Apovian, Caroline M.

Objective: An endoscopically placed duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) may provide a safe adjunctive therapy for those with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. Background: Although some endoscopic therapies have been shown to improve glycemic indices secondary to weight loss, small bowel interventions may have direct metabolic effects. A meta-analysis of observational studies demonstrated reduction in HbA1c by 1.3% at 1 year after DJBL in patients with T2DM and obesity. Methods: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial comparing DJBL to sham procedure with medical management and lifestyle modification. Primary endpoints included mean difference in changes in HbA1c at 12 months between arms, and device-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary endpoints included percent total weight loss (%TWL) and subjects achieving HbA1c≤7% and TWL≥5% at 12 months. Results: Three hundred twenty subjects were randomized to DJBL (n=212) and sham (n=108). Baseline HbA1c and BMI were 8.79±0.92% and 38.45±5.75 kg/m 2 . On modified intent-to-treat analysis, change in HbA1c at 12 months was −1.10±1.45% and −0.28±1.54% for DJBL and sham groups, respectively ( P =0.0004). Rate of device-related SAEs was 9.4% including intolerance (3.7%), hemorrhage (2.8%), and hepatic abscess (2.3% stopping study early). At 12 months, DJBL group experienced greater weight loss compared with sham (7.7±9.6% TWL and 2.1±5.4% TWL, respectively; P <0.0001), with significantly more patients achieving HbA1c ≤ 7% (28.3% vs. 9.4%; P <0.0003) and TWL ≥ 5% (60.4% vs. 21.3%; P <0.0001). Conclusions: DJBL met primary glycemic control efficacy and primary safety endpoints, while providing clinically significant weight loss, and comorbidity improvement.

AbstractThis joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0–29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

Objective The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists. Methods Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts. Results New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity‐based chronic disease complications‐centric model, nuance‐based and algorithm/checklist‐assisted clinical decision‐making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest). Conclusions Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher‐risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision‐making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.