S798 Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Comparative Effectiveness in Obesity Management

Introduction: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are 2 leading non-surgical interventions for obesity. While both are widely used, real-world comparative data on their effectiveness and safety remain limited. This study evaluated clinical outcomes associated with ESG versus GLP-1 RAs using a large, multicenter health record network. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, identifying adults aged ≥18 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m² who underwent either ESG or initiated GLP-1 RA therapy between 2015 and 2025. Patients with overlapping exposures were excluded to ensure mutually exclusive groups. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed based on demographics and comorbidities. The primary outcome was obesity improvement, defined by reductions in weight and BMI. Secondary outcomes included changes in obesity-related metabolic conditions (obstructive sleep apnea [OSA], hyperlipidemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD]) and adverse events (nutritional deficiencies, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, hypoglycemia). Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare outcomes. Results: After propensity matching, 550 patients were included in each cohort. ESG was associated with significantly greater odds of obesity improvement compared to GLP-1 RAs (hazard ratio [HR] 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37–1.83; P < 0.001). However, ESG patients experienced a higher risk of nutritional deficiencies (HR 2.30; 95% CI: 1.51–3.50) and cholecystitis (HR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.58–4.29; P = 0.047). In contrast, patients on GLP-1 RAs had a higher persistence of hyperlipidemia (HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63–0.97; P = 0.028). There were no significant differences between groups in rates of pancreatitis, hypoglycemia, NAFLD, or mental health outcomes. Conclusion: In this large, matched real-world cohort, ESG provided superior weight loss benefits compared to GLP-1 RA therapy but carried an increased risk of nutritional and gallbladder-related complications. Conversely, GLP-1 RAs offered a more favorable metabolic safety profile with slightly lower weight loss efficacy. These findings highlight the critical need for individualized, patient-centered obesity care. As non-surgical strategies evolve, clinicians must weigh the anatomical durability of ESG against the systemic metabolic modulation of GLP-1 therapy—aligning treatment with patient preferences, risk tolerance, and long-term health goals.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001130652.47326.dc
Primary Topic
Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S798 Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Comparative Effectiveness in Obesity Management

Aalam Sohal, Dalbir S. Sandhu, Vikash Kumar, Indu Srinivasan et al.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
article

S798 Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Comparative Effectiveness in Obesity Management

Aalam Sohal, Dalbir S. Sandhu, Vikash Kumar, Indu Srinivasan, Divyesh V. Sejpal, Ashujot K. Dang
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are 2 leading non-surgical interventions for obesity. While both are widely used, real-world comparative data on their effectiveness and safety remain limited. This study evaluated clinical outcomes associated with ESG versus GLP-1 RAs using a large, multicenter health record network. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, identifying adults aged ≥18 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m² who underwent either ESG or initiated GLP-1 RA therapy between 2015 and 2025. Patients with overlapping exposures were excluded to ensure mutually exclusive groups. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed based on demographics and comorbidities. The primary outcome was obesity improvement, defined by reductions in weight and BMI. Secondary outcomes included changes in obesity-related metabolic conditions (obstructive sleep apnea [OSA], hyperlipidemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD]) and adverse events (nutritional deficiencies, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, hypoglycemia). Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare outcomes. Results: After propensity matching, 550 patients were included in each cohort. ESG was associated with significantly greater odds of obesity improvement compared to GLP-1 RAs (hazard ratio [HR] 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37–1.83; P < 0.001). However, ESG patients experienced a higher risk of nutritional deficiencies (HR 2.30; 95% CI: 1.51–3.50) and cholecystitis (HR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.58–4.29; P = 0.047). In contrast, patients on GLP-1 RAs had a higher persistence of hyperlipidemia (HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63–0.97; P = 0.028). There were no significant differences between groups in rates of pancreatitis, hypoglycemia, NAFLD, or mental health outcomes. Conclusion: In this large, matched real-world cohort, ESG provided superior weight loss benefits compared to GLP-1 RA therapy but carried an increased risk of nutritional and gallbladder-related complications. Conversely, GLP-1 RAs offered a more favorable metabolic safety profile with slightly lower weight loss efficacy. These findings highlight the critical need for individualized, patient-centered obesity care. As non-surgical strategies evolve, clinicians must weigh the anatomical durability of ESG against the systemic metabolic modulation of GLP-1 therapy—aligning treatment with patient preferences, risk tolerance, and long-term health goals.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.