Ghusn, Wissam

Objective Multiple scores validate long-term type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). However, studies comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) have not adequately controlled for certain parameters, which may influence procedure selection. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective review of patients with T2DM who underwent RYGB or SG between 2008 and 2017. Data on demographics, clinical, laboratory, and metabolic values were collected annually for up to 14 years. Each eligible RYGB patient was individually matched to an eligible SG patient based on diabetes severity, weight loss, and follow-up duration. Results Among 1149 T2DM patients, 467 were eligible for matching. We found 97 matched pairs who underwent RYGB or SG. RYGB showed significantly higher T2DM remission rates (46.4%) compared to SG (33.0%) after matching. SG patients had higher insulin usage (35.1%) than RYGB patients (20.6%). RYGB patients also experienced greater decreases in HbA1c levels and diabetes medication usage than SG patients. Conclusions RYGB demonstrates higher efficacy for T2DM remission compared to SG, regardless of baseline characteristics, T2DM severity, weight loss, and follow-up duration. Further studies are needed to understand the long-term metabolic effects of MBS and the underlying pathophysiology of T2DM remission after MBS.

Goals: We aim to describe the weight loss outcomes of patients with celiac disease (CeD) taking antiobesity medications (AOMs) and compare it with the weight loss outcomes of patients without CeD taking AOMs. Background: Increasing rates of obesity and obesity-associated comorbidities have been previously reported in patients with CeD on a gluten-free diet. The effectiveness of AOMs in this population has not been previously described. Methods: In our retrospective cohort study, we matched 39 patients with treated CeD to 78 patients without CeD based on sex and AOM. We assessed the weight loss outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months after starting the AOM in both cohorts and analyzed if there was a differential response when comparing by type of AOM [injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists vs. oral non-GLP-1 AOMs]. Results: Both cohorts had similar baseline demographic and anthropometric characteristics. At 12 months, the CeD cohort had a nonsignificantly inferior total body weight loss percentage compared with the cohort without CeD (6.5% vs. 9.5%, P=0.13). The CeD cohort had a similar proportion of patients achieving a total body weight loss percentage of ≥5% than the cohort without CeD (72.7% vs. 72.1%, P=1.00). No significant difference was observed when comparing the weight loss outcomes of injectables (GLP-1 receptor agonists) to oral AOMs. The proportion of patients reporting side effects was similar for both groups, regardless of the type of AOM. Conclusion: Patients with CeD taking AOMs had similar weight loss outcomes to patients without CeD. Hence, AOMs can be a safe and effective therapy for weight management in patients with CeD.

AbstractBackgroundFood intake is regulated by homeostatic and hedonic systems that interact in a complex neuro‐hormonal network. Dysregulation in energy intake can lead to obesity (OB) or anorexia nervosa (AN). However, little is known about the neurohormonal response patterns to food intake in normal weight (NW), OB, and AN.Material & MethodsDuring an ad libitum nutrient drink (Ensure®) test (NDT), participants underwent three pseudo‐continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) MRI scans. The first scan was performed before starting the NDT after a > 12 h overnight fast (Hunger), the second after reaching maximal fullness (Satiation), and the third 30‐min after satiation (postprandial fullness). We measured blood levels of ghrelin, cholecystokinin (CCK), glucagon‐like peptide (GLP‐1), and peptide YY (PYY) with every pCASL‐MRI scan. Semiquantitative cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps in mL/100 gr brain/min were calculated and normalized (nCBF) with the CBF in the frontoparietal white matter. The hypothalamus (HT), nucleus accumbens [NAc] and dorsal striatum [DS] were selected as regions of interest (ROIs).ResultsA total of 53 participants, 7 with AN, 17 with NW (body‐mass index [BMI] 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), and 29 with OB (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) completed the study. The NW group had a progressive decrease in all five ROIs during the three stages of food intake (hunger, satiation, and post‐prandial fullness). In contrast, participants with OB showed a minimal change from hunger to postprandial fullness in all five ROIs. The AN group had a sustained nCBF in the HT and DS, from hunger to satiation, with a subsequent decrease in nCBF from satiation to postprandial fullness. All three groups had similar hormonal response patterns with a decrease in ghrelin, an increase in GLP‐1 and PYY, and no change in CCK.ConclusionConditions of regulated (NW) and dysregulated (OB and AN) energy intake are associated with distinctive neurohormonal activity patterns in response to hunger, satiation, and postprandial fullness.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate bowel preparation can result in decreased diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are commonly used medications for diabetes mellitus and obesity that are known to delay gastrointestinal motility. We hypothesized that the use of GLP-1RA would be associated with decreased quality of bowel preparation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a large academic medical center between December 2021 and December 2022. We included patients taking any GLP-1RA for diabetes or obesity during colonoscopy defined as our cases, and patients who were prescribed GLP-1RA at one point but not within 3 months of colonoscopy defined as our controls. We excluded patients on any promotility or antimotility agents and those without BBPS recorded on their procedure report. Independent t test assessed statistical differences in the case and control groups to compare the quality of bowel preparation for continuous variables, and the χ 2 test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate linear regression including diabetes as a covariate was also performed for continuous variables, and multivariate logistic regression was performed for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients were included in the study, comprising 265 (59%) cases and 181 controls (41%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diagnosis of diabetes ( P = 0.001) with a higher proportion of patients with diabetes in the cases. The mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls (7.0 ± 1.9 vs 7.5 ± 2.4, P = 0.046) when controlling for diabetes. The percentage of patients with a total BBPS score of <5 was significantly higher in cases (15.5% vs 6.6%, P = 0.01). The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy due to poor bowel preparation was also significantly higher in cases (18.9% vs 11.1%, P = 0.041). DISCUSSION: The use of GLP-1RA was associated with a statistically significantly lower quality of bowel preparation, with additional clinical significance given a notable difference in the need for a repeat colonoscopy. It will be essential to understand the cumulative effect of medications that may delay gastric emptying on the quality of bowel preparation to better understand the appropriate measures and counseling that need to be taken before undergoing outpatient colonoscopies.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist evaluating antiobesity medications (AOM) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: We performed a case-control study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of AOM in patients with IBD with obesity, matched to non-IBD controls. RESULTS: After 12 months, the case (n = 36) and control (n = 36) groups achieved similar percent total body weight loss of −6.9 ± 8.3 and −8.1 ± 7.0 ( P = 0.30), respectively. Side effect profiles were similar between groups. Seven patients experienced an IBD flare, all managed medically. DISCUSSION: AOM use in patients with IBD demonstrated similar effectiveness and safety when compared with that observed in the non-IBD population.