Bariatric Surgery

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.

“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”

He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.

Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”

Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”

Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.

“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.

“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
 

Three Pillars of Treatment

Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.

“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”

The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.

Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.

“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”

When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.

Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.

“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”

“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.

For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
 

Treating the Causes

The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”

One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.

“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”

“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”

And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.

Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.

“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
 

Q&A

During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.

“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”

Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.

“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”

Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.

“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”

What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?

“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”

Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”

Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.

“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”

He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.

Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”

Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”

Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.

“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.

“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
 

Three Pillars of Treatment

Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.

“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”

The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.

Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.

“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”

When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.

Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.

“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”

“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.

For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
 

Treating the Causes

The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”

One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.

“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”

“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”

And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.

Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.

“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
 

Q&A

During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.

“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”

Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.

“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”

Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.

“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”

What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?

“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”

Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”

Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.

“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”

He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.

Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”

Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”

Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.

“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.

“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
 

Three Pillars of Treatment

Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.

“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”

The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.

Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.

“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”

When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.

Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.

“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”

“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.

For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
 

Treating the Causes

The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”

One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.

“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”

“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”

And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.

Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.

“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
 

Q&A

During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.

“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”

Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.

“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”

Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.

“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”

What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?

“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”

Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”

Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.