logo
Surgery Still Beats Ozempic and Other GLP-1 Drugs in Real-World Weight Loss Study

Surgery Still Beats Ozempic and Other GLP-1 Drugs in Real-World Weight Loss Study

Gizmodo6 hours ago

When it comes to weight loss, surgery still reigns supreme. Research out today shows that people undergoing bariatric surgery tend to lose significantly more weight than people taking the newest, most effective GLP-1 medications for obesity.
Scientists at New York University conducted the study, which analyzed real-world data from obesity patients. People who received surgery lost five times more weight over a two year span on average than those who were prescribed a GLP-1 drug, they found. The findings also suggest that GLP-1 drugs aren't as effective in the real world as they are in clinical trials, the researchers say.
'I think the takeaway is when you see a new popular drug come out, you have to take it with a grain of salt. And I think you have to wait a few years for the real world data to come out, because it might temper the results you're seeing in trials,' senior study researcher Karan Chhabra, a bariatric surgeon and assistant professor of surgery and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told Gizmodo.
Bariatric surgery—particularly the sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass—has long been considered the most effective treatment for obesity. People usually lose between 20% and 30% of their baseline weight following surgery, and often experience long-lasting improvements in their general health as a result.
But in recent years, the emergence of newer GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide (the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy) has dramatically changed the field of obesity medicine. These drugs are typically more effective (and safer) than past nonsurgical obesity treatments, with people on average losing between 10% and 20% of their weight in clinical trials. And they, too, have been associated with health benefits that extend beyond weight loss.
At first glance, the data had suggested GLP-1 drugs could approach—or even surpass—the effectiveness of bariatric surgery. But according to Chhabra, there hasn't yet been a rigorous head-to-head comparison of these two different types of obesity treatments among real-world patients.
Chhabra and his colleagues examined the anonymous medical records of over 50,000 people who received surgery (either a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass) or GLP-1 therapy (either semaglutide or tirzepatide) through NYU Langone Health or NYC Health + Hospitals between 2018 and 2024. The researchers adjusted for factors like age, starting BMI, and other health conditions to make the two groups comparable. The patients and their weight loss outcomes were tracked for two years.
On average, surgical patients lost 58 pounds (around 24% of their total weight) by the end of year two, whereas GLP-1 patients on average lost 12 pounds (around 4.7% of their total weight)—a fivefold difference. The results were slightly better for people who stayed on their medications for a full year (7% weight loss) and for those who took tirzepatide, the newest and most effective GLP-1 drug available (8% to 9%). But the outcomes still fell well short of the success seen with surgery—not to mention the results from earlier clinical trials.
The team's findings were presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS).
There are likely several reasons why these drugs aren't as successful as they've appeared to be in trials, Chhabra noted. As many as 70% of GLP-1 patients discontinue use by the first year, for instance. Some will quit because the side effects, typically gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea and diarrhea, are too much to bear; others may stop simply because they can't afford the drugs any longer (GLP-1 medications often aren't covered by insurance and can cost upwards of $1,000 a month without coverage). Many of the GLP-1 patients in their study also never reached the maximum dose.
Chhabra also suspects that many people in the real world aren't getting the supportive care and follow-up they would get from doctors in a clinical trial. GLP-1 drugs have fueled a growing telemedicine industry—for instance, one in which people are often prescribed the medications remotely by medical professionals they'll never interact with personally. (Until recently, people could also easily get compounded versions of semaglutide and tirzepatide, with even less assurance of safety or effectiveness.)
The researchers aren't saying that people with obesity shouldn't take GLP-1 drugs, nor that bariatric surgery is the ideal option for everyone. Some people might prefer a one-time treatment, for instance, or may not have the insurance or resources needed to cover long-term GLP-1 therapy. Others may be nervous about going through with any invasive procedure or have other pre-existing conditions that could complicate surgery but not GLP-1 therapy.
At the end of the day, people will need to be aware of these treatments' respective pros and cons, and those who choose to go with GLP-1s should manage their expectations, according to Chhabra.
'They have to know that, at least as of now in the real world, their weight loss is not going to be what we're seeing with surgery and they also have to know that it's a lifelong treatment,' he said. 'We don't yet have any protocols for people to maintain weight loss once they've stopped medications so it's important for people to just acknowledge those realities. And I worry that a lot of people are starting medications without really knowing what they're getting into.'
The team next plans to sift through more data to figure out exactly why real-life patients on GLP-1 therapy aren't losing as much weight as expected.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How MAHA and AI can transform public health
How MAHA and AI can transform public health

Fast Company

time25 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

How MAHA and AI can transform public health

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement represents a transformative opportunity to reshape the landscape of public health in the United States. With chronic disease now widely recognized as a pressing public health crisis, there is an urgent need for innovative solutions that go beyond traditional approaches. The MAHA Commission has set the stage for a new era in health policy, and artificial intelligence can serve as a pivotal force in accelerating its impact. By integrating AI and centralized health data, MAHA can drive meaningful progress in nutrition and metabolic health, offering personalized and scientifically-backed solutions to combat chronic disease. Recent developments surrounding the regulation of synthetic food dyes signal a major milestone in American health policy. We are witnessing the first serious crack in the armor of the U.S. food industry. For decades, tens of millions of Americans have unknowingly consumed potentially harmful chemicals such as Yellow 5 and Red 40, dyes already restricted in Europe. The FDA's decision to phase out these additives represents a meaningful shift toward a safer, more transparent food system. This is a critical and positive step forward: Food should nourish, not harm. As someone deeply committed to advancing health outcomes, I view this as a welcome and necessary correction. Don't politicize health While MAHA and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK) have drawn both support and criticism, my focus remains clear: How do we improve health? On that front, I support any movement taking tangible steps to make our food supply healthier and more accountable. Historically, public health recommendations have been one-size-fits-all, often failing to address the individual metabolic and lifestyle factors that shape personal health outcomes. MAHA has the potential to change this paradigm by embracing AI-driven personalized medicine. AI can analyze vast datasets spanning dietary habits, genetic predispositions, and environmental exposures to generate tailored health recommendations that empower individuals to make optimal nutritional choices. I am opposed to the politicization of American health. It disproportionately harms the most vulnerable, particularly low-income communities, who already face significant barriers to accessing nutritious food. My focus is metabolic health, and our most urgent challenge is what's on our plates. The fact that more than 10,000 chemicals are permitted in the U.S. food supply, while only about 400 are allowed in Europe, is indefensible. This is not just a regulatory gap; it is a public health failure that must be addressed. No one has successfully challenged the U.S. food industry until now. Some states are proposing or adopting changes aligned with MAHA such as soda bans, dye eliminations, and ultra-processed food limits in schools, and some corporations like PepsiCo are eliminating food dyes from its products. Over half of U.S. states are introducing legislation to address synthetic dyes. With MAHA's clear intentions, any company that wants its food served in America's largest restaurant chain (i.e. American school cafeterias), is asking themselves how they can realistically get dyes out of their foods. AI can help It is now widely acknowledged that diet plays a fundamental role in chronic conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, which affect 133 million Americans. Despite this awareness, progress in addressing these issues has been slow. In addition to the important steps of improving school lunches and banning potentially harmful chemicals from foods, AI-powered tools can also be incorporated into preventive care in programs like Medicare wellness visits, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), school health education, and veteran services. AI tools can provide real-time insights into the metabolic effects of foods before consumption, enabling individuals to make healthier choices based on their unique health profiles. They can also create highly personalized plans and virtual coaches to help individuals reach their health goals. For AI to fulfill its potential, it must be fueled by centralized, comprehensive health data. A unified data repository that aggregates nutritional information, health metrics, and environmental factors across diverse communities is essential. This centralized approach enhances the accuracy and responsiveness of AI algorithms, ensuring that health recommendations evolve in tandem with emerging scientific research. Realizing this vision will require close collaboration between government agencies, private-sector innovators, and healthcare and technology experts. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, especially under leaders like Michael Kratsios, can partner with Silicon Valley's AI leaders to set new standards for data-driven health policy. Together, we can ensure AI-driven insights are accessible to all Americans. We are living through a rare window of possibility. As RFK Jr. and MAHA work to improve our food system and as AI becomes a force multiplier for health equity, we have the tools to take real action. The removal of food dyes is only the beginning. The real test for all of us, including MAHA, is whether we can also address the larger crises of ultra-processed food, excess sugar, and nutritional inequality. The future of public health depends not on ideological battles, but on constructive action. Let's focus on what matters: addressing the root cause, rather than just treating chronic disease, and improving the health span of all Americans.

Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities

Associated Press

time35 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities

A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states. It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated. Their lawsuit, filed in late April, alleged $11 billion in cuts to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs had already been approved by Congress and are being unconstitutionally withheld. They also argued that the administration's actions violate Department of Health and Human Services regulations. The cities and counties argued the cuts were 'a massive blow to U.S. public health at a time where state and local public health departments need to address burgeoning infectious diseases and chronic illnesses, like the measles, bird flu, and mpox.' The cuts would lead to thousands of state and local public health employees being fired, the lawsuit argued. The local governments, alongside the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, wanted the court to reinstate the grants nationwide. But Cooper said in his preliminary injunction that the funds can only be blocked to the four municipalities and in a May 21 hearing expressed skepticism about whether it could apply more widely. The funding in question was granted during the COVID-19 pandemic but aimed at building up public health infrastructure overall, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said in a statement in April. The four local governments were owed about $32.7 million in future grant payments, Cooper's opinion notes. The federal government's lawyers said the grants were legally cut because, 'Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.' They used the same argument in the case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia over the HHS funding clawback. Menefee said the cuts defunded programs in Harris County for wastewater disease surveillance, community health workers and clinics and call centers that helped people get vaccinated. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the cuts forced the city to fire 11 of its 22 infectious disease staffers. Nashville used some of its grant money to support programs, including a 'strike team' that after the pandemic addressed gaps in health services that kept kids from being able to enroll in school, according to the lawsuit. Kansas City used one of its grants to build out capabilities to test locally for COVID-19, influenza and measles rather than waiting for results from the county lab. The suit details that after four years of work to certify facilities and train staff, the city 'was at the final step' of buying lab equipment when the grant was canceled. Representatives for HHS, the CDC, the cities and Harris County did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Michigan expands "do no eat" advisory for wild caught fish
Michigan expands "do no eat" advisory for wild caught fish

CBS News

timean hour ago

  • CBS News

Michigan expands "do no eat" advisory for wild caught fish

The state of Michigan has nearly tripled the bodies of water that it warns residents not to eat fish from due to heightened levels of PFAS, also known as forever chemicals. Testing of edible portions of fish found in rivers and lakes around the state revealed detectable levels of PFOS, a type of PFAS. In the Huron River in Ann Arbor, PFOS sometimes presents as a white foam on the water's surface and is considered toxic for humans to ingest. "You shouldn't eat any of the fish in the river with the contamination that's in it right now," said Mike Mouradian, education director for Ann Arbor Trout Unlimited. In addition to residents relying on fish for food security, Mouradian said he's concerned international visitors to the city may not understand the warnings. "We're working with the Huron River Watershed Council and the city to have signs in a variety of languages," he said. "It's a cultural thing. In Ann Arbor, we have people from all over the world visit us, and when they catch a fish, they eat it ... When I see people fishing and they've got a bucket, I usually talk to them about it." Kevin Baker and his son come to Island Park to fish as a hobby. "We have been fishing around in the Huron River a little bit, and we don't eat the fish here – we do it for sport," said Baker. "We are aware of some of the environmental pollution issues in the area and also the updated guidance." According to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the 2025 Eat Safe Fish Guide was expanded due to new, more conservative guidelines when it comes to PFOS contamination. "Science has been emerging with understanding of PFOS toxicity that it's more toxic than originally thought," said Marcus Wasilevich, MDHHS toxicology and assessment section manager. "We're also realizing that people in the United States, including residents of Michigan here, have a background exposure to PFOS. Everybody has PFOS already in their bloodstream, even if they don't eat fish. So, taking that into consideration as well as taking into consideration that PFOS is more toxic now than it was thought 10 years ago, our 2025 guides have more conservative consumption recommendations based on PFOS." Wasilevich said out of the 11,000 bodies of water in the state, 600 have been tested for PFOS. In Michigan, mercury continues to be the main contaminant of concern in wild-caught fish, followed by PFOS. "If you look at the guides and do not find your types of fish, or your water body that has been tested, then follow the statewide guidelines that will be in place mostly due to mercury," said Wasilevich. Visit the state's website to see the complete MDHHS 2025 Eat Safe Fish Guide.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store