Weight-loss drugs could become as common as statins, says England's top doctor
Weight-loss jabs could eventually be doled out like statins, England's top doctor has said.
Prof Sir Stephen Powis, medical director of the NHS, said the health service should consider the mass rollout of medication to 'turn the tide' on Britain's obesity crisis.
The NHS has been criticised for tightly rationing the jabs, having drawn up a plan for a 12-year rollout.
GPs in England will start prescribing the injections from this month, but only to those with severe obesity and at least one weight-related health problem. Until now, jabs have only been available via specialist services with long waiting lists.
However, NHS pilot schemes will look at ways to roll them out far more widely, including offering jabs through the post, from online pharmacies.
Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK, with about eight million people taking them to cut their chance of a heart attack and stroke.
An estimated 1.5 million people are taking weight-loss jabs in the UK, with the vast majority paying for them privately, at around £200 a month.
'Exciting milestone'
Speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo conference in Manchester, Sir Stephen hailed the rollout in GP surgeries as an 'exciting milestone' and said NHS officials are also examining ways to ' broaden access to the drugs '.
Around 29 per cent of adults in the UK are obese.
Sir Stephen said: 'Right now, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS approximately £11.4 billion every year – this financial burden is unsustainable for the NHS and wider economy.
'We have to turn the tide. We have to and will go further, and faster.
'In just a few years from now, some of today's weight-loss drugs will be available at much lower cost. This could completely transform access to these innovative treatments.
'But we will and must be guided by the evidence base and must do this safely and sustainably, in a way that ensures that we are equipped as a health service to deal with the demand.'
'We'll learn how to deploy them better'
Sir Stephen said that the 'exciting new class of medication' would see wider rollout in the same way that statins had been rolled out en masse.
'There will be more drugs coming on the market. There will be different prices for drugs. We will get to generics, which means that prices will fall,' he said.
'We have been through this over statins, and the use of statins is now very different from when they first came out, and I've no doubt that will be the same for these drugs. So it's very exciting.'
The senior doctor said research suggesting they can prevent and treat multiple diseases, including heart and kidney disease, also meant they were like statins.
'It's highly likely that they will become more widespread, the evidence base will increase. We will learn better how to deploy them,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Resident doctors have good reason to strike over pay
I write in response to the letter from senior clinicians urging resident doctors to vote against strike action (8 June). During my 22-year career we have seen fundamental changes in medical training, including the introduction of tuition fees for medical school, loss of free accommodation for first-year doctors, the lack of expansion in training numbers, and pay erosion over 15 years. This has left many resident doctors with crippling debt on graduation, spiralling costs of training, deteriorating pay, and the prospect of unemployment. I, and the authors of the letter, were fortunate enough not to face such hardships during training. Hence I urge colleagues not to influence the negotiations between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the government regarding resident doctors' pay. A mandate for strike action is a strong negotiating position, and I for one welcome productive discussions between the government and the BMA to reach a fair settlement. If senior clinicians cannot be supportive of our resident doctors, I suggest that they sit on their hands (with regard to writing letters) and bite their Ajay M VermaKettering, Northamptonshire A group of medical professionals write urging resident doctor colleagues to vote against proposed strike action. They cite the Hippocratic oath. They appear to overlook the daily flouting of the oath by colleagues who are active in the systems of American‑accountable care that have replaced a National Health Service in England. In these, 'first do no harm' appears to have been replaced by 'first protect the bottom line'. The unrest among health workers is not merely about pay; it is about the degradation of an entire public service and its subservience to corporate interests, many of them American. Let's have impassioned letters urging the expulsion of Palantir and co and a return to the principles of Bevan rather than BlackRock. It is untrue to say 'there is no spare money'. The money simply goes into the wrong Donovan Birkenhead, Merseyside The six senior doctors who wrote to you are key among those responsible for allowing the NHS to become such an unpleasant work environment for training doctors. As Wes Streeting so eloquently pointed out, the NHS treats training doctors 'like crap'. A lot could be done to improve the working lives of doctors – simply telling them not to strike is unhelpful and suggests indifference to the challenges they face. Declared interest: parent of two resident EvansMonmouth I am a former NHS GP now living and working in Canada. I read with interest that senior doctors recommend junior doctors don't strike. Would these be senior doctors who had their university education paid for by the state, then had their hospital accommodation paid for by the state, and then enjoyed a fixed benefit pension that kicked in at age 60 (for most of their careers)? Society looked after them well. Could it be possible that today's resident doctors have a different point of view for a reason? I suppose the other thing to say is that fixing morale in the NHS and deciding where society spends its money is outside the remit of the doctor. But fixing the NHS is the government's prerogative. Tom NewthNelson, British Columbia, Canada Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Suman Fernando obituary
My friend and colleague Suman Fernando, who has died aged 92, had an international reputation in the field of critical psychiatry, particularly in relation to advocating for race equity in mental health. As well as being a consultant psychiatrist in the NHS for more than 20 years, Suman wrote 14 books and many articles in which he consistently and methodically challenged institutional racism in British mental health provision. In his first book, Race and Culture in Society (1988), he explored the role that race and culture play in how people experience mental health issues and services. In his breakthrough 1991 book, Mental Health, Race and Culture, he challenged the dominance and singularity of the medical model, and argued that any service response for minority communities should also focus on social, cultural and institutional issues. Suman often juxtaposed the western, individualised notion of mental illness with those of the global south or indigenous healing systems that see fragmentation of community cohesion as causal, with responses that are more spiritual and community-based. It is worth noting that the relatively recent inclusion of practices such as mindfulness and yoga into mental health recovery in the west are precisely those that have underpinned indigenous models for centuries. Born in Colombo in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Suman was the son of Charles, a doctor, and his wife, Esme (nee De Mel). He attended Royal college in Colombo, then followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, who had both studied medicine in the UK. Studying at Cambridge University and University College hospital in London, he qualified in 1958. After briefly returning to Ceylon to work in its only psychiatric hospital, on the outskirts of Colombo, he returned in 1960 to the UK, where the following year he married Frances Lefford, whom he had first met when they were students at University College hospital. Working as an NHS psychiatrist at Chase Farm hospital in Enfield, north London, he became a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the early 1970s, and in 1975 received an MD from the University of Cambridge based on his studies in transcultural psychiatry. He retired in 1997. Suman remained deeply connected to his Sri Lankan heritage and supported many institutions and projects in the country, in particular the People's Rural Development Association, which he played a key role in establishing in 2007. He was also a partner in the Trauma and Global Health programme organised by McGill University in Montreal, Canada, which brought valuable mental health training to Sri Lanka. I first met Suman in Sri Lanka in the 90s, where we were both undertaking voluntary work. He was a kind, warm, humble and generous person who made time for everyone. He is survived by Frances, his daughter, Siri, two grandsons, Nathan and Alec, his brother Sunimal and sister Susila.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Fears assisted dying bill could be defeated as MPs warn ‘tide is turning'
There are growing fears Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill could be defeated when it returns to the Commons next week, as MPs claim confidence in it is rapidly being lost. The warning comes as Ms Leadbeater suffered her first major defeat on Friday, after MPs voted to introduce new safeguards to prevent health professionals raising the subject of assisted dying with children. They voted 259 in favour and 216 against an amendment tabled by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier stating 'no health professional shall raise assisted dying with a person under 18'. It is understood Ms Leadbeater didn't support the amendment because she agrees with the British Medical Association, which has said doctors should not be put in the position where they are barred from raising it with patients. It comes amid concerns that if people under 18 with terminal illnesses are unable to get the advice they want from their doctor, they will turn to the internet, where they are more likely to be subject to misinformation. Labour MP Paul Waugh told The Independent that today's voting shows the bill has 'rapidly lost the confidence of MPs', adding that the 'strong momentum against it is now clear'. 'It had a Commons majority of 56 last November. That was cut to 36 last month on a key amendment. Today, we saw a further cut of the majority to 21 and 26 on amendments. And the final vote - a big defeat for the proposer of the bill by 43 votes - just underlined how uncomfortable MPs are.' Mr Waugh added: 'The more the scrutiny of this particular bill, the more MPs have deep concerns about its lack of safeguards for the vulnerable.' But sources close to Ms Leadbeater insisted there is no reason to believe momentum is being lost, pointing out that the decline in majorities came as a result of fewer MPs attending the debate overall. It is understood that Ms Leadbeater is confident that support for it remains strong. Kit Malthouse, who supports the bill said: "The evidence from today is that our numbers held strong. Our majority proportionally was the same. On one vote, where a fine judgment was required, obviously views of colleagues differed. But if anything, that would probably strengthen their conviction to vote for the bill, having supported us in other votes.' Danny Kruger, who has been a vocal opponent of the bill, said he is 'increasingly hopeful' it will be voted down next week. 'The tide is turning on the Assisted Suicide Bill', he said. While he described the success of the amendment to prevent health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with children as a 'big victory', he warned that the bill is 'still way too open to abuse'. Rachael Maskell, who is against the bill, added: 'It is clear that now MPs are engaging in the detail of the Bill that they can see the cracks and are losing confidence'. 'A very different picture was painted today to when the Bill passed with 56 votes in the autumn to an amendment passing by 43 votes today against the will of the Bill's sponsor. MPs now need to engage with the evidence which clearly sets out why this particular Bill is not fit for purpose', she told The Independent. But pro-assisted dying sources pointed out that people on both sides of the debate voted to support the extra safeguards for children. Debating the amendment, Dr Neil-Shastri-Hurst MP, a medical doctor, said: 'Those who have had the privilege of meeting a young person living with a terminal illness will know that they often display a maturity and a depth of understanding far beyond their years. 'To deny them the opportunity of a considered conversation about their future upon reaching adulthood is not an act of compassion, in my view; it is to abandon them. 'It is to leave them isolated, navigating a complex and deeply personal journey through the filter of online forums, rather than in dialogue with trusted, qualified professionals. We owe them better than that.' Opinion in the medical community has been divided over the bill, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) expressing concern, while some MPs who are doctors are among the Bill's strongest supporters. Seven RCPsych members, including a former president and vice president, have written to MPs to distance themselves from their college's concern, instead describing the Bill as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework'. Meanwhile, Claire Macdonald, director of My Death, My Decision said 'no-one should be forced to suffer, and the British public wants politicians to change the law on assisted dying'. In a letter to MPs this week, Ms Leadbeater said supporters and opponents appear in agreement that 'if we are to pass this legislation, it should be the best and safest Bill possible'. She added: 'I'm confident it can and will be.' The proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
