4.7 Article

Preoperative weight loss with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment predicts greater weight loss achieved by the combination of medical weight management and bariatric surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes: A longitudinal analysis

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 745-748

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.13131

关键词

bariatric surgery; glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; laparoscopic adjustable gastric band; laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; obesity; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; type 2 diabetes mellitus; weight loss

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research
  2. Science Foundation Ireland
  3. Health Research Board
  4. National Institute for Health Research [CS-2013-13-029] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the relationship between weight changes after preoperative glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) treatment and weight changes from the start of medical weight management (MWM) until 12months after bariatric surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes in a retrospective cohort study. A total of 45 patients (64.4% women, median [interquartile range] age 49 [45-60] years) were included. The median (interquartile range) weight loss from start of MWM until 12months post-surgery was 17.9% (13.0%-29.3%). GLP-1RA treatment during MWM resulted in 5.0% (1.9%-7.7%) weight loss. Weight loss during GLP-1RA treatment predicted weight loss from the start of MWM until 12months post-surgery, but not postoperative weight loss after adjustment. The proportion of weight loss from start of MWM to 12months post-surgery attributed to GLP-1RA treatment was negatively associated with that attributed to surgery, after adjustment. In conclusion, weight change after GLP-1RA treatment predicted the weight loss achieved by a combination of MWM and bariatric surgery, but not weight loss induced by surgery only. Failure to lose weight after GLP-1RA treatment should not be considered a barrier to undergoing bariatric surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据