Mounjaro Tag

Surgery Plus Medication Outperforms Surgery Alone in Young People

Key Takeaways: 

• Young people who restarted obesity medication a median of one month after sleeve gastrectomy lost more weight at 12 months than those who had surgery alone.
  
• Improvements in eating behaviours, including hunger scores, were significantly greater in the early reinitiation group.
  
• Rates of postoperative complications, readmissions, emergency department visits and reoperations did not differ between the two groups.
  
  
  

Combining pharmacotherapy with surgery in adolescent obesity care

Restarting obesity medication, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, shortly after sleeve gastrectomy is associated with greater weight loss at one year than surgery alone in adolescents, according to a research letter published online on 22 July in JAMA Surgery.

The finding speaks to a question that has become increasingly pressing as both metabolic and bariatric surgery and highly effective obesity pharmacotherapy have become available to younger patients: whether the two should be sequenced, or used together.

What the researchers set out to examine

Dr Alaina P. Vidmar, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and colleagues evaluated the 12-month safety, weight trajectory and eating behaviour outcomes associated with early reinitiation of obesity medication following metabolic and bariatric surgery.

The analysis included 99 young people aged 7–20 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy between November 2023 and February 2026.

Half the cohort restarted medication within a month of surgery

Of the 99 young people in the cohort, 53 reinitiated obesity medication, with a median time to reinitiation of 1.0 month.

Among those who restarted treatment, most resumed the same class of medication they had been prescribed before surgery. Postoperative regimens were nonetheless generally consolidated, with fewer young people requiring multiagent therapy after their operation than before it.

Weight trajectories diverged after the six-month mark

Through the first six months, the two groups experienced similar early postoperative weight loss.

The picture changed by the end of the first year. The early reinitiation group achieved a greater mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) percentage at 12 months than the group who had surgery alone, at −29.3% versus −25.5%. The same pattern held for excess BMI loss percentage, at −53.6% versus −45.7%.

Eating behaviours improved more with combined treatment

Improvements in eating behaviours were significantly greater in the early reinitiation group at 12 months than in the surgery-only group. Median hunger scores on the Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, for example, fell by 3.5 points in the early reinitiation group, compared with a rise of 0.2 points among those treated with surgery alone.

This behavioural dimension is a reminder that appetite regulation after surgery is not a fixed quantity, and that the interaction between pharmacological and surgical mechanisms is an area where prescribing clinicians increasingly need structured, up-to-date grounding. The College of Contemporary Health addresses precisely this territory in its GLP-1RA Complete Programme, which covers the pharmacology, patient selection, monitoring and behavioural support that underpin safe long-term use of these agents.

Safety outcomes were comparable between the groups

There was no difference between the groups in postoperative complications, including biliary events requiring cholecystectomy, readmissions, emergency department visits and reoperations.

A lifespan view of severe obesity

The authors frame the results as support for treating severe obesity in young people as a chronic condition requiring more than one modality.

“Bariatric surgery is the most durable and effective treatment for severe obesity, but for youth with severe disease, we need a multimodal approach, which means combining medication and surgery over the lifespan,” Vidmar said in a statement.

CCH insight

For clinicians supporting young people through and beyond metabolic and bariatric surgery, findings like these shift the practical question from whether to prescribe to when, what and for how long. Confidence with GLP-1 receptor agonists, and with the behavioural and monitoring work that surrounds them, is becoming a core competency rather than a specialist interest.

The College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RA Complete Programme is designed for healthcare professionals who want that grounding: mechanisms of action and the wider incretin landscape, patient selection and contraindications, dose escalation and adverse effect management, and the behaviour change support that helps people sustain outcomes over time. It is CPD-accredited and studied entirely online, so it fits around clinical commitments.

Explore the GLP-1RA Complete Programme →

Read More

Obesity Medication Significantly Reduces Risk of Infections and Serious Cardiovascular Events

Key Takeaways: 

• Tirzepatide cut the combined risk of heart attack, stroke and death by around a third compared with sitagliptin over one year.
  
• Hospital admissions for infection fell by 36 per cent, and infection-related deaths by 60 per cent.
  
• Real-world insurance data offers evidence on GLP-1 medications that clinical trials have not yet produced.
  
  
  

A large real-world comparison of two diabetes medicines

People living with type 2 diabetes and obesity may gain substantially more than improved blood glucose control from treatment with tirzepatide. New research indicates that the medication, marketed as Mounjaro, is associated with roughly a one-third reduction in the risk of heart attack and a similar reduction in hospital admissions for infection, when compared with a conventional diabetes medication.

The findings come from researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and Harvard Medical School, who used health insurance data to examine how the drug performs outside the tightly controlled conditions of a clinical trial. Their study has been published in The BMJ.

What the researchers did

The team analysed a large dataset drawn from United States health insurance providers, comparing outcomes among people treated with tirzepatide against those treated with sitagliptin. Sitagliptin was chosen deliberately: it is a diabetes medication regarded as neutral with respect to cardiovascular outcomes, which makes it a useful yardstick for isolating any additional benefit attributable to tirzepatide.

That design matters. Rather than measuring tirzepatide against a placebo, the researchers set it against an established, widely used treatment that people with type 2 diabetes might realistically be prescribed instead – a comparison closer to the decisions clinicians and patients actually face.

Cardiovascular events reduced by around a third

The results pointed to clear advantages for the GLP-1 medication, a class that has drawn considerable public attention in recent years for its effects on weight.

After one year, 4.4 per cent of people treated with the comparator drug had experienced a heart attack or a stroke, or had died. Among those treated with tirzepatide, the figure was 2.9 per cent. The gap corresponds to a relative risk reduction of approximately one third.

Expressed in absolute terms, the difference of roughly 1.5 percentage points over a single year is meaningful in a population already carrying elevated cardiovascular risk from both type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Fewer hospital admissions for infection

The second set of findings was less anticipated. Significantly fewer people treated with tirzepatide were admitted to hospital with infections, with the associated risk reduced by 36 per cent. The risk of dying from an infection was reduced by as much as 60 per cent.

“The data on infections surprised us because the findings were so striking,” says Dr. Nils Krüger, first author of the study and a resident physician in the Department of Cardiovascular Diseases at TUM University Hospital. “Previous studies have suggested that people treated with GLP-1 agonists are less likely to be hospitalized for infections and less likely to die from them.”

In other words, the direction of the signal was not new – but its size was.

Why obesity may affect the immune response

According to Dr Krüger, the reasons behind the association are not yet fully understood. One plausible explanation lies in the relationship between excess adiposity and chronic inflammation.

“There is evidence that obesity promotes inflammatory processes in the body, which may in turn impair immune function. The exact mechanisms and whether this apparent benefit would also occur without weight loss now need to be investigated.”

That final point is the crux of the open question. If the protective effect is driven principally by weight loss, it would be expected to accompany any effective weight management intervention. If it persists independently of weight change, it would suggest something about the medication’s action on inflammatory or immune pathways that has yet to be characterised. Distinguishing between those possibilities will require dedicated research.

Building healthcare professionals’ understanding of how medications in this class work – and how to interpret emerging evidence about their wider effects – is the focus of professional training such as the College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RAs in Focus, a CPD-accredited online short course.

How routine clinical data complements traditional trials

In Dr Krüger’s view, studies that draw on routine clinical data to compare the effects of medications are an important complement to conventional clinical trials. This is particularly true for GLP-1 agonists such as tirzepatide and semaglutide, sold as Mounjaro, Wegovy and Ozempic.

Because these medications have been on the market for a relatively short time, only a small number of large-scale studies have examined the full range of effects associated with the class. Medical societies and regulatory authorities need more research of this kind to underpin their recommendations.

There is also a practical problem that database research helps to solve. “Clinical trials are increasingly comparing active ingredients with one another,” says Dr Krüger. Regulatory authorities, however, often also require comparisons against the established standard of care rather than against another modern drug – a requirement that raises an ethical difficulty if it means assigning trial participants to older treatment while withholding a therapy that may benefit them.

“Database studies that are benchmarked against the results of traditional clinical trials can fill this gap without actually withholding potentially beneficial therapies such as GLP-1 agonists from study participants,” he says.

What this means for clinical decision-making

By enabling a direct comparison with standard diabetes treatment, Dr Krüger hopes the study will provide an additional tool to support decision-making by patients and their physicians.

For healthcare professionals supporting people who live with both type 2 diabetes and obesity, the practical implication is that the conversation about tirzepatide may extend well beyond glycaemic control and weight. Cardiovascular protection and, potentially, resilience to serious infection now form part of the evidence that can be weighed when treatment options are discussed.

As with all analyses of routinely collected data, the findings describe an association rather than establishing cause and effect, and the mechanisms behind the infection results remain to be confirmed. What the study adds is real-world evidence at a scale, and against a comparator, that trials have not yet delivered.

CCH insight

It seems that every week we learn of a new benefit attributable to GLP-1 based medications – this time a significant reduction in infections in patients taking tirzepatide. In view of the links between central adiposity and vitamin D deficiency, and the fact that vitamin D plays an important role immunity, it would be interesting to know if these results might be linked to improved vitamin D status as a result of abdominal fat loss.

Findings like these show how quickly the evidence base around GLP-1 medications is expanding, and how much rests on the professionals discussing these treatments understanding both how they work and how to appraise new data with confidence. CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Focus – Why Drugs Like Ozempic Work CPD short course (2 CPD hours, fully online, CPD-accredited) gives healthcare professionals, whether or not they prescribe, a clear grounding in the science behind medications such as tirzepatide, where they fit in treatment pathways, and how to weigh emerging evidence critically.

Explore GLP-1RAs in Focus →

Read More

Weight Bias at Work: What New GLP-1 Research Reveals About Women’s Employment Prospects

Key Takeaways: 

• Women who were unemployed when they started GLP-1 medications saw their employment rate rise by nearly 27 percentage points over 18 months, according to a 2026 NBER working paper.
  
• The gains appeared only among women entering the workforce – those already employed saw no rise in pay or promotion, pointing to perception rather than capability.
  
• The findings echo long-standing evidence on the financial cost of weight bias, from documented pay gaps to hiring professionals’ judgements based on photographs alone.
  
  
  

A new way to measure an old problem

For years, economists have documented what they call the “obesity penalty” – the social and financial disadvantages people can face because of their weight. It has been a difficult phenomenon to measure cleanly, because the factors that shape someone’s body weight also tend to shape their income, health and opportunities.

The rapid uptake of GLP-1 medications has given researchers something closer to a natural experiment. When large numbers of people begin treatment within a short window, and others who want the same treatment have not yet been able to start, it becomes possible to compare two otherwise similar groups and observe what changes.

That is the approach taken in a 2026 working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, in which Harvard economist Rebecca Diamond examined what happened to women’s employment after they began taking GLP-1 medications.

What the researchers did

Diamond looked at survey data from around 15,000 people. She compared women who had started taking GLP-1 medications with similar women who wanted to take them but had not yet started. The two groups were matched on factors including income, race, body mass index and overall health, so that the comparison was not simply between people in very different circumstances to begin with.

The design matters. Because the comparison group consisted of women who also wanted the medications, the study is less vulnerable to the criticism that people who seek treatment are systematically different in motivation from those who do not.

The result that stands out

Among women who were unemployed at the point they began treatment, the employment rate rose by nearly 27 percentage points over the following 18 months, compared with the matched group who had not yet started.

To put that figure in context, it is a larger gap than the difference in employment between American women with a high school diploma and those holding a university degree. In other words, an 18-month change in body weight was associated with a bigger shift in employment than several years of formal education.

The research does not suggest that losing weight made these women more intelligent, more capable or better qualified for work. Nothing about their skills, experience or credentials changed. What the study raises is a different and more uncomfortable question: whether a change in appearance alters how women are perceived by employers.

Changes beyond the workplace

The effects were not confined to employment. The study also found that single women taking GLP-1 medications were nearly 29 percentage points more likely to get married or move in with a partner than similar women who had not started treatment.

Taken together, the employment and partnership findings describe something broader than a labour market effect. They describe a shift in social response.

The financial cost of weight bias

GLP-1 medications have moved quickly into the mainstream. In 2026, 11% of US adults said they were currently taking one to lose weight, up from just 3% in 2024, according to Gallup.

But the question of how weight shapes women’s working lives long predates the current wave of prescribing. Research was already pointing in this direction well before GLP-1 medications entered the cultural conversation.

What hiring professionals saw

A report from Fairygodboss, an employer review site for women, offered a particularly troubling look at how appearance can shape hiring decisions. In one study, hiring professionals were shown images of women with different body types and asked to evaluate them.

The woman pictured at the highest body weight was judged far more harshly than the others. Twenty percent of respondents described her as “lazy”, a label applied less frequently to every other woman pictured. Just 18% said she appeared to have leadership potential, while 21% described her as “unprofessional”.

These are judgements made on the basis of a photograph alone, with no information about experience, qualifications or performance.

Earnings gaps documented long before GLP-1 medications arrived

The pay data tells a similar story. In 2011, the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis cited research finding that white women living with overweight earned about 4.5% less than white women whose BMI fell within what researchers classified as the normal range. White women living with obesity earned nearly 12% less.

Two caveats are important here. Those figures were specific to white women and do not apply to everyone. They also say nothing about anyone’s value, ability or contribution. What they suggest is that weight-related bias was already showing up in some women’s pay long before GLP-1 medications became widely available.

When appearance pays

The argument that appearance carries an economic premium is not new, and it is sometimes made bluntly. Codie Sanchez, CEO and founder of Contrarian Thinking, has said that women who wear makeup to work earn about 30% more on average than women who do not.

“Pretty privilege is very real,” she said on an episode of The Burnouts Podcast. “And you can either say ‘That’s not fair, so I’m not doing it.’ or you can win.”

Sanchez acknowledged that the advantage is unfair, but argued that women should use it rather than ignore it. “If it’s going to make me more money to paint my face, clown me up,” she said.

Diamond’s findings suggest weight bias may operate along similar lines. The women who benefited most were those seeking to enter the workforce, where first impressions carry disproportionate weight and where an employer’s judgement is formed quickly and on limited information. For women already in a job, whose managers had direct evidence of their performance, the effect disappeared.

Why this matters in clinical practice

For healthcare professionals, findings like these complicate the consultation room. People starting GLP-1 medications may be motivated by clinical goals, social goals, economic goals, or some mixture of all three, and those motivations shape expectations, adherence and how someone responds if treatment is paused or stopped.

Understanding the pharmacology well enough to have that conversation credibly is increasingly part of everyday practice rather than a specialist concern. Building that grounding is the focus of professional training such as the College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RAs in Focus – Why Drugs Like Ozempic Work, a CPD-accredited online short course covering GLP-1 physiology and pharmacology for prescribers and non-prescribers alike.

An uncomfortable conclusion

Losing weight does not make a person more intelligent, more capable, harder working or better qualified for a job. But it may change how other people perceive them.

That is precisely what makes Diamond’s findings difficult to sit with. If some women gain access to more opportunities after losing weight while their underlying abilities remain exactly the same, then the economic benefit is not really a benefit at all. It is a measure of how heavily appearance still shapes the way women are perceived and treated – and of how much value has been withheld from them beforehand.

The medication changed the response. It did not change the woman.

CCH insight 

Findings like these are a reminder that GLP-1 medications carry social and economic weight as well as clinical effect – and that patients arrive at the consultation with motivations shaped by far more than a treatment target. CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Focus – Why Drugs Like Ozempic Work CPD short course (2 CPD hours, fully online, CPD-accredited) builds the foundation in GLP-1 physiology and pharmacology that healthcare professionals need to explain the science clearly, set realistic expectations and contribute confidently to treatment discussions, whether or not they prescribe. 

Explore GLP-1RAs in Focus →

Read More

Sensing, Liking and Wanting: Why Food Feels Different on GLP-1RAs

Key Takeaways: 

• A Frontiers in Nutrition review finds that altered eating experience on GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) reflects changes in food reward rather than impaired taste function.
  
• The authors separate three processes: sensing food, liking it, and wanting it.
  
• The evidence is heterogeneous and largely observational, so the framework is a conceptual model, not proof of causality.
  
  
  

Why reports of “taste changes” may not be about taste at all

Some people taking GLP-1RAs report that their favourite foods become less enjoyable or tempting, without this necessarily reflecting impaired basic taste function. That distinction sits at the centre of a recent review published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition, in which the authors conducted a structured narrative review of current evidence on how glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists influence sensory perception, food enjoyment and food motivation, using a sensory-liking-wanting framework.

Obesity is a chronic, progressive metabolic disease with growing global prevalence, which increases the demand for effective long-term treatment options. GLP-1RAs are widely used in obesity treatment because they enhance satiety, delay gastric emptying, reduce energy intake and support meaningful weight loss. Alongside those effects, some people also report that food tastes different, feels less enjoyable, or no longer seems tempting. These experiences are often described as “taste changes”, but the review argues that they may reflect several biological processes rather than a single taste disorder. Further research is needed to understand these mechanisms and to improve nutritional care during treatment.

Looking beyond appetite suppression

GLP-1RAs have changed the way obesity is managed by reducing energy intake and supporting meaningful weight loss. Growing clinical experience, however, shows that their effects extend beyond a simple reduction in hunger.

Some people describe food tasting different, reduced pleasure in eating, or lower cravings for high-calorie foods. The review suggests that these experiences should not be treated as simple taste disturbances, but as a combination of three components related to eating behaviour: sensory perception, liking and wanting.

The three components of eating behaviour

Eating begins with sensory perception, which includes detecting taste, smell and food texture. This stage determines how food is initially recognised.

The second component is liking, defined as the subjective pleasure or hedonic value associated with eating. It is influenced by flavour, prior experience, context, cognitive factors and physiological state.

The third component, wanting, describes the motivation or craving to seek out and consume food. Separating these components helps explain why reports of “taste changes” may in fact reflect different biological processes.

How GLP-1RAs may influence food reward and the eating experience

The review sets out how GLP-1RAs may influence eating behaviour through interconnected biological pathways rather than by directly changing taste. Preclinical studies indicate that endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is produced by some mammalian taste bud cells and may modulate taste signalling. Those findings do not establish that GLP-1RA treatment directly alters taste in humans, and the limited human studies available have produced inconsistent results.

Taste signals are integrated in the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS) before reaching brain regions involved in appetite and reward. Human studies have associated GLP-1RA treatment with reduced craving and weaker neural responses to calorie-dense food cues in some participants. Those findings are more consistent with altered food valuation and motivation than with impaired basic taste.

Gastrointestinal effects, including nausea and early satiety, may also reduce the pleasure of eating, which makes it difficult to distinguish altered food reward from genuine changes in taste perception.

What the clinical evidence does and does not show

Randomised controlled trials usually focus on body weight and metabolic outcomes. Eating-related experiences are rarely included as prespecified measures and are more often captured sporadically as adverse events.

Patient-reported outcome questionnaires may provide a more sensitive window into changes in food enjoyment and preference, but assessment methods vary considerably between studies. Real-world evidence presents additional challenges, as reports of “taste alterations” may encompass several distinct sensations, including olfactory changes, dry mouth, gastrointestinal discomfort and other symptoms that are difficult to distinguish clinically.

Spontaneous reporting databases can identify safety signals but cannot establish incidence or risk. Cohort studies, by contrast, provide better-defined populations and follow-up, yet remain vulnerable to subjective reporting and confounding.

Because this was a narrative review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis, the authors did not conduct a formal risk-of-bias assessment.

A framework for understanding what people report

According to the review, alterations in the eating experience during GLP-1RA treatment should not be regarded solely as a biological phenomenon, but understood as the interaction between different processes.

Peripheral taste pathways, brainstem integration, central reward networks, interoceptive state and learned behaviour may all contribute. Their relative importance may differ between individuals and across treatment stages. A person’s report of a “taste change” may therefore not correspond to a clinically defined gustatory disorder.

The authors also note that alternative explanations should be considered when interpreting eating-related changes, including nausea, delayed gastric emptying, altered satiety, behavioural adaptation and medication adherence.

The framework additionally accommodates limited treatment response, persistent appetite, weight regain after treatment withdrawal or interruption, and rare atypical or paradoxical responses.

Clinical relevance and a possible stage-dependent pattern

The review highlights that reported changes in eating experience should not automatically be classified as taste abnormalities. Healthcare professionals may find it useful to establish whether a person is describing altered taste perception, reduced satisfaction from eating, or diminished interest in food, as these experiences can reflect distinct processes. Distinguishing between them well depends on the quality of the conversation in the consultation, and supporting people through the eating-related changes that accompany GLP-1RA treatment is the focus of professional training such as the College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RAs in Practice: Supporting Patients During Treatment, a CPD-accredited online short course.

The authors present these points as translational implications rather than formal clinical recommendations. They also propose a stage-dependent pattern in which these experiences may change over time.

Early in treatment, gastrointestinal discomfort and enhanced satiety may reduce the appeal of food, whereas later stages may involve a more persistent reduction in motivation towards highly rewarding foods in some individuals.

Why this matters for nutrition and obesity management

The proposed sensory-liking-wanting framework has practical implications for obesity treatment and nutritional counselling. Understanding whether someone is experiencing altered sensory perception, reduced enjoyment of food, or lower motivation towards food may support more individualised dietary guidance and improve communication between people receiving treatment and the professionals caring for them.

The review also highlights that the existing body of evidence is heterogeneous, owing to differences in endpoint definitions, measurement methods, populations, drugs, doses and follow-up periods. Much of the human evidence is observational, secondary or exploratory, and many studies were not designed to separate sensory function from liking and wanting. Current findings are therefore better interpreted as a conceptual framework for organising available evidence than as proof of a single causal pathway.

Future studies using standardised, multimodal assessments and longer follow-up may help clarify how these eating-related changes influence food preferences, dietary behaviour, long-term weight management and treatment adherence.

Conclusion

The review concludes that altered eating experiences during GLP-1RA therapy are more consistent with changes in food reward, hedonic evaluation and motivational drive than with a uniform impairment of taste function, although modulation of peripheral taste pathways may contribute in some cases.

Current evidence supports interpreting reported “taste changes” within a sensory-liking-wanting framework that distinguishes sensory perception from food enjoyment and craving. Because responses vary between individuals and the available evidence remains heterogeneous, the proposed framework should be considered a conceptual model rather than definitive proof of causality.

Longitudinal, multimodal human studies measuring sensory function, hedonic response, motivational drive and state-related symptoms in parallel are needed to clarify these effects and their implications for nutrition, dietary behaviour, treatment adherence and long-term obesity management.

CCH insight: 

When someone says food no longer tastes right on a GLP-1RA, the clinically useful question is which part of eating has changed: the sensing, the liking or the wanting. Each points towards different advice, and each can shift as treatment progresses. CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Practice: Supporting Patients During Treatment CPD short course (2 CPD hours, fully online, CPD-accredited) equips healthcare professionals to have exactly those conversations – recognising what people are really describing, adapting dietary and nutritional support through the course of treatment, and monitoring for the changes that matter. 

Explore GLP-1RAs in Practice: Supporting Patients During Treatment →

Read More

GLP-1 Therapies Linked to Lower Fragility Fracture Risk in Adults Living With Type 2 Diabetes

Key Takeaways:

• Adults aged 50 and over living with type 2 diabetes who started a GLP-1 receptor agonist had a 21% lower three-year risk of fragility fracture than those starting a DPP-4 inhibitor (HR 0.79).
  
• Reductions were strongest for vertebral (HR 0.68) and hip or femur fractures (HR 0.70), and appeared independent of changes in BMI and HbA1c – pointing to a possible direct skeletal effect.
  
• The findings do not extend to younger people using GLP-1 medications for weight management alone, or to those with osteoporosis; among adults without diabetes, fracture risk was higher (HR 1.13).
  
  
  

A large-scale look at bone health during GLP-1 treatment

Initiating a GLP-1 receptor agonist for type 2 diabetes was associated with a lower risk of fragility fractures in adults aged 50 and over, including fractures of the hip and spine, according to a large target trial emulation study published in JAMA Network Open.

Over three years of follow-up, adults who newly started a GLP-1 medication had a 21% lower risk of fragility fracture than those who newly started a DPP-4 inhibitor (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76–0.83), reported Christopher Hamad, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The authors were careful to frame the size of the effect in context rather than overstate it.

“Although the absolute risk reduction at 3 years was modest (0.79%), this magnitude is clinically relevant given a baseline 3-year major osteoporotic fracture risk of approximately 3% to 4% in comparable populations and the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with hip and vertebral fractures,” the authors wrote.

Why a modest absolute reduction still matters

The clinical weight of these numbers rests on how serious the events being prevented are. Hip fractures, for example, are associated with one-year mortality rates of up to 25% in women and up to 36% in men.

Given the potential for such severe outcomes, Hamad’s group emphasised that even modest absolute reductions in fragility fractures – which stem from low-energy trauma, such as a fall from standing height – can prevent a meaningful number of events at population level.

The findings build on several smaller observational studies in people living with diabetes that have similarly linked the use of GLP-1 medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) to a reduced fracture risk. Hamad’s team noted that their analysis drew on the largest dataset assembled on this question to date.

Which fractures showed the strongest signal

The protective association was most pronounced at precisely the sites that carry the highest morbidity and mortality:

• Vertebral fractures: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.63–0.73
  
• Hip or femur fractures: HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63–0.79
  
• Rib fractures: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.91
  

No significant associations were identified for fractures of the distal radius or ulna, or of the proximal humerus.

Weight loss, glycaemic control and the question of a direct skeletal effect

One of the more striking elements of the analysis concerns the mechanism. Mediation analyses indicated that the associations were independent of changes in BMI and HbA1c, a pattern consistent with a potential direct skeletal effect of GLP-1 medications.

That matters because weight loss itself is associated with reduced bone mineral density and a higher fracture risk – a relationship reflected in the study’s own data, which found that cumulative BMI loss was tied to a 2% increase in fracture risk. In other words, the expected consequence of the weight reduction these medications produce would be a rise in fracture risk, not a fall.

“Yet, GLP-1 RA [receptor agonist] use was associated with lower fracture risk despite these changes, suggesting that potential direct skeletal effects may outweigh the adverse consequences of weight loss,” the authors wrote.

Reassessing the assumption of neutral skeletal effects

Current American Diabetes Association Standards of Care classify GLP-1 medications as having neutral effects on the skeleton. The researchers argued that their results suggest this assumption warrants reevaluation.

They also acknowledged the limits of what an observational design can establish, noting that the findings could still reflect unmeasured factors such as improved balance or greater physical activity among people taking these medications. Making sense of evidence like this – and of the mechanistic arguments used to interpret it – is the focus of professional training such as the College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RAs in Focus, a CPD-accredited online short course that grounds healthcare professionals in how these medications act on the body.

How the study was conducted

For this comparative effectiveness study, the researchers drew data from the TriNetX Research Network, analysing 66,803 matched pairs, or 133,606 people in total, aged between 50 and 90 years.

Mean age was approximately 63 years, roughly 53% of participants were male, 58% were White, and average baseline BMI was around 33.

All participants were living with type 2 diabetes and had newly initiated either a GLP-1 receptor agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor between 2015 and 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity), semaglutide and liraglutide (Victoza) together accounted for 91% of index prescriptions in the GLP-1 group. Exclusion criteria included fractures resulting from high-energy trauma, as well as osteoporosis and osteopenia.

Where the protective association held – and where it did not

In subgroup analyses, the lower fracture risk was consistent across age groups, across sexes and across levels of frailty.

A separate matched cohort, however, evaluated participants according to diabetes status and produced a notably different picture. Among adults living with type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 use retained a protective association (three-year HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88–0.95). Among adults without diabetes, it was associated with an increased fracture risk (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04–1.23, P<0.001 for interaction).

Consequently, the authors emphasised that the findings cannot be generalised to younger people using GLP-1 medications solely for weight management, nor to those with known osteoporosis or a previous fragility fracture, who were excluded from the study altogether.

What this means for practice

Overall, “the findings do not argue against GLP-1 RA use on the basis of fracture risk, though bone health monitoring remains prudent,” according to the researchers.

They called for prospective randomised trials to evaluate the associations observed, including among people with osteopenia or early osteoporosis, alongside preclinical work to understand the potential mechanisms involved.

CCH insight 

For healthcare professionals, this study is a useful reminder that the skeletal consequences of GLP-1 treatment are not yet settled science – and that the answer appears to differ depending on who is being treated and why. Interpreting findings of this kind with confidence depends on a firm grasp of how these medications act in the first place, from gut hormones and appetite regulation through to their wider effects beyond glycaemic control. That is exactly what CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Focus – Why Drugs Like Ozempic Work CPD short course (2 CPD hours, fully online, CPD-accredited) is built to provide, giving clinicians a clear grounding in the mechanisms behind these therapies and the ability to appraise emerging evidence critically, whether or not they prescribe.

Explore GLP-1RAs in Focus →

Read More

Ozempic and Mounjaro Linked to Modest Rise in Hair Loss Risk, BMJ Study Finds

Key Takeaways: 

• Adults living with type 2 diabetes taking GLP-1 receptor agonists developed alopecia more often than those taking SGLT-2 inhibitors (37% higher risk) or DPP-4 inhibitors (68% higher risk), a BMJ study reports.
  
• Absolute risk stayed low, at 6.91 cases per 1,000 person years for GLP-1 receptor agonists against 5.04 for SGLT-2 inhibitors and 3.89 for DPP-4 inhibitors.
  
• The association was confined to non-scarring alopecia, where the follicle stays intact and regrowth remains possible.
  
  
  

A modest signal, but one worth discussing in the consultation

Medications from the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, now widely used in the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity, may be associated with a modest increase in hair loss. The finding comes from a study published by The BMJ on 22 July 2026.

The class includes semaglutide, marketed under brand names such as Ozempic and Wegovy, and tirzepatide, marketed as Mounjaro and Zepbound. Researchers found that adults living with type 2 diabetes who were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists went on to develop alopecia more frequently than people prescribed two other commonly used classes of diabetes medication.

Although the relative increase was significant, the researchers emphasised that the absolute risk of hair loss remained low. Even so, awareness of the possible adverse effect could help people and their clinicians reach better informed treatment decisions together.

Reports of hair loss with semaglutide and tirzepatide

Hair loss has been reported before as a possible adverse effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists, particularly with medications containing semaglutide or tirzepatide. What has been missing is research that directly compares the risk among people taking these medicines with the risk among people taking alternative diabetes treatments.

To address that gap, the research team analysed electronic health records from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine). They compared rates of alopecia among adults living with type 2 diabetes who began treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors.

The analysis covered people treated between January 2019 and September 2024. One comparison included 12,004 people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists and 15,221 taking SGLT-2 inhibitors. A second, separate comparison included 11,964 people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists and 11,233 taking DPP-4 inhibitors.

Accounting for differences between the treatment groups

The groups differed in several important respects before the researchers adjusted their results.

Compared with people taking SGLT-2 inhibitors, those taking GLP-1 receptor agonists were younger (mean age 58 v 65), had a higher body mass index (36.2 v 32.3), and had lower rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease.

A similar pattern was seen in the comparison with DPP-4 inhibitors. People taking GLP-1 receptor agonists were again younger (mean age 58 v 67) and had a higher body mass index (36.2 v 31.3).

To limit the influence of these imbalances, the researchers adjusted for factors that might otherwise have shaped the findings, including age, sex, ethnicity, pre-existing conditions, use of other medications, and body mass index.

Higher rates of alopecia after adjustment

Once those adjustments were made, use of a GLP-1 receptor agonist was associated with a 37% higher risk of alopecia than use of an SGLT-2 inhibitor (6.91 v 5.04 per 1,000 person years).

The difference was larger in the second comparison. Risk was 68% higher among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists than among those taking DPP-4 inhibitors (6.53 v 3.89 per 1,000 person years).

Further analysis indicated that the association was limited to non-scarring alopecia, the form in which hair follicles remain intact and the potential for regrowth is preserved. For this type of hair loss, risk was 53% higher among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists than among those taking SGLT-2 inhibitors, and 72% higher than among those taking DPP-4 inhibitors.

Why rapid weight loss might disturb the hair cycle

The study did not establish why GLP-1 medications might be connected to hair loss, but the authors set out several plausible explanations.

Rapid weight loss is a well established cause of increased hair shedding. It may also contribute to iron or zinc deficiency, either of which can interfere with the normal hair growth cycle. Hormonal changes related to weight loss or to treatment itself could play a part as well, although further research will be needed to identify the mechanisms at work.

Important questions that remain open

The researchers acknowledged a number of limitations. The available clinical records did not contain enough detail to determine the severity, extent or duration of the alopecia. Nor could the team assess whether hair grew back after people stopped taking the medication.

Because the study was observational, it cannot demonstrate that GLP-1 medications directly caused the hair loss. Other factors that were not measured may have influenced the results.

Set against that, the authors described their work as rigorous, drawing on high quality data from a large and representative group of patients. The findings also held up across additional analyses, which supports their reliability.

What the findings mean for practice

For clinicians, the practical value of a study like this lies less in the headline percentages than in what it adds to the conversation before and during treatment. Anticipating adverse effects, recognising them early and folding them into shared decision-making are core parts of the GLP-1 consultation – the ground covered by CPD courses such as the College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RAs in Practice: How to Safely Prescribe Ozempic, Wegovy & Mounjaro, which works through initiation, titration and the avoidance of adverse reactions.

The researchers concluded: “Our findings extend previous anecdotal safety signals and provide more systematic evidence to inform clinical awareness of this potential adverse effect.”

CCH insight

This may seem like an odd perspective, but this could be a good thing if it means that people considering taking GLP-1 medications for vanity reasons (to slim down to their perfect weight when they do not have obesity or type 2 diabetes) are put off, leaving better availability for those who genuinely need it. I am sure that for most people living with obesity or diabetes, a small increased risk of alopecia is worth taking when balanced against the huge health benefits that these drugs usually bring.

Hair loss is unlikely to change prescribing decisions on its own, but it is exactly the kind of adverse effect that patients notice, worry about and sometimes stop treatment over. Knowing how to raise it, put the absolute risk in context and respond if it appears is part of delivering GLP-1 therapy well. CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Practice: How to Safely Prescribe Ozempic, Wegovy & Mounjaro (Or Any Other Weight Loss Drug) is a two-hour, CPD-accredited online course covering every stage of the consultation, from patient selection and titration through to managing adverse reactions, grounded in current NICE guidance and the ADA 2026 Standards of Care.

Find out more about GLP-1RAs in Practice →

Read More

Study Identifies Which Patients With Obesity Respond Best to GLP-1-Based Treatment

Key Takeaways: 

• A Mayo Clinic study has identified a distinct biological subtype of obesity – a form of the “hungry gut” phenotype – that responds especially well to tirzepatide.
  
• People in this subgroup lost an average of 21.5% of their body weight after six months on tirzepatide, roughly double the 11.7% seen in other subtypes.
  
• The lower appetite-hormone levels traced back to reduced hormone production in the intestine rather than differences in the gut microbiome.
  
  
  

A step towards precision medicine for obesity

Why do some people lose a substantial amount of weight on GLP-1-based medications while others see far more modest results? A new Mayo Clinic study offers a potential answer, identifying a distinct biological subtype of obesity that responds especially well to tirzepatide – a medication that mimics two naturally occurring hormones involved in appetite and blood sugar regulation. The finding moves the field a step closer to precision medicine for obesity, where treatment is matched to an individual’s underlying biology rather than applied uniformly.

The research, published in the journal Gastroenterology, points to a future in which clinicians could predict, rather than simply hope, that a given therapy will work for a given person.

What the researchers found

The team studied 483 adults living with obesity and identified three distinct biological types of the disease. About one in four participants produced lower levels of GLP-1 and other hormones that help people feel full after eating.

This subgroup saw markedly better results on treatment. Patients in this group lost an average of 21.5% of their body weight after six months of tirzepatide, compared with 11.7% for patients in the other groups – losing nearly twice as much weight over the same period.

“Obesity is a complex disease driven by different biological mechanisms,” says senior author Andres Acosta, M.D., Ph.D., a gastroenterologist and the Delaney Family Director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Program at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. “Our findings suggest we can begin identifying which patients are most likely to respond to specific therapies rather than treating obesity as a single disease.”

Understanding the “hungry gut” subtype

The subgroup that responded so strongly to tirzepatide shares a recognisable biological signature: people in this group produce lower levels of natural appetite-regulating hormones, experience faster stomach emptying and report greater hunger after meals.

Researchers describe this as a form of the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype, which is characterised by an abnormal duration of fullness. Rather than eating unusually large amounts at any one sitting, people with hungry-gut obesity may eat normal portion sizes but find themselves snacking more frequently, because the sense of fullness does not last as long as it should.

Because tirzepatide acts on the same appetite pathways that are underactive in this group, it appears especially well suited to addressing the biology that drives their eating patterns.

Why the underlying biology matters

The study also sheds light on why hormone levels differ in this subgroup. The researchers found that the reduced hormone levels were associated with decreased hormone production in the intestine itself, rather than with differences in the gut microbiome. That distinction offers new insight into the biology underlying this subtype and helps explain where the difference in treatment response originates.

Identifying the right therapy sooner could carry significant long-term benefits. Because obesity increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers and many other serious chronic conditions, matching people to the treatment most likely to help them – rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach – could improve long-term health outcomes.

What this means for clinical practice

The findings support growing efforts to personalise obesity treatment based on an individual’s biology. For clinicians, interpreting studies like this one increasingly depends on a firm grasp of how GLP-1-based medications act on appetite hormones and gastric emptying in the first place – the kind of grounding offered by CPD courses such as the College of Contemporary Health’s GLP-1RAs in Focus, which examines why some people respond more strongly to these treatments than others. Still, the authors are careful to note the limits of the current work. They caution that prospective studies are needed before this approach can be incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Even so, the results represent an important step towards more precise, individualised treatment for obesity – and towards a future in which people are guided to the therapy most likely to work for them from the outset.

Studies like this one land almost weekly, and making sense of them starts with understanding how GLP-1 receptor agonists actually work – from gut hormones and appetite regulation to why some people respond far more strongly than others. CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Focus – Why Drugs Like Ozempic Work is a two-hour, CPD-accredited online course created by Prof. Mike Bewick and Nigel Hinchliffe that builds exactly this foundation, whether or not you prescribe. Explore the course and interpret the next headline with confidence.

Source: Mayo Clinic

Read More

Obesity Medications Work Best for Young People When Combined With Lifestyle Support

Key Takeaways: 

• Among young people with obesity, pairing medication with structured behavioural and lifestyle support produced the largest short-term reductions in BMI.
  
• Metformin combined with behaviour and lifestyle treatment lowered BMI by 4.95, whereas metformin used on its own showed no significant change.
  
• Semaglutide plus counselling was linked to the biggest BMI reduction of any approach, although this estimate rested on a single trial.
  
  
  

Support matters as much as the medicine

Children and adolescents with obesity who received a combination of medication and structured lifestyle treatments achieved the greatest short-term reductions in BMI, according to a new evidence synthesis. The findings point away from prescribing in isolation and towards a model in which medication is layered on top of behavioural and family support rather than used as a stand-alone fix.

How the study was conducted

Researchers carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching the literature databases through June 2025, to work out which obesity treatments perform best for young people. A network meta-analysis allows multiple interventions to be compared against one another even where they have not all been tested head-to-head in the same trial.

The final analysis brought together 42 randomised clinical trials involving 3835 participants aged 10–19 years with obesity. The median age was 14.5 years, and 59.2% of participants were female individuals. Most of the included studies followed up participants over 6–12 months, placing the emphasis firmly on short-term outcomes.

The interventions assessed fell into several categories: structured behavioural and lifestyle treatments, in both standard and intensive forms; counselling; medications, including GLP-1 receptor agonists, metformin, orlistat, and phentermine–topiramate; and combinations of medication with lifestyle treatment.

The primary outcomes were changes in BMI and BMI z-score, while the secondary outcomes were changes in waist circumference, fat mass, and lean mass. The interventions were then ranked in order of effectiveness.

On study quality, the risk for bias was judged low in 21.4% of trials and high in 26.2%, with the remaining 52.4% raising some concerns. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high, so the strength of the findings varies considerably from one comparison to another.

What the analysis found

Across the 35 trials that reported BMI and the 19 that reported BMI z-score, medications produced larger reductions when paired with lifestyle treatments than when used alone. Metformin illustrates the pattern clearly: combined with behaviour and lifestyle treatment it was associated with a reduction of 4.95 in BMI, whereas metformin used on its own showed no significant change in BMI.

Semaglutide plus counselling was associated with the largest reduction in BMI (mean difference [MD], −8.31) and in BMI z-score (MD, −1.80). This estimate, however, came from a single trial, so it should be read with caution.

Behavioural and lifestyle treatment on its own was associated with reductions in BMI (MD, −3.85; five studies) and in BMI z-score (MD, −0.89; one study) – results that matched or exceeded the effect of certain medications used alone. Combination treatments were linked to the largest reductions in fat mass, drawing on 21 studies.

What it means in practice

The authors framed the combined approach as consistently outperforming medication given without support. “[The] finding suggests that even combining medication with basic counselling was still superior to giving medication without any lifestyle support,” the researchers wrote. “Medications should never be prescribed in isolation; a person-centered, family-centered approach matching treatment intensity to medical need is essential,” they added.

Where the research came from

The study was led by Ke-wen Wan, MSc, of Hong Kong Baptist University in Hong Kong SAR, China. It was published online on 22 June in JAMA Pediatrics.

Limitations to consider

Several caveats temper the results. The findings for newer medications were based on only a few small trials, which limits confidence in those specific estimates. The wide age range may have obscured differences by age or stage of puberty, since a 10-year-old and a 19-year-old can respond very differently to the same intervention. Most of the trials also did not report data on race, ethnicity, or income, leaving open questions about how the findings apply across different populations.

Funding and disclosures

The study received funding from grants from Hong Kong Baptist University. One author reported serving on professional boards related to childhood obesity and receiving travel grants or reimbursements, and another author reported receiving consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies. Detailed disclosures are available in the original article.

Read More

GLP-1 Medicines for Weight Loss Reach Record Use Among US Adults

Key Takeaways: 

• Eleven per cent of US adults report currently taking GLP-1 medicines for weight loss in 2026, a substantial rise from three per cent in 2024.
  
• Awareness of GLP-1 medicines intended for weight loss has increased to 91 per cent, while the US adult obesity rate has declined from its 2022 peak of 39.9 per cent to 36.4 per cent so far in 2026.
  
• Brand-name GLP-1 medicines remain the most commonly used option, but cost and insurance coverage appear to be driving some people towards compounded or custom-mixed versions.
  
  
  

GLP-1 use for weight loss continues to rise

The proportion of US adults who say they are currently taking GLP-1 medicines for weight loss has reached a new high in 2026, according to data from the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index.

Eleven per cent of US adults now report current use of these medicines for weight loss purposes. This represents a significant increase from 2024, when three per cent reported current use. Lifetime use has also risen, with 15 per cent of US adults saying they have taken a GLP-1 medicine for weight loss at some point. This is an increase of nine percentage points.

The findings are based on a web survey of 5,065 US adults conducted between 28 May and 5 June 2026. The survey used the probability-based Gallup Panel, which includes respondents from all 50 US states and the District of Columbia.

How Gallup measured GLP-1 use

To assess whether people had ever used GLP-1 medicines for weight loss, Gallup asked respondents:

“Have you ever taken weight loss medications such as semaglutide (brand names Ozempic and Wegovy), liraglutide (brand name Saxenda) or tirzepatide (brand names Mounjaro and Zepbound)?”

People who answered “yes” were then asked a follow-up question to determine whether they were currently taking one of these medicines:

“Are you currently taking weight loss medications such as semaglutide (brand names Ozempic and Wegovy), liraglutide (brand name Saxenda) or tirzepatide (brand names Mounjaro and Zepbound)?”

These questions allowed Gallup to distinguish between lifetime use and current use among US adults.

FDA approvals have expanded the market

The rise in GLP-1 use follows the approval of several medicines for weight loss in the US. The Food and Drug Administration approved Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, for weight loss in 2021.

Since then, additional options have become available. Eli Lilly’s Zepbound, which contains tirzepatide, received FDA approval in November 2023.

As more treatment options have entered the market, public awareness has also increased. Gallup reports that 91 per cent of Americans are now aware of GLP-1 medicines intended for weight loss, up from 80 per cent in 2024.

Adult obesity has declined from its 2022 peak

Gallup’s latest findings show that the US adult obesity rate has continued to fall after reaching a record high of 39.9 per cent in 2022. So far in 2026, the adult obesity rate stands at 36.4 per cent.

Gallup describes this as a statistically meaningful decline. The trend has continued to move in the opposite direction to national GLP-1 use, which has increased over the same period.

Gallup calculates obesity using the federal standard of a body mass index of 30 or higher. BMI is calculated using respondents’ self-reported height and weight.

The organisation notes that self-reported data may produce somewhat lower estimates than studies based on randomised clinical measurements of height and weight. Gallup suggests that a “vanity effect” in how people report their own height and weight may help explain this difference. However, because Gallup has used a consistent method over time, the data still provides useful information about changes in the adult obesity rate.

Diabetes diagnoses have levelled off

While obesity levels have declined, the proportion of US adults who report having been diagnosed with diabetes has remained steady since 2023. This follows 15 years of gradual increases that occurred alongside rising obesity rates.

Gallup notes that a falling obesity rate would be expected to stabilise, but not necessarily reduce, the proportion of adults who have ever been diagnosed with diabetes. Diabetes is described in the original analysis as a lifelong disease that can be managed but not cured.

To measure diabetes prevalence, Gallup asked US adults:

“Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have diabetes?”

The diabetes rate includes people with Type 1 diabetes and people with Type 2 diabetes. The 2026 figures for obesity and diabetes are based on 10,091 respondents from surveys conducted from 18 February to 3 March and from 28 May to 5 June 2026.

Brand-name GLP-1 medicines remain the most common option

Among adults currently taking GLP-1 medicines for weight loss, brand-name options remain the most common.

Gallup found that 68 per cent of current use involves brand-name GLP-1 medicines such as Ozempic or Wegovy. By comparison, 19 per cent of current use involves compounded or custom-mixed versions of the medicine.

A further 12 per cent of people currently taking a GLP-1 medicine for weight loss are unsure whether they are using a brand-name medicine.

People using compounded versions report slightly higher effectiveness

Gallup also compared perceived effectiveness between people taking brand-name GLP-1 medicines and those taking compounded or custom-mixed versions.

People using compounded or custom-mixed GLP-1 medicines were slightly more likely to describe the medicine as “extremely effective”. Thirty-nine per cent of people in this group gave that response, compared with 32 per cent of people using brand-name GLP-1 medicines.

However, both groups generally regarded the medicines as effective. Seventy-seven per cent of people using compounded or custom-mixed versions said the medicine was either “effective” or “extremely effective”. Among people using brand-name GLP-1 medicines, the figure was 74 per cent.

Some people are switching from brand-name to compounded GLP-1 medicines

Although brand-name medicines continue to account for most current GLP-1 use, Gallup’s findings suggest that compounded or custom-mixed versions are gaining ground.

Among people currently using compounded or custom-mixed GLP-1 medicines, 35 per cent report having switched from a brand-name medicine. By contrast, 10 per cent of people currently using brand-name GLP-1 medicines say they switched from a compounded or custom-mixed version.

This suggests that movement towards compounded or custom-mixed GLP-1 medicines is greater than movement in the opposite direction.

Cost and insurance coverage appear to be major factors in this shift. Among people who switched from a brand-name GLP-1 medicine to a compounded version, 66 per cent cited cost or insurance coverage as their main reason for switching. Among those who switched from a compounded version to a brand-name medicine, 34 per cent cited cost or insurance coverage as the primary reason.

Wider implications for obesity and diabetes trends

The growing use of GLP-1 medicines for weight loss may point to broader health implications for adults in the US. Gallup’s analysis indicates that increased use of these medicines has coincided with a decline in the adult obesity rate and a levelling off in diabetes diagnoses after years of increases.

Previous research cited in the original analysis has shown a general alignment between GLP-1 use and declining obesity rates across age groups. One exception is adults aged 65 and older, among whom the reported effectiveness of GLP-1 medicines is lower.

Brand-name GLP-1 medicines still lead the market by a wide margin. However, the lower cost of compounded or custom-mixed versions appears to be contributing to a shift away from brand-name options for some people. This may be expanding access to GLP-1 medicines across broader sections of the population, although access remains limited.

Gallup suggests that this broader availability may be one factor helping to drive overall GLP-1 use higher in the US.

Source: Gallup

Read More

Many Who Stop GLP-1 Medications Restart Within a Year, Study Finds

Key Takeaways: 

• Around 4 in 10 people with type 2 diabetes stopped their GLP-1 medication within the first year, rising to nearly 6 in 10 by the end of two years.
  
• Of those who stopped, more than half restarted within a year and nearly two-thirds within two years, suggesting use is often start-and-stop rather than permanent.
  
• Newer medications, a prescription from an endocrinologist, and fewer stomach-related side effects were all linked to a lower likelihood of stopping.
  
  
  

Use is more start-and-stop than assumed

People prescribed GLP-1 medications are more likely to start and stop treatment than many assume, according to a study being presented on Sunday at ENDO 2026, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

“Our study asked two questions that haven’t been well answered until now: How many people with type 2 diabetes taking GLP-1 medications actually stop using them? And how many restart them?” said Sainikhil Sontha, M.S., a research associate at Boston University School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

How the study was carried out

The researchers ran a retrospective cohort study using Komodo Health US claims data covering January 2019 to June 2025. The group included adults aged 18 to 64 years with a BMI of 25 kg/m² or above and type 2 diabetes who had started liraglutide, semaglutide, or tirzepatide, and who had previously enrolled within the last year with more than six months of follow-up.

Discontinuation was defined as a gap of more than 60 days in filling a GLP-1 prescription. Obtaining a new fill after discontinuation was counted as reinitiation.

How many people stopped

“Using insurance records from more than 60,000 Americans with type 2 diabetes, we found that about 4 in 10 patients stopped their GLP-1 medication within the first year, and nearly 6 in 10 had stopped by the end of two years,” Sontha said.

But the team also found something more encouraging.

How many people restarted

“More than half of those who stopped restarted therapy within a year (41.5%), and nearly two-thirds did so within two years (58%),” Sontha said. “This suggests that for many patients, these medications aren’t being abandoned permanently; use is more start-and-stop than most people assumed.”

Who was more likely to stop

Using Cox proportional hazards models, the researchers also accounted for sociodemographic, clinical, and provider-level predictors.

Sontha and colleagues found that people on Medicaid or Medicare, people who are Black, and those experiencing nausea or other stomach-related side effects (37%) were more likely to discontinue a GLP-1 medication within a year.

What was linked to staying on treatment

People were 10% less likely to stop if their first GLP-1 medication was prescribed by an endocrinologist.

The type of medication also made a difference. People taking newer medications such as tirzepatide were 41% less likely to discontinue than those taking older drugs such as liraglutide, while people taking semaglutide were 28% less likely to discontinue anti-obesity medication use than those on older medications.

Why it matters

“This research matters because consistent use of these medications is what produces their protective effects,” Sontha said. “Stopping early may mean missed opportunities to prevent heart attacks, kidney disease progression and other complications.”

The researchers hope the findings give providers, insurers, and policymakers a clearer picture of which patients need more support to stay on GLP-1 medications.

CCH insights:

This study suggests most patients see GLP-1 medications as a temporary treatment to lose weight, rather than a long-term treatment for obesity and cardiometabolic health. It also suggests patients are not getting good advice regarding GLP-1 therapy. In the long-term, patients should be advised to reduce down to the minimum dose that enables them to maintain weight loss and also maintain gains in metabolic markers and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors, rather than stopping and restarting treatment.

Getting that judgement right – knowing when to hold a dose, when to step down rather than stop, how to keep a patient nourished when side effects bite, and how to prepare them for the long term – is exactly what our two-hour CPD course GLP-1RAs in Practice: Supporting Patients During Treatment is built around, for any clinician supporting patients across the full arc of therapy.

Source: Endocrine Society

Read More

A Simple Blood Test Could Identify the Most Effective Obesity Medication

Key Takeaways: 

• A hypothesis-generating pilot study suggests that fasting blood levels of two incretin hormones – GLP-1 and GIP – may help predict how well people with severe obesity respond to semaglutide and tirzepatide.
  
• Low fasting GIP was linked to an optimal response to tirzepatide, while low GLP-1 combined with intermediate-to-high GIP was linked to an optimal response to semaglutide.
  
• The researchers stress that the findings are preliminary and should not guide prescribing until confirmed in larger, adequately powered randomised trials.
  
  
  

A step towards matching patients with the right medication

A straightforward fasting blood test may one day help clinicians decide which obesity medication is most likely to work for an individual patient. That is the tentative conclusion of a new hypothesis-generating pilot study published in the journal Diagnostics, which reports that fasting blood levels of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) may help predict the therapeutic response to semaglutide and tirzepatide in people living with severe obesity.

Why obesity medications produce different responses

Obesity, characterised by excessive fat accumulation in the body, has become a global epidemic, affecting more than 650 million adults worldwide. The condition is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, and all-cause mortality.

Among the pharmacological options, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) such as semaglutide, and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor co-agonists such as tirzepatide, have shown considerable promise in addressing this challenge. One major limitation of these medicines, however, is the marked variability in response between individuals, which has prompted interest in identifying the biological mechanisms that drive this variation.

GLP-1 and GIP are the two principal incretin hormones, secreted by intestinal cells after food is eaten. GLP-1 suppresses appetite and promotes satiety through central nervous system pathways, whereas GIP regulates adipose tissue metabolism and energy expenditure. Acting synergistically, these hormones help to regulate glucose metabolism and appetite, giving them a major role in the management of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Because the incretin system is frequently dysregulated in obesity, researchers at the University of Catania and MEDISAN, both based in Italy, designed the study to investigate whether fasting blood levels of GLP-1 and GIP could help identify people more likely to respond to semaglutide and tirzepatide.

How the pilot study was designed

The study enrolled 90 adults with a BMI greater than 40 kg/m² (class III obesity). Fasting blood samples were collected to measure each participant’s GLP-1 and GIP levels.

Each hormone was independently divided into low, intermediate, and high tertiles – a statistical division of a dataset into three equal parts – based on its distribution across the study population. Combining the GLP-1 and GIP tertiles produced nine distinct hormone profiles, each containing 10 participants. Within every profile, participants were randomly assigned to receive either semaglutide or tirzepatide, with five people allocated to each medicine per profile.

Response to treatment was assessed at six months. A reduction in body weight of less than 5% was classed as a low response, a reduction of 5–15% as an intermediate response, and a reduction of more than 15% as an optimal response.

Low incretin levels shaped treatment outcomes

The analysis showed that participants in the three profiles characterised by the low GIP tertile achieved an optimal response to tirzepatide, regardless of their GLP-1 levels. This suggests that low fasting GIP was associated with greater responsiveness to exogenous GIP receptor agonists such as tirzepatide.

For semaglutide, participants in two profiles – those characterised by a low GLP-1 tertile combined with an intermediate-to-high GIP tertile – were the only ones to achieve an optimal response. This may indicate that low endogenous GLP-1 availability leaves more GLP-1 receptors free for activation by exogenous semaglutide. The intermediate-to-high levels of endogenous GIP, meanwhile, may point to intact or compensatory incretin secretory capacity that does not interfere with the efficacy of a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Participants in the profile characterised by high GLP-1 and high GIP tertiles achieved only a low response to both medicines. The authors suggest this may reflect a dysregulated incretin system that was not overcome by pharmacological doses within six months. They note, however, that fasting hormone measurements alone cannot distinguish between incretin secretory deficiency and receptor resistance, making this interpretation speculative.

On the clinical side, participants who achieved an optimal response to either medicine experienced significant reductions in waist circumference and improvements in insulin sensitivity. These changes paralleled the weight-loss patterns observed across the response groups, indicating clinically meaningful improvements in central adiposity and metabolic health.

How receptor occupancy may explain the findings

The observed variation in response may be explained through incretin receptor occupancy. Tirzepatide, as a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor co-agonist, activates both receptor systems simultaneously. When GIP is present at low abundance (low fasting levels), it cannot fully occupy its receptor, potentially leaving that receptor available for exogenous tirzepatide. Once bound and activated, tirzepatide may then exert greater therapeutic effects by regulating adipose tissue metabolism, energy expenditure, and potentially central appetite regulation.

Semaglutide, which binds and activates the GLP-1 receptor exclusively, may exert its greatest effects when GLP-1 receptors are relatively unoccupied because of low levels of endogenous GLP-1. In these conditions, semaglutide may more effectively restore GLP-1 receptor signalling and deliver its anorectic, insulinotropic, and metabolic effects.

What this could mean for personalised prescribing

Taken together, the study suggests that fasting blood levels of GLP-1 and GIP were associated with the therapeutic response to semaglutide and tirzepatide in people with severe obesity, and may help identify those more likely to respond to treatment. Specifically, low GIP levels were associated with an optimal tirzepatide response, whereas low GLP-1 levels combined with intermediate-to-high GIP levels were associated with an optimal semaglutide response.

Because a single-timepoint measurement of GLP-1 and GIP cannot reveal receptor resistance, the researchers recommend treating these observations as hypothesis-generating, and highlight the need for mechanistic validation through dynamic measurements of incretin levels and receptor activity. Overall, the findings offer preliminary clinical evidence for incretin-guided, personalised pharmacotherapy that could improve treatment outcomes in obesity management.

Limitations and next steps

Several important caveats apply. This was a small, single-centre, open-label pilot study, with only five participants per treatment arm within each hormone profile. In addition, fasting hormone measurements cannot distinguish incretin secretory deficiency from receptor resistance. The authors therefore emphasise that the findings are preliminary and should not guide clinical practice until they are confirmed in larger, adequately powered randomised trials.

CCH insights:

This was a very small scale pilot study, so we can’t draw any conclusions, but it is an important step towards developing tests or measurements that can improve the personalisation of obesity care and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of obesity treatment.

Making sense of early findings like these – and understanding the incretin physiology that explains why semaglutide and tirzepatide can behave so differently from one patient to the next – is exactly what our two-hour CPD course GLP-1RAs in Focus – Why Drugs Like Ozempic Work is built for, giving any clinician the grounding to weigh new GLP-1RA evidence on its merits rather than its headlines.

Read More

Will Wider Use of GLP-1s Mean Fewer Pills for Older Adults? Yale Study Offers a Reality Check

Key Takeaways:

• Yale researchers found that roughly 15% of polypharmacy cases in adults aged 65 and older – about 3.3 million of 22 million – are attributable to obesity.
  
• GLP-1 medications are unlikely to meaningfully reduce overall prescription burden in this age group, and their side effects may add further medications.
  
• From July, eligible Medicare beneficiaries will gain broad access to GLP-1s for obesity treatment under a federally funded demonstration programme running until December 2027.
  
  
  

Rethinking the promise of GLP-1s in geriatric care 

As people grow older, they tend to accumulate chronic conditions, many of which require ongoing pharmacological management. While prescription medications play an essential role in disease control, polypharmacy – generally defined as the regular use of five or more drugs – carries a heightened risk of adverse effects, drug–drug interactions, and contraindications. With glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) now reshaping obesity care, an open question has emerged: could effectively treating obesity in older adults reduce the number of medications they need overall?

A new study from Yale, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, sets out to answer that question by quantifying how much polypharmacy in adults aged 65 and older can be attributed to obesity in the first place.

The theory being tested

The investigators were motivated by a hypothesis that has gained traction in recent years: that better treatment of obesity could cascade into reduced reliance on medications for obesity-related complications such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia.

“Some in the medical community have theorized that if older adults are treated with GLPs, they can be on fewer medications because we’re treating their obesity and thereby treating other obesity-related conditions,” says Alissa Chen, MD, MPH, instructor of medicine (general medicine) and first author of the study.

To test the assumption, the team examined the extent to which polypharmacy in adults aged 65 and older could be statistically attributed to obesity.

What the study found

The researchers determined that approximately 15% of polypharmacy cases in this population were attributable to obesity. In absolute terms, this represented around 3.3 million of an estimated 22 million cases.

“While that is a lot of patients, there’s certainly a large majority of polypharmacy cases which are not attributable to obesity,” Chen adds.

The implication is significant. Even if GLP-1 therapy proves highly effective at treating obesity and its complications in older adults, the broader medication burden in this age group is driven largely by factors unrelated to body weight. As a result, GLP-1s are unlikely to substantially reduce the total number of prescriptions taken by people aged 65 and over, although they may still meaningfully improve obesity-related health outcomes.

A crossroads for obesity medications in older adults

Research into the use of obesity medications in older adults remains limited, and the long-term implications of widespread GLP-1 prescribing in this population are not yet well understood.

“We’re at a crossroads for the use of obesity medications like GLPs in older adults. This study gives us a first glimpse into one way in which GLPs may change the face of health and healthcare for older adults,” says Alexandra M. Hajduk, PhD, MPH, research scientist (geriatrics) and senior author of the study.

Chen also points out that the side-effect profile of GLP-1 therapy is itself worth considering when projecting medication burden. Common adverse effects, including nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhoea, may prompt the addition of over-the-counter or prescription remedies, potentially offsetting any reductions in other classes of medication.

Expanded medicare access from july

The clinical context is changing rapidly. Starting in July, obesity medications will become available at low cost for eligible Medicare beneficiaries under a federally funded demonstration programme running until December 2027. For the first time, GLP-1 medications will be broadly covered by Medicare for the treatment of obesity.

This expansion is widely expected to drive a surge in GLP-1 prescriptions among older adults. What happens after the demonstration period ends, however, is uncertain. If prices rise sharply once the programme concludes, many people may face the prospect of either paying out of pocket or stopping treatment altogether.

The risks of discontinuation

Stopping GLP-1 therapy is not a neutral event, particularly for older adults whose metabolic health may have improved markedly on treatment.

“Discontinuing can lead to worsened insulin resistance, and gaining more fat tissue than had been lost,” Chen says. “This may be dangerous, with some patients ending up in a worse situation after stopping than they were before starting.”

This raises difficult clinical and policy questions about how to ensure continuity of care once the demonstration programme concludes, and how to counsel older adults about the long-term commitment that GLP-1 therapy may represent.

The continuing role of medical reconciliation and deprescribing

The findings reinforce the importance of established tools for managing medication burden in older adults, rather than relying on a single new drug class to resolve polypharmacy.

“The tried-and-true methods for polypharmacy are medical reconciliation and rational deprescribing,” says Chen. “Many of these approaches, developed by and publicized by the National Institutes of Health-funded U.S. Deprescribing Research Network, are effective tools for geriatricians and primary care doctors.”

The researchers conclude that medication burden must remain front of mind when treating older adults, and that further research is needed to clarify how obesity medications affect health outcomes specifically in this age group.

Additional authors on the study include Ashwin Chetty, John Batsis, MD, and Kasia Lipska, MD, MHS.

Source: Yale School of Medicine

Read More