Dataset Information

Weight loss with or without intragastric balloon causes divergent effects on ghrelin cell expression.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The mechanism of action of intragastric balloons in the treatment of obesity is not fully understood. One of the hypotheses is that balloons might have an effect on the fundus, the area of ghrelin production.

Methods

Participants were randomized to a 13-week period of sham or balloon treatment followed by a 13-week period of balloon therapy in everyone. Blood samples for ghrelin levels were taken in the fasting state and after a breakfast at the start, after 13 and 26 weeks. Biopsies for ghrelin cell immunohistochemistry were taken from the fundus at endoscopy.

Results

Seven participants entered the balloon-balloon (BB) group and 11 the sham-balloon (SB) group. Despite a considerable weight loss, a median -17.9 kg (interquartile ranges -23.8 to -0.5) in the BB group and -18.3 kg (-22.7 to -14.7) in the SB group, fasting ghrelin and meal-induced ghrelin response did not change. In the SB group, the number of ghrelin cells increased significantly (p 0.001) from 110.6 (83.6-118.9) to 160.2 (128.5-223.0) while on sham treatment and returned to initial levels, 116.3 (91.7-146.9) (p 0.001), when they received their first balloon. No significant changes in ghrelin cell numbers were observed in the BB group.

Conclusion

In participants without a balloon, weight loss induced an increase in ghrelin cell numbers in the fundus, which was annulled by the subsequent placement of a balloon. The effect of a balloon might be explained by effects on ghrelin cell numbers or ghrelin cell activity.

SUBMITTER: Mathus-Vliegen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019283 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:The Orbera intragastric balloon (OIB) is a single fluid-filled intragastric balloon approved for the induction of weight loss and treatment of obesity. However, little is known about the effectiveness and safety of the OIB outside clinical trials, and since approval, the Food and Drug Administration has issued warnings to health care providers about risk of balloon hyperinflation requiring early removal, pancreatitis, and death. We analyzed data on patients who have received the OIB since its approval to determine its safety, effectiveness, and tolerance in real-world clinical settings. METHODS:We performed a postregulatory approval study of the safety and efficacy of the OIB, and factors associated with intolerance and response. We collected data from the Mayo Clinic's database of patient demographics, outcomes of OIB placement (weight loss, weight-related comorbidities), technical aspects of insertion and removal, and adverse events associated with the device and/or procedure, from 8 centers (3 academic, 5 private, 4 surgeons, and 4 gastroenterologists). Our final analysis comprised 321 patients (mean age, 48.1 ± 11.9 y; 80% female; baseline body mass index, 37.6 ± 6.9). Exploratory multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of success and early balloon removal. Primary effectiveness outcomes were percentage of total body weight lost at 3, 6, and 9 months. Primary and secondary safety outcomes were rates of early balloon removal, periprocedural complications, dehydration episodes requiring intravenous infusion, balloon migration, balloon deflation or hyperinflation, pancreatitis, or other complications. RESULTS:Four patients had contraindications for placement at the time of endoscopy. The balloon was safely removed in all instances with an early removal rate (before 6 months) in 16.7% of patients, at a median of 8 weeks after placement (range, 1-6 mo). Use of selective serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitors at the time of balloon placement was associated with increased odds of removal before 6 months (odds ratio, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.24-12.41). Total body weight lost at 3 months was 8.5% ± 4.9% (n = 204), at 6 months was 11.8% ± 7.5% (n = 199), and at 9 months was 13.3% ± 10% (n = 47). At 6 months, total body weight losses of 5%, 10%, and 15% were achieved by 88%, 62%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Number of follow-up visits and weight loss at 3 months were associated with increased weight loss at 6 months (? = 0.5 and 1.2, respectively) (P < .05). Mean levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein, and hemoglobin A1c, as well as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, were significantly improved at 6 months after OIB placement (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:In an analysis of a database of patients who received endoscopic placement of the OIB, we found it to be safe, effective at inducing weight loss, and to reduce obesity-related comorbidities in a real-world clinical population. Rates of early removal (before 8 weeks) did not differ significantly between clinical trials and the real-world population, but were affected by use of medications.