Weight loss, diabetes drugs can cause mood changes: What to know about behavioral side effects
GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), medications that help control type 2 diabetes and obesity, can have a profound impact on physical wellness – but what about mental health?
Some examples of these medications include semaglutides, such as Ozempic and Wegovy, and liraglutide, like Victoza and Saxenda.
Various studies have pointed toward GLP-1 RAs causing mental health complications, such as anxiety and depression.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published research in June 2024 that considered the correlation between semaglutide therapy and "exacerbating mood disturbances."
The study highlighted the association of negative mood changes in patients with type 2 diabetes with a history of depression, warning healthcare providers to be aware of this "potential risk."
But a more recent study, published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, suggested that these mood changes were linked to genetic variations across diverse populations and ancestries within the U.K. Biobank.
While GLP-1 RA variants had "consistent cardiometabolic effects" across all groups, the researchers said the negative impacts on mental health were "more varied," concluding that any behavioral changes are "likely not acting directly through [the medications]."
Dr. Brett Osborn, a Florida neurosurgeon who often prescribes GLP-1 RAs to his patients, believes that there is "no consistent causal relationship" between these medications and mental illness.
"Researchers assayed genetic markers across almost half a million people from different backgrounds in search of a link between the gene behind GLP-1 receptors and mental health problems like depression, anxiety or suicidal ideation — and they didn't find it," he summarized.
People who are obese or battling type 2 diabetes are "often already depressed" without the medication, the doctor pointed out.
"These conditions take a toll – physically, emotionally and socially," he said. "So, yes, a large portion of patients starting GLP-1 drugs are already dealing with mental health struggles. But that's not because of the drug — that's because of the disease."
Once these individuals begin dropping weight, blood sugar stabilizes and energy improves, which usually lifts their mood as well.
"GLP-1 drugs help people reclaim their health," Osborn noted. "They reduce inflammation. They lower blood sugar. They shrink waistlines."
"And when people look and feel better, when their bodies finally start working for them instead of against them, they often smile more, not less."
Dr. Muhammad Ghanem, a bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery Institute, shared in a separate interview with Fox News Digital that while some of his patients have reported mood changes, others "don't have that at all."
"Depression or mood changes are very common regardless, especially nowadays, and so it's hard to [determine] whether this is related to the GLP-1 agonist medications, or whether it just happens to be that they started suffering from these after they started that medication," he said.
"It's really hard to tell whether it's a personality change that can happen because of weight loss or if it's a side effect because of mood changes," he added. "I don't think we have enough data to reach that conclusion yet."
Patients who lose weight with GLP-1 RAs can experience a "big boost" in confidence, as well as a change in personality and even relationships, according to Ghanem.
"It really depends on the person and the support system they have," he said. "You need proper, randomized controlled trials to reach a conclusion, and better studies to determine whether this is related to the medication itself or just weight loss."
"It's important for all doctors who prescribe these drugs to be aware and check the patient's history."
For those who are interested in these medications or are experiencing mood changes while taking them, the surgeon stressed the importance of keeping in close contact with medical providers.
"Just like any other medication, they can have potential side effects," he said.
Ghanem recommended seeking out professionals and practices who take a "holistic approach" to weight loss, offering mental health support in addition to medication.
Dr. Brunilda Nazario, MD, chief physician editor of medical affairs at WebMD, told Fox News Digital that "obesity is complicated."
"Obesity specialists … are cautiously excited about how well these drugs work," she said.
"With current studies showing conflicting results on mood disorders and the use of GLP-1 drugs, it's important for all doctors who prescribe these drugs to be aware and check the patient's history before prescribing [them]."
Nazario stressed that it's "vital" for GLP-1 RA users to listen to their bodies, urging them to pay attention to their feelings and know the symptoms of mood disorders.
"Don't be afraid to ask for help if you feel something is not right — your health depends on it," he added.
Nazario noted that GLP-1 RAs can affect mood in many different ways.
"They are not all negative — they have the potential to improve mood as well," she said. "Just seeing great results can boost self-esteem, confidence and body image."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
15 minutes ago
- E&E News
Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May
Climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere broke another record last month, breaching 430 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, whose researchers track atmospheric CO2, publicly announced the findings Thursday morning. NOAA announced the findings in social media posts on X and Facebook, linking to the public data on its website. The agency also typically reveals the annual CO2 in a news release, like last year's announcement, but hadn't done so as of 12:30 p.m. ET on Thursday. Advertisement Kim Doster, NOAA's director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
UnitedHealthcare accused The Guardian of looking to ‘capitalize' on CEO's murder in lawsuit
UnitedHealthcare sued The Guardian and its parent on Wednesday for defamation, claiming the US version of the British daily newspaper ran information it knew to be incorrect in order to 'capitalize' on the assassination of the medical insurer's CEO. The article in question was produced and published by The Guardian's US investigations team as part of a series titled 'Too Big to Care' and was available worldwide at publication. In the article, George Joseph, an investigative reporter for The Guardian's US publication, wrote that UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare's parent, had engaged in cost-cutting tactics by paying off nurses to cut down on hospital transfers. Citing internal emails, documents and interviews with more than 20 current and former staffers, the report claimed that the payments were made 'as part of a UnitedHealth program.' Nursing home residents in need of 'immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it' because of 'interventions from UnitedHealth staffers,' per the report. The lawsuit from UnitedHealth Group, United Healthcare Services and Optum, the group's health services segment, filed in Delaware's Superior Court, accused The Guardian of publishing 'knowingly false claims' in the story, alleging it used 'deceptively doctored documents' and 'patently untruthful anecdotes' to produce the article. 'The Guardian knew these accusations were false, but published them anyway, brazenly trying to capitalize on the tragic and shocking assassination of UnitedHealthcare's then-CEO, Brian Thompson,' the lawsuit alleged. The Guardian is strongly pushing back against UnitedHealthcare's lawsuit, emphasizing in a statement that it will defend Joseph's reporting. 'The Guardian stands by its deeply-sourced, independent reporting, which is based on thousands of corporate and patient records, publicly filed lawsuits, declarations submitted to federal and state agencies, and interviews with more than 20 current and former UnitedHealth employees — as well as statements and information provided by UnitedHealth itself over several weeks,' The Guardian said in a statement. 'It's outrageous that in response to factual reporting on the practice of secretly paying nursing homes to reduce hospitalizations for vulnerable patients, UnitedHealth is resorting to wildly misleading claims and intimidation tactics via the courts,' the publication said. The health care giant's accusations echo a statement published by UnitedHealth Group the same day The Guardian released its investigation. In the statement, the company accused the publication of building a 'narrative' using 'anecdotes rather than facts.' The company noted that the Justice Department had investigated the allegations, interviewed witnesses, and combed through thousands of documents, only to find 'the significant factual inaccuracies in the allegations.' A UnitedHealth Group spokesperson told CNN that The Guardian 'refused to engage with the truth and chose instead to print its predetermined narrative.' 'The Guardian knowingly published false and misleading claims about our Institutional Special Needs Program, forcing us to take action to protect the clinician-patient relationship that is crucial for delivering high-quality care,' the company said in a statement. However, despite the claim, a spokesperson for The Guardian told CNN that it has 'received no requests for correction or retraction on any aspect of the story.' UnitedHealthcare is being represented by Clare Locke, a law firm known for taking on defamation cases against media organizations. The firm has also represented Project Veritas; and one of its partners, Jered Ede, who is working on the UnitedHealthcare lawsuit, was also Project Veritas's chief legal officer.
Wall Street Journal
19 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?
