Study claims Ozempic may also help reduce dementia risk
Weight loss drug Ozempic may also reduce the risk of dementia, suggests a new study.
American researchers found that semaglutide - the active ingredient in Ozempic and another weight loss medication, Wegovy - may lower the risk of dementia in people with type 2 diabetes.
Scientists say that dementia occurs when brain cells are damaged and their connections stop working properly.
That damage, which worsens over time, can be caused by various modifiable factors, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, traumatic brain injury and stroke.
Previous research has indicated that 45% of dementia cases could be prevented by addressing modifiable risk factors.
The new study suggests type 2 diabetes patients taking semaglutide had a "significantly lower" risk of developing dementia compared to other antidiabetic medications.
The results were more "profound" in women and older adults, according to the findings published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease.
Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide receptor (GLP-1R) molecule that decreases hunger and helps regulate blood sugar in diabetes, has previously shown several health benefits, including reductions in cardiovascular diseases.
Researchers at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, analyzed three years of electronic records of nearly 1.7 million American type 2 diabetes patients.
The team used a statistical approach that mimics a randomised clinical trial.
They found patients prescribed semaglutide had a "significantly" lower risk for Alzheimer's disease-related dementia, compared to those who had taken any of seven other anti-diabetic medications, including other types of GLP-1R-targeting medications.
Study leader Professor Rong Xu said: "There is no cure or effective treatment for dementia, so this new study provides real-world evidence for its potential impact on preventing or slowing dementia development among at-risk populations."
Although the findings potentially support the idea that semaglutide could prevent dementia, Prof Xu says the study's limitations restrict the team from making firm causal conclusions.
She added: "Our results indicate that research into semaglutide's use for dementia prevention will need to be further investigated through randomised clinical trials."
The post Study claims Ozempic may also help reduce dementia risk appeared first on Talker.
Copyright Talker News. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The White House is launching a review of exhibits at eight Smithsonian museums. Here's what to know.
In response, the Smithsonian said in a statement on Tuesday that it remained committed to 'scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,' it said in a statement. Advertisement Here's what to know about the Smithsonian and the Trump administration's review of its museums. What is the Smithsonian Institution? A Smithsonian Institution sign is seen on the National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall on March 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Kevin Dietsch/Getty The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum, education, and research complex, and includes 21 museums and the National Zoo, with 11 museums lining Washington's National Mall. It was founded with funds from British scientist James Smithson, who left his estate to the United States to create 'an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge' in Washington. Which Smithsonian museums are under review? The review, first Advertisement 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in subsequent phases. How long will the review take and what will it entail? The review will take a look at all public-facing content, such as education materials, social media and digital content 'to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. The review will also include curatorial processes and guidelines, exhibition planning and collection use. The White House is directing the museums to submit materials from exhibits and drafts for upcoming events within 30 days. Within 75 days, museums are asked to submit the 'remaining requested documentation including promotional literature, grant data, educational materials, and guided tour content.' Within 120 days, the letter said, museums will be expected to take corrective action, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.' Earlier this month, its National Museum of American History had temporarily What's Trump's existing relationship with the Smithsonian? On March 27, Trump Advertisement The order placed Vice President JD Vance, a member of the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents, in charge of overseeing the effort to 'remove improper ideology' across the institution's museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo. 'Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history,' the Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Alyssa Vega can be reached at
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scientists tout potential weight loss advance using gene technology
There could be new hope for people aiming to fight obesity following a research breakthrough identifying certain microproteins that store fat. In findings published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in the US, the team from the California-based Salk Institute for Biological Studies said that the microproteins "could potentially serve as drug targets to treat obesity and other metabolic disorders." The findings could prove particularly useful for people who struggle with other treatments such as lifestyle changes, bariatric surgery or courses of drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy. "The obesity rate has more than doubled in the last 30 years, affecting more than one billion people worldwide," the Salk Institute warned, reminding that being overweight is linked to "other metabolic disorders" such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and cancers. Microproteins, according to the team, are "an understudied class of molecules found throughout the body that play roles in both health and disease." The team believes the findings are noteworthy because they entailed the use of CRISPR gene editing to screen thousands of fat cell genes to try to find genes "that likely code for microproteins that regulate either fat cell proliferation or lipid accumulation." "We wanted to know if there was anything we had been missing in all these years of research into the body's metabolic processes," says Salk's Victor Pai. Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded 'public benefit' programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate 'chilling effect' on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader 'ripple effects' — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as 'a critical safety net' for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. 'Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,' Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the 'chilling effect' from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to 'seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.' Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. 'Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,' she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's 'safety-net' care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. 'But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,' Chawla wrote. 'This will exacerbate their health conditions.' Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. 'The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,' Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies 'merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,' and 'restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.' The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.
