Design of the Weight-loss Endoscopy Trial (WET): a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial comparing weight loss in endoscopically implanted duodenal-jejunal bypass liners vs. intragastric balloons vs. a sham procedure

Weight-Loss Endoscopy Trial: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Weight Loss in Endoscopically Implanted Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Liners versus Intragastric Balloons versus a Sham Procedure

INTRODUCTION

Obesity is associated with reduced life expectancy and various comorbidities. Surgical interventions are effective but accompanied by the risk of serious complications. Less invasive endoscopic procedures mainly comprise the intragastric balloon (IB) and the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL). A randomized, sham-controlled study comparing both procedures has not been undertaken so far.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, controlled trial comparing weight loss in IB versus DJBL versus a sham procedure (2:2:1 ratio). Patients with a BMI >35 kg/m2 or >30 with obesity-related comorbidities were included. The IB was removed after 6 months and the DJBL after 12 months. The main objective was successful weight loss (>10% from baseline) 12 months after explantation of the devices. Secondary outcomes were changes in comorbidities, quality of life, and complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were randomized. Recruitment has to be stopped suddenly in after the DJBL device lost its CE mark in Europe. In all, 11 patients received DJBL, 15 IB, and 7 were allocated to the sham group. Blinding was feasible in all patients. Weight decreased from baseline until explantation (DJBL: 129.4 ± 28.3 kg to 107.4 ± 16.7 kg; IB: 118.3 ± 22.8 kg to 107.4 ± 25.7 kg; sham: 134.6 ± 18.0 kg to 131.2 ± 14.3 kg), but patients regained weight almost to the baseline level 12 months after explantation. Only 1 patient in IB group reached the primary endpoint. Severe device-related complications were very rare.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic bariatric procedures failed to achieve effective weight loss 12 months after explantation of the devices. The results of this trial need to be interpreted with caution due to its early termination.

Sustained weight loss after duodenal-jejunal bypass liner treatment in patients with body mass index below, but not above 35 kg/m2 : A retrospective cohort study

Previous data from short term studies have shown an efficacy of the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) for weight loss. However, less data is available regarding weight change after device removal and possible predictors for weight loss. This is a retrospective chart review of all patients who had DJBL inserted at the University Hospital Zurich between December 2012 and June 2015. A total of 27 patients had DJBL insertion. The median BMI at baseline was 38.5 (34.0-42.2) kg/m² . In the 24 patients with DJBL treatment >3 months (failed implantation or early removal due to side effects in 3 patients), the mean duration of implantation was 42.9 ± 13.1 weeks. During the treatment, the mean total body weight loss (%TBWL) was 15.0 ± 8.3%. Fifteen patients had long-term follow-up data available (mean duration of follow-up 4.0 ± 0.9 years). The mean weight change was 12.7 ± 12.8 kg, corresponding with a mean % weight regain of 13.3 ± 13.3%. Five patients (33.3%) subsequently underwent bariatric surgery. In patients with class I obesity (BMI <35 kg/m² at baseline), 4 out of 6 (66.7%) had a stable weight or only a weight regain <7%. In contrast, no patient with BMI >35 kg/m² at baseline was able to keep weight regain below 7%. DJBL is an effective treatment for obesity, but substantial weight regain occurs during long-term follow up after the device removal, in particular in patients with BMI > 35 kg/m² .

Comparative efficacy of bariatric endoscopic procedures in the treatment of morbid obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy of bariatric endoscopic procedures has not been completely elucidated. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of bariatric endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of bariatric endoscopic procedures, including the use of an intragastric balloon, duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL), aspiration therapy, primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE) procedure, and botulinum toxin injection to the stomach. Network meta-analyses were performed to determine the percentage of weight loss (%weight loss) and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL).

RESULTS

22 studies with 2141 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Most endoscopic procedures showed superior efficacy in terms of %weight loss compared with the control (mean difference [MD] [95 % confidence interval (CI)]: aspiration therapy 10.4 % [7.0 % to 13.7 %]; fluid-filled balloon 5.3 % [3.4 % to 7.2 %]; POSE 4.9 % [1.7 % to 8.2 %]; and DJBL 4.5 % [1.4 % to 7.7 %]). In terms of %EWL, aspiration therapy, fluid-filled balloon, POSE, and DJBL were superior to the control (MD [95 %CI]: 27.3 % [15.3 % to 39.3 %]; 22.4 % [15.4 % to 29.4 %]; 15.3 % [2.5 % to 28.0 %]; and 13.0 % [4.9 % to 21.2], respectively). The gas-filled balloon and botulinum toxin injection did not show a significant difference in %weight loss or %EWL compared with the control. For the fluid-filled balloon, the %EWL and %weight loss tended to decrease after balloon removal at 6 months after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

All bariatric endoscopic procedures, except for gas-filled balloon and botulinum toxin injection to the stomach, showed superior short-term efficacy in terms of %weight loss or %EWL compared with lifestyle modification.

Patient perception and approval of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as an alternative treatment option for obesity

INTRODUCTION

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) represents a treatment option for some diseases, e.g. recurring Clostridium difficile-associated colitis. However, there is also evidence that FMT can be effective in treating obesity. This pilot study established the approval and willingness of obese patients to undergo FMT.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of adults with obesity using a questionnaire containing 21 both multiple choice and open questions was dispatched to a cohort of 101 persons with obesity. It included questions aiming at the process of FMT itself, donors as well as possible concerns. Additionally aspects of social background and disease activity were dealt with.

RESULTS

The response rate amounted to 30.1% (n = 31). In our population, mean BMI was 40.5 kg/m2 while the vast majority already tried out treatment modalities to lose weight before. 25.8% of persons with obesity were aware of FMT. 62.1% were willing to undergo FMT if the donor was healthy and anonymous while only 6.9% clearly refused this option. Sixty preferred an anonymous donor or a person proposed by their doctor while colonoscopy was the preferred application by 76.7%. The absence of risks of the procedure (47.8%) formed the principal motivation while reduction of medication was considered as least important reason (in 26.1). Insufficient testing of the faeces concerning infections raised the most concerns (in 61.6%).

CONCLUSION

For the majority of the persons with obesity surveyed FMT represents a treatment option. Approximately two thirds of the questionees would consider FMT as an alternative treatment option, even in spite of a satisfactory disease response to current standard therapies. Unsurprisingly there are concerns in regard to the transmission of possible infectious agents as well as to the hygieneic implementation of FMT itself.