Weight-loss medications may also benefit common medical problem, study finds
A team of international researchers from Ireland and Saudi Arabia followed 262 adult patients with obesity who started taking two GLP-1 medications: liraglutide or semaglutide.
Among the regular drinkers, weekly alcohol intake decreased by 68%, from approximately 23 units of alcohol to around 8 units.
The findings were recently published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism and were also presented last week at the European Congress on Obesity in Spain.
GLP-1 agonists mimic a hormone called GLP-1, which is released from the gastrointestinal system after eating, according to study co-author Carel Le Roux, a professor at University College Dublin.
These medications activate GLP-1 receptors in the brain, decreasing the sense of "reward" people feel after eating or drinking, eventually leading to reduced cravings for both food and alcohol, he told Fox News Digital.
"It is this commonality of function that suggests the GLP-1 receptors in the brain may be a therapeutic target for not just the disease of obesity, but also for alcohol use disorder," the professor said.
Before the participants started the weight-loss drugs, they self-reported their weekly alcohol intake, then were categorized as non-drinkers, rare drinkers or regular drinkers.
Approximately 72% had at least two follow-up visits and 68% reported regular alcohol consumption.
After starting the weight-loss medications, the participants' weekly average alcohol intake decreased by almost two-thirds overall — from approximately 11 units of alcohol to four units after four months of treatment with the GLP-1 agonists.
The reduction in alcohol use was comparable to the decrease that can be achieved by nalmefene, a drug that decreases the "buzz" feeling in people with alcohol use disorder in Europe, according to the researchers.
For the 188 patients who were followed over an average of four months, none had increased their alcohol intake after starting the weight-loss medications.
Patients reported that after an evening meal, they were too full to have their usual drink — and when they did drink, they reported becoming full extremely quickly and drinking at a slower pace, Le Roux noted.
"The findings in this study suggest that we may have just found a therapeutic target for alcohol use disorder."
This suggests that the experience was less enjoyable, partly due to the reduced rate of alcohol absorption.
Some patients also reported that they didn't enjoy the flavor of the alcoholic beverages as much, and also that hangovers were much worse.
All of these experiences showed that the weight-loss medications create "guard rails" that prevent most patients from drinking excessively, giving them a degree of control over their alcohol intake, according to Le Roux.
"The findings in this study suggest that we may have just found a therapeutic target for alcohol use disorder — the GLP-1 receptor," the professor told Fox News Digital.
"This finding potentially opens the possibility of an entirely new pharmacological treatment paradigm, which could be used in conjunction with conventional methods, such as behavior therapy and group support."
The study was limited by its relatively small number of patients, the researchers acknowledged.
Also, the researchers were not able to verify the participants' self-reported alcohol intake, and roughly one-third of them were not available for follow-up.
There was also no control group, which means the researchers couldn't prove that taking weight-loss medication reduces alcohol intake.
"Randomized, controlled trials with diverse patient populations — including patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder — are needed to provide the quality and quantity of data that could be used to support an application for licensing the medication for the treatment of alcohol use disorder," Le Roux said.
(One such trial is currently underway in Denmark.)
With the current medications available to treat alcohol use disorder, the "major problem" is compliance, Le Roux said — "because the cravings for alcohol tend to come in waves."
"This means a patient might be fully committed to treatment at one point in the week, but then stop taking the medication later in the week when a craving comes," the professor added.
There are currently three FDA-approved medications to treat alcohol use disorder: naltrexone (which helps decrease cravings by reducing the "buzz" feeling that comes with drinking alcohol); disulfiram (which helps some people avoid alcohol by making them feel sick when they drink), and acamprosate (which restores the balance of hormones in the brain to reduce cravings), according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
But less than 10% of people with alcohol use disorder get the proper treatment, with many resuming use within the first year of treatment, past research shows.
The main advantage of the GLP-1 agonists is that they only need to be taken once a week and continue to work for the entire week.
Outside experts say the study's findings highlight the potential of weight-loss medications to help treat alcohol use disorder.
"This research suggests a promising ancillary benefit of GLP-1 analogs, potentially influencing cravings for alcohol and offering a new avenue for managing alcohol use disorder," Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, who was not part of the study, told Fox News Digital.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"While the exact mechanisms are still being explored, the findings contribute to our understanding of the broader benefits of GLP-1 analogs beyond obesity treatment," Stanford added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Is Red Meat Bad for You? The Proof Is in the Processing
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Is red meat bad for you? On the one hand, meat makes you strong, and it's every American's God-given right to grill a steak on his barbecue during the summer. I believe this came up in a church synod at some point… But on the other hand, the WHO (World Health Organization) has declared red meat a carcinogen, with a hot dog being as bad as cigarette. Yes, that was headline when the report came out. So, how do we reconcile these opposing ideas? Part of the solution is realizing the WHO organization in question is based in France. Maybe they're still angry about the "freedom fries" thing, but actually examining the nuances of the French language will help us understand what's going on. If you don't speak French, don't worry I got you covered. Ce n'est pas si difficile de tout n'inquiétez vous pas. Vous allez voir . Sit back, grab a baguette, and let's find out how dangerous red meat really is. I'm Christopher Labos, and this is Medscape's On Second Thought . Bonjour, tout le monde! Now, meat doesn't seem like it should be a complex topic to study, but it is. Many people around the world eat animals, but we don't all eat the same animals. For example, this is a cow, often used to make hamburger and steak. And this is Tobi, God's perfect angel who gets a more elaborate birthday party than I do each year. He is my son, and I would throw myself in front of a moving car for him. By necessity, when we do medical research on meat, we are lumping together a whole lot of a different human behavior, with people eating different types of animals based on where they live. There's no real alternative, and frankly, you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Most credible research will at least separate out red meat from white meat. But most people don't really know what the difference is. If you thought pork was white meat, you're wrong. You think that because of a marketing slogan. In 1987, the National Pork Board paid for the marketing campaign "Pork. The Other White Meat." They were basically trying to position pork as an alternative to chicken. People also usually think veal or deer is white meat. They think the difference between white and red meat has something to do the age of the animal, whether its free range, or the color of the meat. But it doesn't. Chefs and restaurants say all kinds of things, but the real definition is simple: Mammals are red meat, and birds are white meat. Now, there's another thing we need to explain. We have red meat, but we also have processed red meat. Processed red meat is when red meat is transformed in some way — and that doesn't mean cooking. If you just take a piece of steak and cook it on your barbecue or in the oven, that's not processed meat. Processing is doing things like salting the meat, smoking it, or curing it. Processed meat includes items like bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corn beef, and smoked meat. So, when we talk about red meat and health risks, we are primarily talking about processed red meat. And the people talking about this are the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC). IARC is a WHO organization, and their mandate is to promote international research on cancer — particularly its cause. One of their programs is a monograph program that evaluates the evidence of the carcinogenicity of specific exposures. Here's where a knowledge of French is going to come in handy. IARC likes to look at something called the hazard, rather than the risk. In fact, every time they have a press conference, they spend about 5 minutes explaining the difference to people, which begs the question: Why not just study risk and be done with it? In English, those words seem pretty much like synonyms. And with the way most people use them, they essentially are. But in French, they are slightly different. Le risque et le hasard don't quite mean the same thing in French. To be fair, their definitions are technically different in English, as well — as those of you who read the dictionary for fun already know. A risk is the probability that something harmful will happen. A hazard is a potential source of harm. For example, a grenade is a hazardous thing to have on your desk, but the risk of it exploding is quite low… unless you pull the pin. IARC is researching hazard. They are evaluating whether something is associated with cancer, not how risky that something is. IARC categorizes everything into groups: carcinogenic to humans, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, or not classifiable. There is technically a "not carcinogenic" group, but there's nothing in there. Well, there was one substance in there for a bit, but they removed it. Comment below if you know what that substance is. Here's a hint: You find it in yoga pants. So, IARC has never found anything that doesn't cause cancer. When they go hunting for heffalumps and woozles, they find heffalumps and woozles. To be fair, which I am under no contractual obligation to be, they are a WHO agency, and they are tasked to review substances that are of interest to world governments. As such, they are not going to review stuff that is clearly unrelated to cancer… but still. They put a lot of stuff in Group 1, the (definitely) carcinogenic group. Tamoxifen is in Group 1, and as most of you know, tamoxifen treats breast cancer. It has saved countless lives. Calling it a carcinogen sounds a bit daft, but it is associated with abnormal uterine bleeding and an increased risk of uterine cancer. And the data is pretty uncontroversial, right? Thus, IARC says, 'We are certain this association is true, therefore it goes in Group 1.' But what's the risk of tamoxifen causing uterine cancer? It's 0.3% on the absolute risk scale. It's basically zero and a heck of a lot lower than the breast cancer risk. Clearly, you should take the drug if you have ER-positive breast cancer. So, this is the problem. IARC is saying how certain they are that something is dangerous, but not how dangerous something is. Conclusive data will land a substance into Group 1: carcinogenic. Strong but not conclusive data goes into Group 2a: probably carcinogenic. If there's only some evidence, contradictory evidence, or maybe just animal data, you get sorted into Group 2b: possibly carcinogenic. And Group 3 is used when there's not much data to work off of. Generally, their system works okay. They put tobacco, asbestos, and gamma radiation in Group 1, which makes sense. But then also put stuff like birth control pills, estrogen, and tamoxifen in Group 1. Sure, there is a small increased risk of breast cancer with birth control pills if you have a family history, but it's a pretty small risk and frankly negligible for the general population — plus, it's largely outweighed by the decrease in ovarian cancer risk that comes with using birth control pills. But IARC isn't doing that type of nuanced calculation. They say, 'Estrogen causes breast cancer. The pill has estrogen. The link is proven. The pill goes into Group 1.' So, it was IARC that reviewed all the data about processed red meat and declared it a Group 1 carcinogen. Fun fact: Unprocessed red meat was only put in Group 2A because the data was less solid. For anybody grilling a steak right now, this doesn't apply to you. But not everybody agreed with IARC. The Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium was a group of researchers who also reviewed the data on red meat and came to a completely different conclusion. Their analysis was motivated by two things: 1) the funding they received from the beef industry (this is why we can't have nice things), and 2) they dismissed much of the research because it comes from observational cohorts, not randomized controlled trials. In food science, randomized controlled trials are hard to conduct, because telling people what to eat is often met with "make me." Regardless, the NutriRECS Consortium conclusion was, 'Keep eating meat, as the data is uncertain because most of it is observational.' This conclusion is a bit reductionist to me, because we have a lot of observational data pointing toward health risks associated with processed red meat, and I have a hard time believing all the stuff added to processed red meat is doing us any favors. But let's take the IARC assessment at face value. They are convinced by the hazard or the hasard. But what's the risk? The cancer risk is most clear cut for colon cancer, which is pretty logical. Your lifetime risk of colon cancer is about 4%, assuming you're of general risk with no family history or genetic risk factors. It's actually 4.2% for males and 4.0% for females, according to the 2022 Cancer Statistics from the American Cancer Society. But let's say 4% for everyone — just for simplicity. The IARC report estimated that eating an extra 50 g of processed meat per day, every day, increased your risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Take 4%, multiply it by 1.18, and you get 4.72%. So, let's say 5% if we're rounding. All this to say, if you eat hot dogs every day of your life, your risk of getting colon cancer goes up by 1 percentage point on the absolute scale. Now, on first instinct you might say, "Pfff, that's nothing. Pass the bratwurst." But 1% on the absolute scale is not trivial. That's thousands of cases per year. Millions of cases over the course of your lifetime in a country of 300 million people. It has some important public health implications. Is the risk high enough for us to stop killing and eating Bambi's mother? Hard to say. It's not negligible, but it's not astronomical either. And there are economic and environmental factors to keep in mind — issues that are often forgotten when we talk about medicine. I will stress one point, though. The IARC estimates of 1% absolute risk increase are about daily consumption of processed meat. You don't need to eat jerky every day of your life. For Medscape, I'm Dr Christopher Labos… with Tobi.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
How Ozempic Impacts Beauty Standards By Changing Your Smile
In an era where social media fuels our obsession with perfection, a new beauty anxiety has emerged from an unexpected source. As GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic promise rapid weight loss, users are discovering that achieving the "ideal" body may come with an unintended trade-off: a transformed smile that doesn't match society's beauty standards. The phenomenon, dubbed "Ozempic mouth," has become increasingly visible as celebrities and influencers showcase dramatic physical changes following prolonged use of these medications. What was once celebrated as a medical breakthrough for weight management has revealed a complex relationship between our pursuit of one beauty ideal and the unintended consequences that can undermine our confidence in other ways. How Your Smile Changes Because Of Ozempic Fat loss in the cheeks and jawline, common side effects of rapid weight loss, can cause gums to appear more prominent and smiles to look aged or sunken. For many, this creates a cruel irony: achieving the body they wanted while potentially compromising the smile they once loved. This shift reflects our ever-evolving beauty standards, where one "fix" can inadvertently create another perceived flaw. As Dr. Sandra García Martin, founder of DR. S LONDON on Harley Street, observes, she's witnessing increasing numbers of patients seeking solutions for oral health issues that weren't present before their weight loss journey began. The Medical Reality Behind "Ozempic Mouth" The dental changes associated with GLP-1 drugs extend far beyond cosmetic concerns. Dr. Martin has documented a range of oral health issues in her patients, including xerostomia (chronic dry mouth) leading to reduced saliva production, gum inflammation and recession that can permanently alter smile appearance, delayed healing following dental procedures like extractions or implant placement, altered taste sensation affecting eating habits and oral care, and increased tooth decay due to reduced protective saliva. "Dentists should check for signs of xerostomia, increased caries, gingival inflammation, and tooth wear suggesting bruxism that wasn't there previously," Dr. García Martin explains. The mechanism behind these changes is multifaceted. Ozempic's appetite-suppressing effects often lead to reduced fluid intake and dehydration. Additionally, according to Harvard Medical School, the gastrointestinal side effects including nausea, vomiting, and silent reflux expose teeth to harmful stomach acids. Many patients unknowingly worsen the problem by consuming acidic beverages like citrus water or flavored teas to combat nausea. Professional Solutions To Prevent and Treat "Ozempic Mouth" Dental professionals are developing targeted approaches to address these challenges. Dr. Ali from Emerdency emphasizes the importance of protective strategies, explaining, 'We need to look at remineralization strategies such as gentle brushing, fluoride treatments, and avoiding brushing immediately after reflux episodes.' Immediate protective measures include prioritizing hydration throughout the day, rinsing with bicarbonate water or fluoride mouthwash after vomiting episodes, maintaining a balanced and nutrient-rich diet, avoiding sugary and acidic foods and beverages, and chewing sugar-free gum to stimulate saliva production. As Dr. Ali notes, "avoid sugary and acidic foods and book frequent dental check-ups to look out for early signs of gum issues or enamel wear. You can also chew sugar-free gum to help stimulate saliva and use fluoride toothpaste." Professional treatments may involve regular fluoride varnish applications, saliva stimulants for persistent dry mouth, antimicrobial rinses used judiciously to prevent staining, and protective restorations or composite bonding for severely damaged enamel. Dr. Martin adds that while these dental treatments can help, antimicrobial rinses should only be used for short periods as they can stain teeth. Don't ignore warning signs that could indicate serious dental damage. Contact your dentist immediately if you experience new cavities appearing rapidly, persistent dry mouth despite increased water intake, increased sensitivity to hot or cold temperatures, loose, cracked, or shifting teeth, or chronic bad breath that doesn't improve with oral hygiene. How Ozempic Can Impact Mental Health The mental health implications of Ozempic and other weight loss drugs cannot be understated. In a society where a bright, full smile is synonymous with youth, health, and attractiveness, changes to oral appearance can trigger significant anxiety and self-consciousness. Social media's relentless focus on aesthetic perfection only amplifies these concerns, creating pressure to address every perceived imperfection. As medical interventions become increasingly accessible, we must develop a more nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in pursuing physical transformation. The key is to make informed decisions with comprehensive support from medical and dental professionals.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
WeightWatchers Bets on Community Driving Growth in the GLP-1 Era
At a time when shedding pounds may be just a shot away, WeightWatchers is returning to its roots and its community to chart a new path forward. Fresh off a major restructuring, the 62-year-old grand dame of weight loss is finding its footing in a market that's more competitive than ever. Drugs like Novo Nordisk A/S 's Wegovy and Eli Lilly & Co. 's Zepbound help people shed up to 20% of their body weight in months, but offer little in the way of support when it comes to side effects, proper nutrition and insights on what to do when the shots aren't working.
