Gala, Khushboo

Background: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a safe and effective obesity treatment. The individualized metabolic score (IMS) is a validated score that uses preoperative variables predicting T2D remission (DR) in bariatric surgery. Objectives: We evaluated the applicability of using the IMS score to predict DR in patients after ESG. Design/Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with obesity and T2D who underwent ESG. We calculated DR, IMS score, and severity, and divided patients based on IMS category. Results: The cohort comprised 20 patients: 25% (5) mild, 55% (11) moderate, and 20% (4) severe IMS stages. DR was achieved in 60%, 45.5%, and 0% of patients with mild, moderate, and severe IMS scores ( p = 0.08), respectively. IMS score was significantly associated with DR ( p = 0.03), with the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic for predicting DR 0.85. Conclusion: These pilot data demonstrate that the IMS score appears to be useful in predicting DR after ESG.

Purpose of review Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) and endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBT) are being increasingly utilized for the management of obesity. They work through multiple mechanisms, including restriction, malabsorption, and changes in the gastrointestinal hormonal and motility. Recent findings Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) cause decrease in leptin, increase in GLP-1 and PYY, and variable changes in ghrelin (generally thought to decrease). RYGB and LSG lead to rapid gastric emptying, increase in small bowel motility, and possible decrease in colonic motility. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) causes decrease in leptin and increase in GLP-1, ghrelin, and PYY; and delayed gastric motility. Summary Understanding mechanisms of action for MBS and EBT is critical for optimal care of patients and will help in further refinement of these interventions.

Abstract Aims To compare weight loss outcomes between patients starting semaglutide who had previously been on another anti‐obesity medication (AOM) compared to those who were AOM‐naïve. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective study in patients with overweight or obesity taking semaglutide for weight loss for a duration of 3 to 12 months. Our primary endpoint was assessment of percentage of total body weight loss (TBWL) in patients who started semaglutide as their first AOM (AOM‐naïve) compared to those who started semaglutide and had previously taken another AOM (non‐AOM‐naïve). The secondary outcome was a comparison of the proportions of patients achieving ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15% and ≥20% TBWL between the groups. Our endpoints were analysed using independent t ‐tests and ANOVA/ANCOVA for continuous variables and Pearson's test for categorical variables. Results This study included 305 patients. Outcomes of semaglutide treatment were superior in AOM‐naïve patients ( n = 231) compared to non‐AOM‐naïve patients ( n = 74) at 3 (6.3% vs. 3.8%), 6 (10.6% vs. 6.7%), 9 (14.0% vs. 9.1%) and 12 months (14.3% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.0001 at 3, 6 and 9 months, and p = 0.01 at 12 months). A greater proportion of patients in the AOM‐naïve group achieved a TBWL ≥ 15% (48% vs 21%; p = 0.02) and ≥20% (27% vs 4% p < 0.01) at 12 months. Conclusion The use of semaglutide in patients with previous intake of other AOMs was associated with inferior weight loss outcomes in comparison to patients who were AOM‐naïve.

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is performed in clinical practice by gastroenterologists and bariatric surgeons. Given the increasing regulatory approval and global adoption, we aimed to evaluate real-world outcomes in multidisciplinary practices involving bariatric surgeons and gastroenterologists across the United States. Patients and methods We included adult patients with obesity who underwent ESG from January 2013 to August 2022 in seven academic and private centers in the United States. Patient and procedure characteristics, serious adverse events (SAEs), and weight loss outcomes up to 24 months were analyzed. SPSS (version 29.0) was used for all statistical analyses. Results A total of 1506 patients from seven sites included 235 (15.6%) treated by surgeons and 1271 (84.4%) treated by gastroenterologists. There were no baseline differences between groups. Gastroenterologists used argon plasma coagulation for marking significantly more often than surgeons (P<0.001). Surgeons placed sutures in the fundus in all instances whereas gastroenterologist placed them in the fundus in less than 1% of the cases (P<0.001>). Procedure times were significantly different between groups, with surgeons requiring approximately 20 minutes more during the procedure than gastroenterologists (P<0.001). Percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) and percent responders achieving >10 and >15% TBWL were similar between the two groups at 12, 18, and 24 months. Rates of SAEs were low and similar at 1.7% for surgeons and 2.7% for gastroenterologists (P>0.05). Conclusions Data from a large US cohort show significant and sustained weight loss with ESG and an excellent safety profile in both bariatric surgery and gastroenterology practices, supporting the scalability of the procedure across practices in a multidisciplinary setting.

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.

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.