Efficacy and safety of the adjustable gastric band – pooled interim analysis of the APEX and HERO studies at 48 weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This 48 week combined analysis reports safety and clinical effectiveness of the LAP-BAND AP * laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) in severely obese patients enrolled in the 5 year, prospective, observational, open-label APEX (NCT00501085) and HERO (NCT00953173) studies. METHODS: The studies enrolled 1620 patients (APEX: N = 514; HERO: N = 1106), 1140 patients in the US (including all APEX patients), and 480 patients in the European Union (EU), Canada or Australia. APEX and HERO are non-randomized, non-comparator, open-label studies with differences in study management practices and follow-up. Notably, laboratory data were not collected during the APEX study. RESULTS: After 48 weeks, mean (SD) percentage weight loss (%WL) was for APEX: 18.7% (7.9); HERO-US: 17.9% (8.5); HERO-EU: 16.5% (10.3); HERO-Canada: 13.4% (8.9); and HERO-Australia: 12.3% (6.9). After 48 weeks, there were no significant differences in %WL for APEX vs. HERO-US. After 48 weeks in the combined analysis (APEX + HERO): (1) patients without vs. with type 2 diabetes at baseline had greater %WL (18% [8.7] vs. 16% [8.5], p = 0.002); (2) female patients had greater %WL vs. male patients (17.9% [8.5] vs. 15.9% [9.3], p = 0.003); (3) younger patients had greater %WL vs. older patients (<50 years: 17.8% [8.7] vs. ≥50 years: 16.7% [8.6], p = 0.035); (4) baseline BMI did not affect %WL (≤35 to ≤45 kg/m(2): 17.7% [8.4] vs. >45 kg/m(2): 17.1% [9.1], p = 0.272). Device-related serious adverse events and adverse events were reported in 1.9% and 17.7% of patients, respectively. Revision and explantation surgeries were carried out on 3.4% and 2.3% of patients, respectively during the 48 weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates the effective weight loss and safety profile of the current LAGB system, with US patients achieving better weight loss than patients from outside the US.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".