background: Antipsychotic-induced Weight Gain (AiWG) is a debilitating and common adverse effect of antipsychotics. AiWG negatively impacts life expectancy, quality of life, treatment adherence, likelihood of developing type-2 diabetes and readmission. Treatment of AiWG is currently challenging, and there is no consensus on the optimal management strategy. In this study, we aim to evaluate the use of metformin for the treatment of AiWG by comparing metformin with placebo in those receiving treatment as usual, which includes a lifestyle intervention. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, pragmatic trial with a follow-up of 52 weeks, we aim to include 256 overweight participants (Body Mass Index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2) of at least 16years of age. Patients are eligible if they have been diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder and if they have been using an antipsychotic for at least three months. Participants will be randomized with a 1:1 allocation to placebo or metformin, and will be treated for a total of 26 weeks. Metformin will be started at 500 mg b.i.d. and escalated to 1000 mg b.i.d. 2 weeks thereafter (up to a maximum of 2000mg daily). In addition, all participants will undergo a lifestyle intervention as part of the usual treatment consisting of a combination of an exercise program and dietary consultations. The primary outcome measure is difference in body weight as a continuous trait between the two arms from treatment inception until 26 weeks of treatment, compared to baseline. Secondary outcome measures include: 1) Any element of metabolic syndrome (MetS); 2) Response, defined as ≥5% body weight loss at 26 weeks relative to treatment inception; 3) Quality of life; 4) General mental and physical health; and 5) Cost-effectiveness. Finally, we aim to assess whether genetic liability to BMI and MetS may help estimate the amount of weight reduction following initiation of metformin treatment. Discussion: The pragmatic design of the current trial allows for a comparison of the efficacy and safety of metformin in combination with a lifestyle intervention in the treatment of AiWG, facilitating the development of guidelines on the interventions for this major health problem.
Implementation of reliable methodologies allowing Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement (3Rs) of animal testing is a process that takes several decades and is still not complete. Reliable methods are essential for regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals where differences in test protocol can influence the test outcomes and thus affect the confidence in the predictive value of the organisms used as an alternative for mammals. Although test guidelines are common for mammalian studies, they are scarce for non-vertebrate organisms that would allow for the 3Rs of animal testing. Here, we present a set of 30 reporting criteria as the basis for such a guideline for Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology (DART) testing in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Small organisms like C. elegans are upcoming in new approach methodologies for hazard assessment; thus, reliable and robust test protocols are urgently needed. A literature assessment of the fulfilment of the reporting criteria demonstrates that although studies describe methodological details, essential information such as compound purity and lot/batch number or type of container is often not reported. The formulated set of reporting criteria for C. elegans testing can be used by (i) researchers to describe essential experimental details (ii) data scientists that aggregate information to assess data quality and include data in aggregated databases (iii) regulators to assess study data for inclusion in regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals.
To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals’ recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals’ Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).
