Key Findings:

  • Dose-dependent durability confirmed at one year: In the full modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (N=45), a single Revita procedure reduced weight regain by approximately 40% versus sham at one year (least-squares mean weight regain of 7.8% versus 13.0% of body weight; n=29 versus 16 for Revita versus sham). Participants who received complete duodenal ablation (>14 cm) maintained approximately 81% of GLP-1-induced weight loss at one year, compared with 48% in sham participants (least-squares mean weight regain of 4.8% versus 13.0% of body weight; n=17 versus 16 for Revita versus sham), reflecting a reduction in weight regain of over 60% versus sham. This is consistent with earlier findings that more complete duodenal ablation drives greater treatment effect.
  • Greatest benefit in patients with greatest need: In an optimized population of participants who received complete duodenal ablation (>14 cm) and had higher GLP-1 run-in weight loss (≥17.5%), Revita maintained approximately 84% of GLP-1-induced weight loss at one year versus 46% with sham (least-squares mean weight regain of 4.1% versus 13.5% of body weight; n=10 versus 8 for Revita versus sham). These results are consistent with the view that patients at greatest need may derive the greatest benefit from Revita due to their higher propensity for weight regain after GLP-1 discontinuation.
  • Weight-maintenance responder rate: The second co-primary endpoint of the Pivotal Cohort, assessed against a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated pre-specified performance goal of >50%, measures the proportion of Revita patients maintaining at least 5% total body weight loss relative to their pre-tirzepatide weight at one year. As a reference point for the Pivotal Cohort, this responder rate was 73% in the Midpoint Cohort mITT population, rising to 91% in those with complete duodenal ablation (>14 cm).
  • Excellent tolerability: No device- or procedure-related serious adverse events occurred. No new device-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed between six and 12 months. Overall TEAE rates were comparable between arms through one year (24% Revita versus 25% sham), reflecting a generally mild peri-procedural adverse event profile that supports potentially broad outpatient use for Revita. One new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes occurred in the sham arm versus none with Revita.