Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for treatment of class 1 and 2 obesity (MERIT): a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an endolumenal, organ-sparing therapy for obesity, with wide global adoption. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of ESG with lifestyle modifications compared with lifestyle modifications alone. METHODS: We conducted a randomised clinical trial at nine US centres, enrolling individuals aged 21-65 years with class 1 or class 2 obesity and who agreed to comply with lifelong dietary restrictions. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1·5; with stratified permuted blocks) to ESG with lifestyle modifications (ESG group) or lifestyle modifications alone (control group), with potential retightening or crossover to ESG, respectively, at 52 weeks. Lifestyle modifications included a low-calorie diet and physical activity. Participants in the primary ESG group were followed up for 104 weeks. The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was the percentage of excess weight loss (EWL), with excess weight being that over the ideal weight for a BMI of 25 kg/m2. Secondary endpoints included change in metabolic comorbidities between the groups. We used multiple imputed intention-to-treat analyses with mixed-effects models. Our analyses were done on a per-protocol basis and a modified intention-to-treat basis. The safety population was defined as all participants who underwent ESG (both primary and crossover ESG) up to 52 weeks. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2017, and June 14, 2019, 209 participants were randomly assigned to ESG (n=85) or to control (n=124). At 52 weeks, the primary endpoint of mean percentage of EWL was 49·2% (SD 32·0) for the ESG group and 3·2% (18·6) for the control group (p<0·0001). Mean percentage of total bodyweight loss was 13·6% (8·0) for the ESG group and 0·8% (5·0) for the control group (p<0·0001), and 59 (77%) of 77 participants in the ESG group reached 25% or more of EWL at 52 weeks compared with 13 (12%) of 110 in the control group (p<0·0001). At 52 weeks, 41 (80%) of 51 participants in the ESG group had an improvement in one or more metabolic comorbidities, whereas six (12%) worsened, compared with the control group in which 28 (45%) of 62 participants had similar improvement, whereas 31 (50%) worsened. At 104 weeks, 41 (68%) of 60 participants in the ESG group maintained 25% or more of EWL. ESG-related serious adverse events occurred in three (2%) of 131 participants, without mortality or need for intensive care or surgery. INTERPRETATION: ESG is a safe intervention that resulted in significant weight loss, maintained at 104 weeks, with important improvements in metabolic comorbidities. ESG should be considered as a synergistic weight loss intervention for patients with class 1 or class 2 obesity. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03406975. FUNDING: Apollo Endosurgery, Mayo Clinic.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis, Presentation, and Patient Management.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in breast cancer management forcing clinicians to potentially alter treatment recommendations. This study compared breast cancer stage at diagnosis and rates of neoadjuvant therapy among women presenting to our institution before and during COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients with a new breast cancer diagnosis from March 2020-August 2020 (during-COVID-19) were compared with March 2019-August 2019 (pre-COVID-19). We compared stage at diagnosis, clinical/demographic features, and neoadjuvant therapy use between the time periods. RESULTS: A total of 573 patients included: 376 pre-COVID-19, 197 during-COVID-19. Method of cancer detection was by imaging in 66% versus 63% and by physical findings/symptoms in 34% versus 37% of patients comparing pre-COVID-19 to during-COVID-19, p = 0.47. Overall clinical prognostic stage did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the time periods, nor did cM1 disease (2% in each period); 23% pre-COVID-19 and 27% during-COVID-19 presented with cN+ disease (p = 0.38). Neoadjuvant therapy use was significantly higher during-COVID-19 (39%) versus pre-COVID-19 (29%, p = 0.02) driven by increased neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) use (7% to 16%, p = 0.002), whereas neoadjuvant chemotherapy use did not change (22% vs. 23%, p = 0.72). In HR+/HER2- disease, NET use increased from 10% pre-COVID-19 to 23% during-COVID-19 (p = 0.001) with a significant increase in stage I patients (7 to 22%, p < 0.001) and nonsignificant increases in stage II (18 to 23%, p = 0.63) and stage III (9 to 29%, p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer stage at diagnosis did not differ significantly during-COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19. More patients during-COVID-19 were treated with NET, which was significantly increased in stage I HR+/HER2- disease.