Acosta, Andrés

The objective is to review the newer pharmacological interventions for obesity, specifically single, dual and triple incretin receptor agonists that are either available or in the pipeline for treatment of obesity. The three incretin receptor targets are glucagon like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1), glucose‐dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) and glucagon. There are several approved single or dual incretin agonists which can be administered subcutaneously daily (e.g., liraglutide) or weekly (e.g., semaglutide, dulaglutide, and exenatide QW), and other experimental dual or triple incretin agonists. Analogues of amylin, peptide YY and oxyntomodulin, as well as the combination of a GLP1R agonist and GIPR antagonist also are in development. Oral semaglutide (administered daily) is approved for type 2 diabetes mellitus and is on track for regulatory review for obesity. The review includes specifically perspectives on the effects of these mechanisms and pharmacological agents on gastric emptying, which contribute to satiation and weight loss, in addition to the established evidence on effects on central mechanisms controlling appetite. In the future, it is anticipated that small molecule GLP‐1 receptor agonists (e.g., oral danuglipron) will be developed for treating obesity. These pharmacological agents are having significant impact on glycaemic control and obesity and on their co‐morbidities.

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.

Abstract Disclosure: S. Fansa: None. W. Ghusn: None. E. Tama: None. B. Nicolalde: None. D. Anazco: None. S. D'Andre: None. S. Faubion: None. C. Shufelt: None. A. Acosta: None. M.D. Hurtado: None. Background: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) block estrogen synthesis and are used as adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. AIs are associated with weight gain that can lead to increased cardiometabolic risk, thereby affecting health and survivorship quality in these patients. The role of anti-obesity medications (AOMs) in patients using AIs has not been studied. We sought to investigate weight loss outcomes to AOMs in patients taking AIs for breast cancer treatment. Methods: This is a matched case-control retrospective cohort study of breast cancer survivors on AI using FDA-approved AOMs (AI/AOM group). We compared their weight loss outcomes with a group of female patients with obesity, without a history of breast cancer or AI use, on AOMs (AOM group). We matched patients by age and body mass index (BMI). Exclusion criteria: AOM initiation prior to AI therapy, ≤3 months of AOM use, history of bariatric surgery, active malignancy, or pregnancy. Primary endpoint: total body weight loss % (TBWL%) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints: TBWL% at 3 and 6 months and % of patients achieving categorical TBWL ≥5%, ≥10% and ≥15% at 12 months. We used Pearson χ2 and unpaired t-test to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes between groups, and univariate analyses to estimate the contribution of variables to TBWL% in the AI/AOM group. We present results as mean ± standard deviation. Results: We included 99 patients: 63 in the AI/AOM group (63.5±10 years, BMI 34.4±7.0 kg/m2) and 36 in the AOM group (60.4±8.7 years, BMI 36.3±6.9 kg/m2). Liraglutide, semaglutide and phentermine were the only AOMs used. There was no difference in the frequency of use of these three AOMs among both groups (p= 0.1). AI/AOM group had a lower TBWL% compared to the AOM group during follow-up: 3.7± 4.3% vs. 5.6 ± 4.1% (p= 0.03) at 3 months, 3.9± 4.3% vs. 9.5± 4.7% (p< 0.0001) at 6 months, and 5.2± 5.3% vs. 10.5± 6.8% (p< 0.0001) at 12 months. Although the AI/AOM group was more likely to use lower doses of AOMs (p= 0.0004), TBWL% differences persisted among groups at 12 months after adjusting for AOM dosing (p< 0.0001). There was no difference in nutritional and behavioral modification sessions among groups (p=0.06 and p=0.9, respectively). At 12 months, the percentage of patients achieving ≥5%, ≥10%, and ≥15% TBWL was greater in the AOM group compared to the AI/AOM group: ≥5% TBWL, 85.7% vs. 50.0% (p< 0.0001); ≥10%, 57.1 vs. 20.0% (p< 0.0001); and ≥15%, 28.6 vs. 5.0% (p< 0.0001); respectively. We found no predictors of TBWL% at 12 months in the AI/AOM group. Conclusion: Weight loss outcomes in breast cancer survivors on AIs taking AOMs are poorer compared to patients without breast cancer history and not taking AIs. Studies are needed to assess the mechanisms behind the different weight loss response to AOMs in women taking AIs, which we hypothesize may relate to AIs’ anti-estrogenic effect on lean and fat mass. Presentation: Friday, June 16, 2023