ResearchJun 9, 20260 views

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Versus Oral Semaglutide for Obesity: A Real-World Comparative Cohort Study.

Semaglutide Goes Head-to-Head With Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty in Obesity Study

P

Endoscopy

by Jagtap N, Golchha A, Katrevula A et al.

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Versus Oral Semaglutide for Obesity: A Real-World Comparative Cohort Study. Jagtap N(1), Golchha A(1)(1), Katrevula A(1), Asif S(1), Rughwani H(1), Koduri KK(1), Balenki P(1), Kalapala R(1)(1), Reddy DN(1). Author information: (1)Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical Gastroenterology, telangana, India, Hyderabad. Aims Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty(ESG) and semaglutide are established therapies for obesity. However, comparative real-world data remain limited. We compared the effectiveness and safety of ESG versus oral semaglutide 14mg in adults with obesity. Methods We conducted a retrospective comparative study between January 2024 and April 2025. Adults aged18-65 years with BMI≥30kg/m2 or ≥27kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidity treated with either ESG or oral semaglutide 14mg daily and having 6-month follow-up were included. Primary endpoint was percentage total body weight loss(%TBWL) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included responder rates, adverse events and 12-month weight outcomes. Analyses included Welch's two sample t-tests, ANCOVA adjusted for age, sex, baseline BMI and diabetes, inverse probability of treatment weighting(IPTW),and1:1 propensity score matching. Results A total of 150 patients were included(ESG=50;semaglutide=100). Baseline characteristics were broadly similar between groups. At 6-months, mean%TBWL was significantly higher with ESG than semaglutide(12.72±5.67%vs8.67±3.84%;p=0.0001). This difference remained after covariate adjustment(adjusted mean difference=-4.04%;p=0.0001),IPTW analysis(p<0.001) and propensity-matched analysis(p=0.021). Responder rates ≥10%TBWL were achieved in 70% with ESG versus 43% with semaglutide(RR0.62;95%CI;0.46-0.82;p=0.0009), and ≥15%TBWL in 36%versus7%(RR0.20;95%CI;0.09-0.44;p=0.0006). There were no major adverse events. At 12-months, mean%TBWL was 11.92±6.93 with ESG and 10.91±4.66 with semaglutide(p0.41). During follow-up, 18patients discontinued semaglutide and 5 patients in ESG group initiated semaglutide. Conclusions In real-world retrospective cohort, ESG was associated with greater short-term weight loss and higher responder rates than oral semaglutide. At 12-months, weight loss was sustained in both groups without a significant between-group difference. These findings are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution in absence of randomized trial design. Thieme. All rights reserved. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Researchers just dropped a real-world comparison of oral semaglutide and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for adults living with obesity. The study tracked 150 patients—100 on oral semaglutide and 50 getting ESG—for six months, then followed up at the one-year mark. If you’re digging into obesity research or working with GLP-1 agonists, here’s what matters.

At six months, ESG outperformed semaglutide on raw numbers. Mean total body weight loss (%TBWL) hit 12.7% for ESG versus 8.7% with semaglutide. ESG also produced higher responder rates:

70% of ESG patients lost at least 10% of their starting weight, compared to 43% with semaglutide.

For more aggressive weight loss (≥15% TBWL), the numbers were 36% for ESG and just 7% for semaglutide.

Statistical adjustments (age, sex, BMI, diabetes status) didn’t change the result—ESG still led the pack. Adverse events were a non-issue in both groups. By 12 months, the gap closed: mean weight loss was nearly the same (ESG 11.9%, semaglutide 10.9%). Discontinuation rates were higher in the semaglutide group, but some ESG patients added semaglutide later—worth noting for anyone planning multi-modality research.

Key takeaway: Oral semaglutide delivers consistent, sustained weight loss for obesity, even if ESG has a stronger start. Both options look safe based on this cohort. If you’re sourcing GLP-1 analogues or setting up comparative trials, this data is worth a look. For more on peptide sourcing, check out our vendor directory.

Obesity research is moving fast, and peptide-based approaches like semaglutide are right in the middle of it.

For Research Use Only

All content published on Pushing Peptides is intended for educational and informational purposes only. The information provided is not intended as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Peptides discussed in this article are research compounds and are not approved for human therapeutic use by the FDA or any other regulatory agency. All studies referenced involve animal models or in vitro research unless otherwise stated. Consult a qualified healthcare professional before making any decisions related to your health. Pushing Peptides does not sell peptides — we are a vendor directory and educational resource.