7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Endoscopic duodenal mucosal resurfacing for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: one year results from the first international, open-label, prospective, multicentre study

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The duodenum has become a metabolic treatment target through bariatric surgery learnings and the specific observation that bypassing, excluding or altering duodenal nutrient exposure elicits favourable metabolic changes. Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) is a novel endoscopic procedure that has been shown to improve glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) irrespective of body mass index (BMI) changes. DMR involves catheter-based circumferential mucosal lifting followed by hydrothermal ablation of duodenal mucosa. This multicentre study evaluates safety and feasibility of DMR and its effect on glycaemia at 24 weeks and 12 months.

          Methods

          International multicentre, open-label study. Patients (BMI 24–40) with T2D (HbA1c 59–86 mmol/mol (7.5%–10.0%)) on stable oral glucose-lowering medication underwent DMR. Glucose-lowering medication was kept stable for at least 24 weeks post DMR. During follow-up, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), weight, hepatic transaminases, Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), adverse events (AEs) and treatment satisfaction were determined and analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction.

          Results

          Forty-six patients were included of whom 37 (80%) underwent complete DMR and 36 were finally analysed; in remaining patients, mainly technical issues were observed. Twenty-four patients had at least one AE (52%) related to DMR. Of these, 81% were mild. One SAE and no unanticipated AEs were reported. Twenty-four weeks post DMR (n=36), HbA1c (−10±2 mmol/mol (−0.9%±0.2%), p<0.001), FPG (−1.7±0.5 mmol/L, p<0.001) and HOMA-IR improved (−2.9±1.1, p<0.001), weight was modestly reduced (−2.5±0.6 kg, p<0.001) and hepatic transaminase levels decreased. Effects were sustained at 12 months. Change in HbA1c did not correlate with modest weight loss. Diabetes treatment satisfaction scores improved significantly.

          Conclusions

          In this multicentre study, DMR was found to be a feasible and safe endoscopic procedure that elicited durable glycaemic improvement in suboptimally controlled T2D patients using oral glucose-lowering medication irrespective of weight loss. Effects on the liver are examined further.

          Trial registration number

          NCT02413567

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery: a systematic review.

          Bariatric surgery is an accepted treatment for obesity. Despite extensive literature, few studies report long-term follow-up in cohorts with adequate retention rates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

            As newer oral diabetes agents continue to emerge on the market, comparative evidence is urgently required to guide appropriate therapy. To summarize the English-language literature on the benefits and harms of oral agents (second-generation sulfonylureas, biguanides, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors) in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception through January 2006 for original articles and through November 2005 for systematic reviews. Unpublished U.S. Food and Drug Administration and industry data were also searched. 216 controlled trials and cohort studies and 2 systematic reviews that addressed benefits and harms of oral diabetes drug classes available in the United States. Using standardized protocols, 2 reviewers serially abstracted data for each article. Evidence from clinical trials was inconclusive on major clinical end points, such as cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, the review was limited mainly to studies of intermediate end points. Most oral agents (thiazolidinediones, metformin, and repaglinide) improved glycemic control to the same degree as sulfonylureas (absolute decrease in hemoglobin A1c level of about 1 percentage point). Nateglinide and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors may have slightly weaker effects, on the basis of indirect comparisons of placebo-controlled trials. Thiazolidinediones were the only class that had a beneficial effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (mean relative increase, 0.08 to 0.13 mmol/L [3 to 5 mg/dL]) but a harmful effect on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (mean relative increase, 0.26 mmol/L [10 mg/dL]) compared with other oral agents. Metformin decreased LDL cholesterol levels by about 0.26 mmol/L (10 mg/dL), whereas other oral agents had no obvious effects on LDL cholesterol levels. Most agents other than metformin increased body weight by 1 to 5 kg. Sulfonylureas and repaglinide were associated with greater risk for hypoglycemia, thiazolidinediones with greater risk for heart failure, and metformin with greater risk for gastrointestinal problems compared with other oral agents. Lactic acidosis was no more common in metformin recipients without comorbid conditions than in recipients of other oral diabetes agents. Data on major clinical end points were limited. Studies inconsistently reported adverse events other than hypoglycemia, and definitions of adverse events varied across studies. Some harms not assessed in trials or observational studies may have been overlooked. Compared with newer, more expensive agents (thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and meglitinides), older agents (second-generation sulfonylureas and metformin) have similar or superior effects on glycemic control, lipids, and other intermediate end points. Large, long-term comparative studies are needed to determine the comparative effects of oral diabetes agents on hard clinical end points.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Achievement of American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations among U.S. adults with diabetes, 1999-2002: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

              To estimate the proportion of U.S. adults with diabetes who meet American Diabetes Association (ADA) clinical practice recommendations. Using data from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 998 adults aged >/=18 years with self-reported diabetes were identified. The proportion of adults with diabetes meeting ADA recommendations for HbA(1c) (A1C), HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, renal function, nutrient intake, smoking, pneumococcal vaccination, and physical activity was estimated. Among U.S. adults with diabetes in 1999-2002, 49.8% had A1C 81% of the sample reported not smoking at the time of the exam, only 38.2% reported ever having had a pneumococcal immunization, and 28.2% reported getting the recommended level of physical activity. Race, age, duration of diabetes, and education affected achievement of ADA recommendations. Achievement of ADA clinical practice recommendations is far from adequate in U.S. adults with diabetes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gut
                Gut
                gutjnl
                gut
                Gut
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0017-5749
                1468-3288
                February 2020
                22 July 2019
                : 69
                : 2
                : 295-303
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentGastroenterology and Hepatology , Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ] departmentInternal Medicine , Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ] departmentEndocrinology , Erasme University Hospital , Brussels, Belgium
                [4 ] departmentGastroenterology , University College Hospital , London, UK
                [5 ] departmentCentre for Obesity Research, Department of Medicine , University College Hospital , London, UK
                [6 ] departmentInstitute of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Obesity , King’s Health Partners , London, UK
                [7 ] CCO Clinical Center for Diabetes, Obesity and Reflux , Santiago, Chile
                [8 ] departmentBariatric Endoscopy Service , Gastro Obeso Center , Sao Paulo, Brazil
                [9 ] departmentCollege of Medicine , Florida International University , Miami, Florida, USA
                [10 ] departmentGastroenterology , King’s College Hospital , London, UK
                [11 ] departmentClinical and Experimental Endocrinology , Catholic University of Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [12 ] departmentGastroenterology and Hepatology , Catholic University of Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [13 ] departmentCardiology , Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [14 ] departmentInternal and Vascular Medicine , Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [15 ] departmentInternal Medicine , Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCSS , Rome, Italy
                [16 ] Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Gemelli University Hospital , Roma, Italy
                [17 ] departmentGastroenterology , Erasme University Hospital , Brussels, Belgium
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Prof. Jacques J G H M Bergman, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam 1105, The Netherlands; j.j.bergman@ 123456amc.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2283-5098
                Article
                gutjnl-2019-318349
                10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318349
                6984054
                31331994
                b85fc407-a51d-4108-9373-603ae6622a67
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 23 January 2019
                : 19 June 2019
                : 30 June 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: Fractyl Laboratories;
                Categories
                Endoscopy
                1506
                1507
                2312
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                editors-choice
                free

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                diabetes mellitus,therapeutic endoscopy,endoscopic procedures,glucose metabolism,duodenal mucosa

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content100

                Cited by47

                Most referenced authors596