Differences between Poor and Good responders to bariatric surgery
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Why do some patients respond better than others to bariatric surgery?
IRAS ID
146776
Contact name
Stephen/SRB Bloom
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Imperial College London
Duration of Study in the UK
3 years, 0 months, 1 days
Research summary
Obesity is a major cause of illness and premature death worldwide and its incidence is increasing rapidly. Bariatric surgery is considered the “gold-standard” treatment and leads to a sustained one-third reduction in body weight.
However, not all patients do equally well after surgery and the weight loss achieved can vary. As such patients after bariatric surgery fall in one of two categories:
1. Good responders: patients who lose the expected amount of weight based on the published studies.
2. Poor responders: patients who either lose less than the expected amount of weight after bariatric surgery.Poor responders are exposed to all the risks of the operation but do not benefit from the weight loss as much as good responders. Currently, it is not possible to predict who will become a poor responder.
The mechanism of weight loss after bariatric surgery remains unclear but our group have demonstrated that post surgery there is an enhanced secretion of gut hormones. We have also shown that poor responders to bariatric surgery may secrete less gut hormones following a meal compared to good responders.
We hypothesize that compared to good responders, poor responders exhibit:
1. lower gut hormone secretion
2. less sensitivity to gut hormones.In the short term, the results of this study will offer new insights into the mechanisms of action of the operation. In the long term it will lead to the identification of biomarkers that predict weight loss after surgery and enable a more personalised approach to the use of bariatric surgery. Ultimately we want to be able to offer the right procedure, to the right patient at the right time.
REC name
London - West London & GTAC Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/LO/1323
Date of REC Opinion
25 Oct 2017
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion