Association between disordered eating and clinical outcomes following a surgical or endoscopic bariatric procedure: A real-world exploratory study.

Problem: Disordered eating, such as binge, graze, and emotional eating, has been strongly linked to weight gain. Improved understanding of disordered eating by adults who elect bariatric weight loss procedures in a real-world setting is required. Purpose: To determine the association between the number and type of disordered eating patterns (DEPs), as described by healthcare professionals during routine care without standardized assessment, with clinical outcomes in adults who elected a bariatric weight loss procedure. Method: An observational cohort study recruited laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) patients. DEPs documented in the medical record during routine care were observed and tested for association with events (symptoms, side-effects, or adverse events), micronutrient deficiencies, weight loss, and attrition. Data were observed up to 12-month post-procedure. Results: 215 LSG and 32 ESG patients were recruited. The mean number of DEPs was 6.4 (SD: 2.1) and 6.4 (SD: 2.1) in the LSG and ESG cohorts, respectively. Night eating was associated with a higher number of events (p < 0.008) in the LSG cohort, and non-hungry eating was associated with a higher number of events in the ESG cohort (p < 0.001). ESG patients who had a surgical or medical event by 6-months post-procedure had mean 1.78 (95%CI: 0.67, 2.89) more DEPs (p = 0.004). DEPs were not associated with weight loss, micronutrient deficiencies, nor attrition. Conclusion: The treating healthcare team believed the LSG and ESG patients experienced a wide variety and high frequency of DEPs requiring multidisciplinary support. Non-hungry eating and night eating were associated with poorer outcomes following an LSG or ESG. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000332729).

What is the efficacy of dietary, nutraceutical, and probiotic interventions for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) symptoms include pharmaceutical, surgical, dietary, and lifestyle behaviors; however, dietary interventions lack evidence synthesis. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effect of dietary, probiotic, and nutraceutical interventions on GERD symptoms, with or without pharmaceutical therapy, in adults with a history of GERD or functional dyspepsia compared to no intervention, placebo, or usual care? METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA. The search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Embase on the 28th October 2020 and updated to 27th July 2021. Intervention studies were eligible if they evaluated the effect of a dietary, nutraceutical, or probiotic intervention on GERD symptoms in adults with a history of GERD or functional dyspepsia. The internal validity of studies was assessed using the Academy Quality Criteria Checklist; Review Manager software was used to perform meta-analysis; and certainty in the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: 6,608 study records were retrieved from the search, with 21 studies (n = 24 highly heterogenous intervention groups) included (n = 10 restrictive dietary interventions; n = 3 non-restrictive dietary interventions; n = 8 nutraceutical interventions; and n = 3 probiotic interventions). GERD symptoms were clinically and statistically improved by a test-based elimination diet (n = 1 study), low nickel diet (n = 1 study), probiotic yoghurt (n = 1 study), psyllium husk (n = 1 study), prickly pear and olive leaf extract supplement (n = 1 study), and melatonin, amino acid and b-group vitamin supplement (n = 1 study) according to qualitative synthesis. Ginger-containing supplements could be meta-analyzed, and improved incidence of GERD symptom alleviation (n = 2 studies, OR: 7.50 [95%CI: 3.62-15.54], GRADE: high). No clinically and/or statistically significant effects were found for the remaining n = 16 highly heterogenous interventions. CONCLUSION: Evidence to guide the dietary management of GERD symptoms is limited in scope, quality, and feasibility. Based on the limited evidence available, dietary GERD management should be long-term, individualized, and consider both dietary restrictions and/or additions. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021224082.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with 12+ months of adjuvant multidisciplinary support.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and the incisionless endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) weight loss procedures require further investigation of their efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes in the Australian setting. METHODS: The aim was to examine the 6- and 12-month weight loss efficacy, safety, and weight-related quality of life (QoL) of adults with obesity who received the ESG or LSG bariatric procedure with 12+ months of adjuvant multidisciplinary pre- and postprocedural support. Data were from a two-arm prospective cohort study that followed patients from baseline to 12-months postprocedure from a medical center in Queensland. Percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, android:gynoid ratio, bone mineral content) via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, weight-related QoL, lipid, glycemic, and hepatic biochemistry, and adverse events. RESULTS: 16 ESG (19% attrition; 81.2% female; aged:41.4 (SD: 10.4) years; BMI: 35.5 (SD: 5.2) kg/m2) and 45 LSG (9% attrition; 84.4% female; aged:40.4 (SD: 9.0) years; BMI: 40.7 (SD: 5.6) kg/m2) participants were recruited. At 12-months postprocedure, ESG %EWL was 57% (SD: 32%; p < 0.01) and LSG %EWL was 79% (SD: 24%; p < 0.001). ESG and LSG cohorts improved QoL (19.8% in ESG [p > 0.05]; 48.1% in LSG [p < 0.05]), liver function (AST: - 4.4 U/L in ESG [p < 0.05]; - 2.7 U/L in LSG [p < 0.05]), HbA1c (- 0.5% in ESG [p < 0.05]; - 0.1% in LSG [p < 0.05]) and triglycerides (- 0.6 mmol/L in ESG [p > 0.05]; - 0.4 mmol/L in LSG [P < 0.05]) at 12-months. Both cohorts reduced fat mass (p < 0.05). The ESG maintained but LSG decreased fat-free mass at 6-months (p < 0.05); and both cohorts lost fat-free mass at 12-months (p < 0.05). There were no adverse events directly related to the procedure. The ESG reported 25% mild-moderate adverse events possibly related to the procedure, and the LSG reported 27% mild-severe adverse events possibly related to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, the ESG and LSG were safe and effective weight loss treatments for obese adults alongside multidisciplinary support. Patients who elected the ESG maintained fat-free mass at 6-months but both cohorts lost fat-free mass at 12-months postprocedure. Patients who elected the LSG had large and significant improvements to weight-related quality of life. Further well-powered studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively at the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 06/03/2018, Registration Number ACTRN12618000337279 .

Do Endoscopic Bariatric Procedures Improve Postprocedural Quality of Life and Mental Health? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Quality of life and mental health are important outcomes of bariatric therapy. This review aimed to determine endoscopic bariatric procedures' impact on postprocedural quality of life and mental health. Four electronic databases were systematically searched. Studies with adults > 18 years who underwent an endoscopic bariatric procedure and reported pre- and postprocedural quality of life and/or mental health using a validated tool were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan and study quality was assessed. Twenty studies evaluating five different endoscopic procedures were included (N = 876 total sample size). Intragastric balloon placement was associated with a large improvement in postprocedural quality of life and mental health. Endoscopic bariatric therapies may improve short-term quality of life and mental health alongside weight loss and comorbidity improvement.

Does intensive multidisciplinary intervention for adults who elect bariatric surgery improve post-operative weight loss, co-morbidities, and quality of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies aims to evaluate the effect of preoperative and/or post-operative support for adults who elect bariatric surgery delivered by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) on post-operative body composition, mental health, co-morbidities, quality of life, and side effects. Six electronic databases were searched. Revman and GRADE were used to assess confidence in pooled effects. Included interventions (N = 1533 participants in total) focused on lifestyle counselling (n = 4 studies), psychology (n = 4 studies), or exercise (n = 10 studies); comparator groups were less intensive usual care. Intensive MDT interventions increased post-operative weight loss (SMD: -0.94; 95% CI: -1.27 to -0.61) if delivered post-operatively. Preoperative and post-operative intensive interventions improved symptoms of depression and anxiety, quality of life, diastolic blood pressure, and resting heart rate but not lipids or glycaemic measures. Whilst usual MDT care is important preoperatively, this review conditionally recommends intensive MDT interventions for enhanced post-operative weight loss if delivered in the post-operative period, led by any health professional, based on moderate evidence. This review also conditionally recommends preoperative and/or post-operative lifestyle, nutrition, or psychology counselling and/or physical activity for improved mental and physical health. Further randomized controlled trials are required, which aim to specifically evaluate the best use of MDT resources.