Objective: To investigate the effect of rate of weight loss, with similar total weight loss, on weight regain in individuals with overweight and obesity. Methods: Fifty-seven participants (BMI: 28-35 kg/m 2 ) underwent a dietary intervention (DI). They were randomized to a low-calorie diet (LCD; 1250 kcal/day) for 12 weeks (slow weight loss) or a very-lowcalorie diet (VLCD; 500 kcal/day) for 5 weeks (rapid weight loss) (weight loss (WL) period) followed by a 4-week weight-stable (WS) period and 9 months follow-up. Body weight and body composition (BodPod) were determined at study start and after each period. Results: Weight change was similar in both groups after WL (LCD: 28.2 kg and VLCD: 29.0 kg, P 5 0.24). Weight regain after follow-up was not significantly different between groups (LCD: 4.2 kg and VLCD: 4.5 kg, P 5 0.73). Percentage fat-free mass loss (%FFML) was higher in the VLCD-group compared to the LCD-group after DI (8.8% and 1.3%, respectively, P 5 0.034) and was associated with weight regain during follow-up in the whole group (r 5 0.325, P 5 0.018).Conclusions: The present study showed that, with similar total weight loss, rate of weight loss did not affect weight regain. However, %FFML after DI was associated with weight regain.

In critically ill patients undergoing an invasive procedure, no difference in bleeding complications was found regardless whether FFP was prophylactically administered or not.

IMPORTANCE Hyperoxemia may increase organ dysfunction in critically ill patients, but optimal oxygenation targets are unknown.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a low-normal PaO 2 target compared with a high-normal target reduces organ dysfunction in critically ill patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Enrollment was from February 2015 to October 2018, with end of follow-up to January 2019, and included adult patients admitted with 2 or more SIRS criteria and expected stay of longer than 48 hours. A total of 9925 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 574 fulfilled the enrollment criteria and were randomized.INTERVENTIONS Target PaO 2 ranges were 8 to 12 kPa (low-normal, n = 205) and 14 to 18 kPa (high-normal, n = 195). An inspired oxygen fraction greater than 0.60 was applied only when clinically indicated.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary end point was SOFA RANK , a ranked outcome of nonrespiratory organ failure quantified by the nonrespiratory components of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, summed over the first 14 study days. Participants were ranked from fastest organ failure improvement (lowest scores) to worsening organ failure or death (highest scores). Secondary end points were duration of mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and hypoxemic measurements. RESULTS Among the 574 patients who were randomized, 400 (70%) were enrolled within 24 hours (median age, 68 years; 140 women [35%]), all of whom completed the trial. The median PaO 2 difference between the groups was −1.93 kPa (95% CI, −2.12 to −1.74; P < .001). The median SOFA RANK score was −35 points in the low-normal PaO 2 group vs −40 in the high-normal PaO 2 group (median difference, 10 [95% CI, 0 to 21]; P = .06). There was no significant difference in median duration of mechanical ventilation (3.4 vs 3.1 days; median difference, −0.15 [95% CI, −0.88 to 0.47]; P = .59) and in-hospital mortality (32% vs 31%; odds ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.63]; P = .91). Mild hypoxemic measurements occurred more often in the low-normal group (1.9% vs 1.2%; median difference, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.20]; P < .001). Acute kidney failure developed in 20 patients (10%) in the low-normal PaO 2 group and 21 patients (11%) in the high-normal PaO 2 group, and acute myocardial infarction in 6 patients (2.9%) in the low-normal PaO 2 group and 7 patients (3.6%) in the high-normal PaO 2 group.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with 2 or more SIRS criteria, treatment with a low-normal PaO 2 target compared with a high-normal PaO 2 target did not result in a statistically significant reduction in organ dysfunction. However, the study may have had limited power to detect a smaller treatment effect than was hypothesized.