'Gastric bypass in a pill' helps weight loss without side effects, inventors say
Obesity conference hears how daily pill causes food digestion to bypass part of the stomach so fewer calories are actually absorbed by the body
A 'gastric bypass in a pill' could help dieters feel full quicker and shed pounds, inventors say.
The new daily tablet produces a coating at the top of the intestine, moving digestion to the lower part where fullness hormones are triggered.
Manufacturer Syntis Bio reckons it could become 'the go to drug for weight management' as it will have fewer side effects than powerful appetite-suppressing injections.
Gastric bypass operations have been performed by the NHS on the dangerously obese for over 20 years. They involve creating a small stomach pouch and directly connecting it to the small intestine, bypassing the rest of the stomach and the upper part of the small intestine. This reduces the body's ability to absorb calories and causes the release of key hormones.
A new study, presented at the European Obesity Congress in Malaga, Spain, trialled a pill which works in the same way. It activates an enzyme in the gut to create a temporary coating in the top part of the intestine. Food cannot be absorbed through the coating and it directs it to lower parts of the intestines. Participants feel full before they have absorbed much of the food, so eat less.
Researcher Rahul Dhanda, president of Syntis Bio, said: 'We make this to restrict absorption in the top part of the intestine, while the lower part of the intestine remains fully functional and unobstructed. The intestine is two to three metres long and this covers roughly 15cm at the top of it. It's about directing absorption to the lower intestine.'
Glucose tolerance tests revealed delayed uptake of glucose and at 30 and 60 minutes, glucose absorption was far lower than in untreated patients. This delay suggests that absorption occurs later in the intestine, as expected, rather than in the coated region of the duodenum.
The pilot study was not designed to measure weight loss, but participants receiving a full dose of the pill, currently called SYNT-101, also received blood tests to look at hormones linked to feelings of fullness. They showed elevated levels of leptin and lower levels of ghrelin, consistent with reduced food intake.
The early stage trial suggested the drug is safe and the manufacturers believe it will come with fewer, if any, side effects when compared to weight loss injections. However more trials are needed to prove this and if it brings about sustained weight loss.
Mr Dhanda said: 'What this does is integrate with the mucosal membrane which is naturally excreted by the body, and this goes along with it. You take the pill once a day in the morning and it should be cleared by the next morning or evening, depending on the patient.
'I anticipate the side effects to be minimal to none, and we haven't seen any yet in human tests. That is because we're not entering the bloodstream like injections do. It's a mechanical molecule so it's like we're inserting a stent, as opposed to a drug that is acting with the target and also off the target.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Mounjaro weight loss jab: All you need to know
GPs in England will be able to prescribe weight loss jabs for the first time on the NHS on Monday, as the health service begins its mass rollout. Some 220,000 people with the 'greatest need' are expected to receive Mounjaro, also known as tirzepatide and made by Lilly, through the NHS over the next three years. Here the PA news agency takes a look at the drug and the rollout. – How does tirzepatide work? Tirzepatide, or Mounjaro, is an antidiabetic drug which lowers blood sugar levels and slows down how quickly food is digested. It makes you feel fuller for longer and therefore less hungry. If the jab is recommended by a healthcare professional, those using it will need to eat a balanced, reduced-calorie diet and to exercise regularly while taking it, according to the NHS website. – Who might be eligible for the drug? In the first year of the programme, the drug will be offered to people with a body mass index (BMI) score of more than 40 who have at least four other health problems linked to obesity, such as type 2 diabetes; high blood pressure; heart disease; and obstructive sleep apnoea. It was previously only accessible to patients through a special weight loss service, to severely obese people who also suffer from a range of other health problems. Estimates suggest around 1.5 million people in the UK are already taking weight loss drugs, which may have been prescribed through specialist weight loss services or via private prescription. – How would it be administered? The drug is usually delivered through a self-administered weekly injection which a doctor or nurse will show patients how to use, the NHS website says. – Who cannot take tirzepatide? Mounjaro is not recommended for those who are pregnant or planning to get pregnant, breastfeeding or have certain health conditions, according to the NHS. For those taking the contraceptive pill and using tirzepatide, the NHS recommends using an additional method of contraception, such as a condom, for the first four weeks of treatment and for four weeks after each dose increase as the contraceptive pill may not be absorbed by the body during this time. – What are the potential side effects? Potential side effects of tirzepatide include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and constipation, according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust looks to cut 150 posts
A hospital trust is looking to reduce its overall number of posts by 150, to help meet its savings target for the current financial Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust said it would look at options such as redeployment, not filling vacant posts and reducing hours before it was forced to consider compulsory trust has a target of saving £41.4m by March 2026 and it said it aimed to cut spending on staffing by £ said 2% of its workforce would be affected by the proposed cuts. The hospital trust's chief executive, Jo Williams, said she wanted to have "the right staff, with the right skills, in the right places".That would mean increasing the number of posts in "critical" areas by 267, but the net loss would be 150 also said she wanted to reduce hospital spending on agency said she accepted this would be a "worrying time for some staff" and promised to support them through the changes. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Tunnock's is not to blame for society's problems
We know why the government feels this is necessary: we have eyes and the official figures provide the proof. In 2003, according to the Scottish Government, one-quarter of adults in Scotland were obese. Now it's one-third. And with obesity comes increased risk of cancer, diabetes and death and, as the UK Government points out, a cost of billions of pounds to the NHS. We are deep in a serious crisis that's getting worse. The question is how we get out of it and Tunnock's feels it is being unfairly targeted. Its sales director Fergus Loudon said in Scottish Grocer magazine that the food industry was being blamed for societal problems that were not of its making. 'Banning chocolate biscuit ads on TV before nine o'clock to prevent obesity,' he said, 'is rather like banning foreign holidays to prevent skin damage from too much sun.' A couple of things are going on here. First, it would be stupid to deny that food ads have an effect and that restricting ads can have some effect on what we buy and eat. The science writer Ellen Ruppel Shell points out in her very good book on obesity, Fat Wars, that Burger King spends more than half-a-billion dollars on promotional efforts every year and does it because it works. Conversely, no or little advertising would have the opposite effect to some extent and reduce consumption. 'Free-market capitalism is wonderful for many things,' says Shell, 'but public health is not among them.' However, accepting that advertising has an effect is not the same as solving the health crisis because it goes deeper than that. There's been virtually no advertising of vapes and vaping, for instance, and yet vaping has exploded as a habit. It's also worth pointing out that Tunnock's (est. 1890) was around when there wasn't an obesity crisis and is around when there absolutely is an obesity crisis. Of course, a ban on ads will have an effect around the edges, but the crisis will go on until we tackle the deeper trends advertising cannot change – what Mr Loudon of Tunnock's calls societal problems. I raise this subject whenever I talk to people in the food industry and it pretty much always comes back to the same few things. I had lunch with the French chef Jean-Christophe Novelli in Edinburgh and asked him what he thought was to blame for obesity. He said without a moment's hesitation: mobiles. We're getting fatter, he said, because of what we've done to our brains with technology – the constant messages, the instant gratification – and it means we're more absorbed in technology than in cooking and eating well. 'This is the thing that inflates your stomach,' he said, pointing to his phone. I agree with chef Novelli – we know phones are changing the way we behave, I can feel it myself. We also know it starts young. Children are much less likely now to be active and outdoors because they prefer their phones but Shell also writes in Fat Wars that no-one is born with a taste for hot, bitter or sour or, for that matter, single malt or cigars: tastes develop with exposure and social pressure – and that's fine as long as the influences are good. However, as Shell points out, in the US and the UK, children increasingly dictate family food choices, which leaves households 'immersed in a miasma of one-dimensional sweet taste that reinforces and entrains juvenile preferences'. Read more Are you 'upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong? Anyone who grew up in the 1970s or earlier will know how true this is. I try to avoid using the phrase 'in my day' if I can, but in my day it was your parents who dictated the food choices based on what was good for you and how much it cost. Sweet foods like a Tunnock's Caramel Log, or the greatest British biscuit of all, the custard cream, were allowed as a treat but only a treat. By contrast, children now appear to be able to wield control and a veto on certain foods that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Adverts were around then and adverts are around now – it's the parenting that's changed. How we fix the problem isn't easy – we're now into the second generation of parents who don't know how to cook and have handed food choices to their kids. But another chef I've spoken to is Gary Maclean, senior chef lecturer at City of Glasgow College and a winner of MasterChef: The Professionals. He knows what's he talking about because he lived it. He grew up in the 1970s when most food was cooked from scratch and something like Wimpy was a treat. Now, kids are outdoors much less than they were, and McDonald's and KFC are a ubiquitous part of many children's diets. Result: fat kids. Maclean is well aware that an important factor in all of this is poverty. Unhealthy rubbish is relatively cheap. There was also an interesting Glasgow University study which showed that fast-food outlets are six times more prevalent in the poorest parts of the city. And it's all borne out by what happens to children and adults. By primary one, five-year-olds in Scotland are more than twice as likely to be at risk of obesity if they're from the most deprived catchments compared to the least. Roughly the same with adults: the obesity rate in the most affluent areas is 26% compared to 36% in the poorest neighbourhoods. An ad for Tunnock's (Image: Newsquest) You may think the answer to the problem is to tax unhealthy food, but Gary Maclean's concern is that it just makes life for poorer people even harder. Much better, he says, to try to get in early and encourage good habits at an early stage. If he had his way, he would make cooking and food education compulsory in schools – and it's hard to resist his logic. 'Learning to cook is just as important as learning to write,' he said. 'PE is compulsory and what you eat is just as important as what you do.' His conclusion is that Scotland has the best food in the world but the worst diet, and only something fundamental such as compulsory food lessons at school will change it. You could introduce all the rules on ads you like – you could ban ads for Tunnock's Teacakes entirely – but not only would that be unfair on a firm like Tunnock's that's trying to promote its product, it would only make a marginal difference on a population affected, and made unhealthier, by deeper trends. As it happens, Mr Loudon of Tunnock's also believes it's education that will address the problem and he's right: don't change the ads, change how we see them, and react to them. There's nothing wrong with a biscuit or two as part of a healthy balanced diet; all we need to do is to re-learn the fact.
