Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.58.679.279 on 1 May 1982. Downloaded from Postgraduate Medical Journal (May 1982) 58, 279-281 A new weight-reducing drug with novel properties DAVID WHEATLEY M.D., F.R.C.Psych. The General Practitioner Research Group, 325 Staines Road, Twickenham, U.K. Summary (1980) compared ciclazindol to placebo over a 3- Ciclazindol, a tetracyclic compound originally de- week treatment period following a 2-week control veloped as an antidepressant, was compared to placebo period. During treatment, patients on ciclazindol in a double-blind trial involving 114 individuals who lost significantly more weight than those on placebo, were at least 15 % overweight. Following a one week but this was not maintained during the third week of control period patients were allocated to active or the trial. placebo groups by random distribution for a period of 4 weeks and this was followed by a final one-week Method observation period. Ciclazindol, in a dose of 25-50 mg daily, was The mean weight loss of 47 patients who completed compared to placebo under double-blind conditions, the trial on ciclazindol was 6 95 lbs (3-13 kg) and of patients being treated for 4 weeks with one or the 48 patients who completed the trial on placebo it was other according to random selection, following a 5 0 lbs (2 25 kg) a difference which is statistically one-week control period with no treatment. There copyright. significant in favour of ciclazindol (P< 0 05). was also a final one-week follow-up, again with no The trial demonstrated a marked placebo effect treatment. The trial was confined to patients aged resulting in loss of weight in these patients, but the 18-65 years who were at least 15% overweight at drug effect was significantly greater. the start of the trial, according to standard tables relating height, weight and frame for men and women Introduction (Metropolitan Life Association, 1966). By this Ciclazindol, a tetracyclic compound, was origin- method, frame is classified as: slight, medium or ally developed as an antidepressant (Ghose et al., large. If weight fluctuated during the pre-study week http://pmj.bmj.com/ 1978; Levine, 1979). Ghose etal. (1978) in a compara- by more than 5 lb (2 25 kg) either way, then the tive trial against amitriptyline in depression, found patient was excluded from the trial. Patients were that over a 6-week period, patients on ciclazindol given general instructions concerning diet, i.e. typesof experienced a mean weight loss of 1-3 kg, whereas food to eat and suggestions about reducing amounts. those on amitriptyline experienced a mean weight Patients were weighed without shoes or outdoor gain of 0-98 kg. Ciclazindol is a member of the clothes at the same time on each occasion at the end pyrimido 1 ,2oc-indol group of drugs and has a of the control week, the end of each trial week and chemical resemblance to mazindol, a compound the end of follow-up week. Blood pressure and pulse on October 2, 2021 by guest. Protected with established weight-reducing properties (General rate were measured at the same intervals, after the Practitioner Research Group 1978). Mazindol in- patient had rested in the recumbent position for creases glucose uptake into human isolated skeletal 3 min. muscle (Kirby & Turner, 1976) as does fenfluramine, The trial was a multi-centre study undertaken by another well established weight-reducing drug 18 general practitioners who treated a total of 114 (Kirby, 1974) in contrast to amphetamine which has patients, and on breaking the code it was found that no such effect (Kirby and Turner, 1974). Kirby and 58 of these had received ciclazindol and 56 placebo. Turner (1977) have shown that ciclazindol, like However, 11 patients in the ciclazindol group and 8 mazindol, produces a significant concentration- in the placebo group failed to complete the trial and dependent increase in glucose uptake into human so the analysis is concerned with the remaining 47 skeletal muscle. This may indicate a metabolic patients treated with ciclazindol and 48 with placebo. mechanism underlying the weight loss in addition to The pertinent patient data are summarized in Table 1 appetite suppression. which shows that the two treatment groups were In a single blind study, Greenbaum and Harry well matched in relation to these various items. 0032-5473/82/0500-0279 502.00 (©1982 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.58.679.279 on 1 May 1982. Downloaded from 280 D. Wheatley Results L BS - The mean weight-loss for all patients was calcu- lated at each period of the trial and is presented in Fig. 1. i82- The data were found to be unimodally distributed with no significant difference between the initial means (t-test) and were then analysed using a two- way analysis of variance, the least significant differ- ence (P=0 05) method being used to test for signi- ficant differences at the 5 % level. 180 -TT TABLE 1. Patient data recorded in the two treatment groups (±s.e.m.). *oiie unknown 176 - Ciclazindol Placebo - 178 l 0 N 47 48 174- M:F 5:41* 4:44 Mean age (years) 47-7 (+ 1-56)* 44-4 (± 191) (±s.e.m.) Mean height (in) 63-8 (+0 42) 64-0 (±0-41) 172- (± s.e.m.) Mean weight (lb) 177-8 (±4-0) 180 5 (±4 4) (±s.e.m.) 170.- Frame Small/medium/ 7/28/12 10/23/14* large 168- In the ciclazindol group the mean weight was significantly less at the end of week one as compared C 2 3 4 F copyright. to the end of the control week, and there was a Weeks further significant weight loss by the end of week 2. FIG. 1. Mean weight loss (±s.e.m.) of patients treated with Thereafter, there were no further significant differ- placebo and ciclazindol. C=end of control week; F= end of ences at weeks 3 and 4 or the follow-up week. In the final no treatment week. 0-placebo. CL-ciclazindol. placebo group the mean weight at the end ofweek one was significantly less than that at the end of the con- attributed to the medications by 22 patients in the trol week, but the only other significant difference ciclazindol group (38% of those entering the trial was between weeks 3 and 4. and by 13 in the placebo group (23 % of those enter- The mean weight losses were then used to com- ing the trial), a difference which is not statistically http://pmj.bmj.com/ pare the results between the two treatment groups significant (x2). and these are shown in Table 2. With the active drug the most frequent side effects In this comparison the mean weight loss was were: gastric upset (14%, placebo 2%); tiredness greater with ciclazindol at all periods of the trial and (10%, placebo 7%); and dry mouth (12%, placebo the drug-placebo differences achieved statistical 5 %). In the ciclazindol group, 6 patients had to stop significance at weeks 3 and 4. treatment because of side effects The data on weight and weight loss were analysed (10%) compared with 3 in the on October 2, 2021 by guest. Protected in similar manner within each frame size and, of the patients (2%) placebo group. patients with a small or medium frame, those on ciclazindol lost more weight than those on placebo. TABLE 2. Cumulative weight loss during the trial. Mean This difference was statistically significant in week 3 figures (lb) with standard deviations (s.d.) (P < 0.05, t-test). In the group of patients with large Week Ciclazindol Placebo Significance frames, however, the weight loss was very similar for 1 2-7 2-3 n.s. active and placebo compounds. (2.3) (2 5) With both compounds there were significant 2 4-7 3-8 n.s. reductions in mean systolic and diastolic blood (3-7) (3-9) pressure but not in mean pulse rate by the end of the 3 6-2 3-9 P<OO1 There were no between-group dif- (4-0) (3 6) trial. significant 4 6-95 5 0 P<0 05 ferences. (4-6) (4 4) Follow-up 6-94 5-6 n.s. Side effects (5 0) (4 9) Side effects were spontaneously volunteered and Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.58.679.279 on 1 May 1982. Downloaded from A new weight-reducing drug 281 Discussion Valle-Jones, T.M. Warren, F.O. Wells, and B.J. Williams. The treatment of obesity is very much a problem I would like to thank Jackie Turner for undertaking the for the general practitioner and the subject has been statistical analysis in this trial. comprehensively reviewed by Craddock (1973, 1977). As he comments: 'Most drugs in controlled References trials produce a substantially greater weight loss CRADDOCK, D. (1973) Obesity and its Management. Churchill initially than the placebo ... in most patients, how- Livingstone, Edinburgh and London. ever, the anorectic effect wears offafter (2-3 months)'. CRADDOCK, D. (1977) Treatment of obesity. Journal of Pharmacotherapy, 1, 43. The results of the short-term trial reported are, DURNIN, J.V.G.A. (1961) Appetite and the relationship therefore, in keeping with the first part of Craddock's between expenditure and intake of calories in man. comment. Journal of Physiology, 156, 294. That food intake, energy requirement and body EDHOLM, O.G., ADAM, J.M., HEALY, M.J.R., WOLFF, H.S., weight are not intimately co-ordinated has been GOLDSMITH, R. & BEST, T.W.