Search

The duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (Endobarrier) is an endoscopic treatment for obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It creates exclusion of the proximal small intestine similar to that after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) surgery. The objective of this study was to employ a reductionist approach to determine whether bypass of the proximal intestine is the component conferring the effects of RYGB on food intake and sweet taste preference using the Endobarrier as a research tool. A nested mechanistic study within a large randomised controlled trial compared the impact of lifestyle modification with vs. without Endobarrier insertion in patients with obesity and T2DM. Forty-seven participants were randomised and assessed at several timepoints using direct and indirect assessments of food intake, food preference and taste function. Patients within the Endobarrier group lost numerically more weight compared to the control group. Using food diaries, our results demonstrated similar reductions of food intake in both groups. There were no significant differences in food preference and sensory, appetitive reward, or consummatory reward domain of sweet taste function between groups or changes within groups. In conclusion, the superior weight loss seen in patients with obesity and T2DM who underwent the Endobarrier insertion was not due to a reduction in energy intake or change in food preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Based on recent scientific evidence, bariatric surgery is more effective in the management of morbid obesity and related comorbidities than conservative therapy. Pylorus preserving surgical procedures (PPBS) such as laparoscopic single-anastomosis duodeno-jejunal or duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are modified duodenal switch (DS) surgical techniques. The duodeno-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is a novel surgical method in the inventory of metabolism focused manual interventions that excludes duodeno-jejunal mucosa from digestion, mimicking DS procedures without the risk of surgical intervention. The aim of this article is to summarize and compare differences between safety-related features and weight loss outcomes of DJBL and PPBS. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database. Records of DJBL-related adverse events (AEs), occurrence of PPBS-related complications and reintervention rates were collected. Mean weight, mean body mass index (BMI), percent of excess of weight loss (EWL%), percent of total weight loss (TWL%) and BMI value alterations were recorded for weight loss outcomes. Results: A total of 11 publications on DJBL and 6 publications on PPBS were included, involving 800 and 1462 patients, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the patients were matched. Comparison of DJBL-related AEs and PPBS-related severe complications showed an almost equal risk (risk difference (RD): −0.03 and confidence interval (CI): −0.27 to 0.21), despite higher rates among patients having received endoscopic treatment. Overall AE and complication rates classified by Clavien-Dindo showed that PPBS was superior to DJBL due to an excess risk level of 25% (RD: 0.25, CI: 0.01–0.49). Reintervention rates were more favourable in the PPBS group, without significant differences in risk (RD: −0.03, CI: −0.27 to 0.20). However, PPBS seemed more efficient regarding weight loss outcomes at 1-year follow-up according to raw data, while meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference (odds ratio (OR): 1.08, CI: 0.74–1.59 for BMI changes). Conclusion: Only limited conclusions can be made based on our findings. PPBS was superior to DJBL with regard to safety outcomes (GRADE IIB), which failed to support the authors' hypothesis. Surgical procedures showed lower complication rates than the incidence of DJBL-related AEs, although it should be emphasized that the low number of PPBS-related mild to moderate complications reported could be the result of incomplete data recording from the analysed publications. Weight loss outcomes favoured bariatric surgery (GRADE IIB). As the DJBL is implanted into the upper gastrointestinal tract for 6 to 12 months, it seems a promising additional method in the inventory of metabolic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic bariatric procedures including Duedenal Jejunal Bypass Liner (DJBL) have become widespread in obesity treatment in recent years. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of DJBL in obesity treatment. A comprehensive search of several databases, including Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted to December 2020. Twenty-four clinical studies were assessed. According to the results, it is clear that DJBL provides effective weight reduction at 6–12 months and significant improvements in parameters associated with metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. This technique also has potential to reduce comedications in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Although these positive effects of DJBL are clear, its effect on liver, pancreatic functions, and inflammation markers are not clear yet. In addition, the overall and serious complication (gastrointestinal bleeds, pancreatitis, hepatic abscess, obstruction of the sleeve, biliary colic without cholecystitis and cholangitis) rate causing from the DJBL is very high. DJBL has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration due to the frequency and severity of complications it causes. While it is certain that DJBL has significant effects on obesity and obesity related comorbidities, the safety aspect needs to be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The EndoBarrier® (GI Dynamics Inc., Boston, MA, USA) is an endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner developed for the treatment of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Meta-analyses of its effects on glycaemia and weight have called for larger randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up. Objectives: The primary objective was to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level reduction of ≥ 20%. The secondary objectives were to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level of 15% of their total body weight (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 24.2% vs. control group 3.7%; odds ratio 8.33, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 39.0; p = 0.007) and achieved blood pressure targets (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 68.2% vs. control group 44.4%; odds ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 5.48; p = 0.014). These differences were observed at 12 months but not at 24 months. There were more adverse events in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group, including one liver abscess. The increase in peripheral insulin sensitivity was superior in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group. Spectroscopic analyses of plasma, urine and faeces revealed several distinct metabolic perturbations in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group but not in the control group. Brain reward responses to food cues were not different between groups. The number of mean quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar in both groups and the additional costs of the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner may outweigh the value of the health benefits by £2560 per patient treated. Conclusions: The results show that the endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was not superior to intensive medical therapy for glycaemic control and was associated with more adverse events. The duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was associated with significant weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic parameters at 12 months but not at 24 months. Economic evaluation showed that the bypass liner was not cost-effective for glycaemic control or for weight loss. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30845205. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 7, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This study was executed with the support of GI Dynamics Inc. and with the kind support of Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition for providing oral nutritional supplements.

Summary Objective Unlike gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy procedures, intestinal bypass procedures, Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass in particular, lead to rapid improvements in glycaemia early after surgery. The bypass of the proximal small bowel may have weight loss and even caloric restriction‐independent glucose‐lowering properties on hepatic insulin sensitivity. In this first human mechanistic study, we examined this hypothesis by investigating the early effects of the duodeno‐jejunal bypass liner (DJBL; GI Dynamics, USA) on the hepatic insulin sensitivity by using the gold standard euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp methodology. Method Seven patients with obesity underwent measurement of hepatic insulin sensitivity at baseline, 1 week after a low‐calorie liquid diet and after a further 1 week following insertion of the DJBL whilst on the same diet. Results Duodeno‐jejunal bypass liner did not improve the insulin sensitivity of hepatic glucose production beyond the improvements achieved with caloric restriction. Conclusions Caloric restriction may be the predominant driver of early increases in hepatic insulin sensitivity after the endoscopic bypass of the proximal small bowel. The same mechanism may be at play after Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass and explain, at least in part, the rapid improvements in glycaemia.

Obesity is a worsening pandemic with numerous related comorbid illnesses. Conservative management including lifestyle modification and medications have limited efficacy. In contradistinction, bariatric surgery is effective, however, with substantial cost and non-negligible morbidity and mortality. As such, a small percentage of eligible patients undergo surgery. Over the past decade, endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies have been introduced as a less invasive option for the treatment of obesity and its related comorbid illnesses. This article reviews major endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies, their surgical analogues, and proposed mechanisms of action. Clinical trial data for each device also are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) are endoscopic procedures indicated for weight loss in the obese population. They are shown to be safe and effective for patients who do not quality for bariatric surgery. There are currently no randomized controlled studies comparing bariatric surgery with EBTs. However, EBTs are more cost effective and have fewer complications. This review will examine currently available EBTs with published data., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tgh.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tgh.2020.03.09/coif). The series “Innovation in Endoscopy” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. AS reports personal fees from Obalon, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is increasing. Exclusion of the foregut, as occurs in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, has a key role in the metabolic improvements that occur following bariatric surgery, which are independent of weight loss. Endoscopically placed duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve devices, such as the EndoBarrier (GI Dynamics, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA), have been designed to create an impermeable barrier between chyme exiting the stomach and the mucosa of the duodenum and proximal jejunum. The non-surgical and reversible nature of these devices represents an attractive therapeutic option for patients with obesity and T2DM by potentially improving glycaemic control and reducing their weight., Methods and Analysis: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-blinded trial, male and female patients aged 18-65 years with a body mass index 30-50 kg/m 2 and inadequately controlled T2DM on oral antihyperglycaemic medications (glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 58-97 mmol/mol) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the EndoBarrier device (n=80) for 12 months or conventional medical therapy, diet and exercise (n=80). The primary outcome measure will be a reduction in HbA1c by 20% at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures will include percentage weight loss, change in cardiovascular risk factors and medications, quality of life, cost, quality-adjusted life years accrued and adverse events. Three additional subgroups will investigate the mechanisms behind the effect of the EndoBarrier device, looking at changes in gut hormones, metabolites, bile acids, microbiome, food hedonics and preferences, taste, brain reward system responses to food, eating and addictive behaviours, body fat content, insulin sensitivity, and intestinal tissue gene expression., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN30845205, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02459561., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr Miras reports grants from Fractyl, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, and personal fees from Astra Zeneka outside the submitted work. Dr Goldstone reports funding supported by UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust, outside of the submitted work. Professor Poulter’s institution reports grants from HTA, during the conduct of the study. Dr le Roux reports grants from Science Foundation Ireland, grants from Health Research Board, during the conduct of the study; other from NovoNordisk, other from GI Dynamics, personal fees from Eli Lilly, grants and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson, personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, outside the submitted work., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Unlike gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy procedures, intestinal bypass procedures, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in particular, lead to rapid improvements in glycaemia early after surgery. The bypass of the proximal small bowel may have weight loss and even caloric restriction-independent glucose-lowering properties on hepatic insulin sensitivity. In this first human mechanistic study, we examined this hypothesis by investigating the early effects of the duodeno-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL; GI Dynamics, USA) on the hepatic insulin sensitivity by using the gold standard euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp methodology., Method: Seven patients with obesity underwent measurement of hepatic insulin sensitivity at baseline, 1 week after a low-calorie liquid diet and after a further 1 week following insertion of the DJBL whilst on the same diet., Results: Duodeno-jejunal bypass liner did not improve the insulin sensitivity of hepatic glucose production beyond the improvements achieved with caloric restriction., Conclusions: Caloric restriction may be the predominant driver of early increases in hepatic insulin sensitivity after the endoscopic bypass of the proximal small bowel. The same mechanism may be at play after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and explain, at least in part, the rapid improvements in glycaemia.

A new paradigm in the treatment of obesity and metabolic disease is developing. The global obesity epidemic continues to expand despite the availability of diet and lifestyle counseling, pharmacologic therapy, and weight loss surgery. Endoscopic procedures have the potential to bridge the gap between medical therapy and surgery. Current primary endoscopic bariatric therapies can be classified as restrictive, bypass, space-occupying, or aspiration therapy. Restrictive procedures include the USGI Primary Obesity Surgery Endolumenal procedure, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty using Apollo OverStitch, TransOral GAstroplasty, gastric volume reduction using the ACE stapler, and insertion of the TERIS restrictive device. Intestinal bypass has been reported using the EndoBarrier duodenal-jejunal bypass liner. A number of space-occupying devices have been studied or are in use, including intragastric balloons (Orbera, Reshape Duo, Heliosphere BAG, Obalon), Transpyloric Shuttle, and SatiSphere. The AspireAssist aspiration system has demonstrated efficacy. Finally, endoscopic revision of gastric bypass to address weight regain has been studied using Apollo OverStitch, the USGI Incisionless Operating Platform Revision Obesity Surgery Endolumenal procedure, Stomaphyx, and endoscopic sclerotherapy. Endoscopic therapies for weight loss are potentially reversible, repeatable, less invasive, and lower cost than various medical and surgical alternatives. Given the variety of devices under development, in clinical trials, and currently in use, patients will have multiple endoscopic options with greater efficacy than medical therapy, and with lower invasiveness and greater accessibility than surgery.