Ozempic Linked to Significant Reduction in Dementia—Study
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Semaglutide, the active ingredient in diabetes medications Ozempic and Wegovy, was associated with a significantly reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's disease-related dementia among patients with type 2 diabetes, a recent study reported.
A new study published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease analyzed the medical records of over 1.7 million U.S. adults and found that semaglutide users experienced a notably lower risk of dementia compared to patients treated with insulin, metformin, or older GLP-1 agonists.
These findings, publicly released on Tuesday, come as researchers and clinicians continue to search for effective means to mitigate the growing dementia epidemic in the U.S.
Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes that along with diet and exercise may improve blood sugar.
Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes that along with diet and exercise may improve blood sugar.
Photo by Steve Christo - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images
Why It Matters
With over 6 million Americans diagnosed with dementia and more than 100,000 related deaths each year, the potential for semaglutide to meaningfully lower risk could have sweeping public health implications.
Dementia does not have a cure, and nearly half of all cases are thought to be preventable by addressing risk factors like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the New York Post reported.
Evidence supporting semaglutide's neuroprotective effects may inform future prevention strategies among high-risk populations in the U.S.
What To Know
Landmark Study Shows Sharp Risk Reduction
Researchers at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, National Institutes of Health and the MetroHealth System in Cleveland examined the health records of 1,710,995 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes who had no prior diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease-related dementia (ADRD).
The study used a statistical method simulating a randomized clinical trial, comparing dementia diagnoses among those prescribed semaglutide, insulin, metformin, and older GLP-1 receptor agonists.
Patients treated with semaglutide had a 46 percent lower risk of developing ADRD than those receiving insulin, a 33 percent lower risk than those on metformin, and a 20 percent lower risk than those on earlier GLP-1 agonists. The effect was particularly pronounced for vascular dementia, one of the most common subtypes.
No protective association was found for frontotemporal dementia or Lewy body dementia.
Wide Demographic Impact Observed
The protective association was consistent among subgroups, including younger and older patients, men and women, and those with and without obesity.
Researchers found the risk reduction was especially evident among older adults and women.
What is Semaglutide?
Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that helps regulate blood sugar, lowers body weight, and offers cardiovascular benefits for patients with diabetes.
The drug can help improve insulin sensitivity, protect blood vessels, and reduce inflammation in the brain.
Important Study Limitations
Authors acknowledged limitations, including reliance on administrative diagnosis codes, which are subject to underdiagnosis and misclassification, data on medication adherence, cognitive test scores, and genetic risk factors were unavailable. Variations in clinical practice and health care use variations could also affect findings.
Researchers emphasized the need for preclinical and clinical studies to establish causal effects.
Additional International Data
A separate study by Oxford University, published in Lancet's eClinicalMedicine journal, analyzed more than 100 million U.S. medical records and found that Ozempic users experienced lower rates of cognitive decline and nicotine use compared to those on other diabetes medications.
This study also did not find a higher risk of anxiety, depression, or other neurological and psychiatric conditions with Ozempic. The researchers emphasized that the results were limited to diabetic patients and require more rigorous randomized controlled trials.
What People Are Saying
The researchers of the study, in a news article published by the American Journal of Managed Care: "In a real-world population with T2D [type 2 diabetes] who had no prior diagnosis of AD/ADRD [Alzheimer disease/Alzheimer disease-related dementia], our study shows that semaglutide was associated with a significantly lower risk of overall ADRD incidence compared with other antidiabetic medications, including insulin, metformin, and other GLP-1RAs. Significant reductions were observed in older and younger patients, women and men, and patients with and without obesity."
Howard Fillit, chief science officer of the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, in comments to Reuters: "The answer to all those limitations is to do a randomized clinical trial, which is exactly what Novo is doing."
What Happens Next
Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic, began testing semaglutide in patients with early Alzheimer's disease in 2021. The results are expected sometime this year.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gen Z and Millennials Have Differing Views on Ozempic
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Gen Z and millennials have radically different views on GLP-1s like Ozempic and how much they want the weight loss and diabetes drugs regulated, according to a new report from GLP-1 prescription weight loss company Levity. While 40 percent of current and recent GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) users said the current regulations are fair, 28 percent want fewer rules and 22 percent said there should be more. But in the millennial age group, users tend to want less regulation, while Gen Z leaned toward more. Why It Matters GLP-1s, which are injectable drugs that mimic hormones to reduce blood sugar and promote weight loss, have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years. Popular products, including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zephound, have been a game changer for many Americans who are obese or have type 2 diabetes. However, stricter FDA rules are now in effect, banning certain compounded GLP-1s and making it more difficult for many Americans to secure the drugs, especially if using it for weight loss reasons. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Steve Christo - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images What To Know The Gen Z and millennial response to the stricter FDA rules have been notably different, according to Levity. At 31 percent, millennials were the most likely to favor fewer GLP-1 regulations compared to 19 percent of the group who wanted more. Gen Z, meanwhile, favored stricter rules at 37 percent, while 32 percent wanted fewer. "Millennials are more likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 as compared to Gen Z; therefore, it is not surprising that millennials desire less regulation on these drugs," Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek. "Having said that, the regulatory environment surrounding compounded agents, in general, and compounded GLP-1s, specifically, is not as rigorous as it is for branded and generic drugs. Therefore, compounded drugs carry unknown risks that more regulated medications do not." Because semaglutide is no longer on the FDA shortage list, compounding it can carry legal risks. Already, the effects are being felt, as 17 percent of GLP-1 users said it has become harder to get their medication since the FDA tightened rules on compounded semaglutide, Levity reported. There was also a difference in how the generations viewed their use of the drugs. While 75 percent of GLP-1 users believed they'll still be on their treatment plan a year from now, Gen Z was the least likely to think so, at 58 percent. What People Are Saying Board-certified endocrinologist Dr. Caroline Messer told Newsweek: "Millennials, many of whom are now managing midlife weight and metabolic health concerns, may see GLP-1s as a practical tool and want fewer barriers. Gen Z, meanwhile, is generally more wary of long-term unknowns, hence leaning toward more safeguards. Broadly, Americans are divided but lean toward keeping current regulations." Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek: "From a business perspective, limiting access to compounded drugs when branded drugs are available protects the drug companies' patents. This protection provides the financial incentive for drug companies to develop innovative new therapies." What Happens Next The long-term effects of GLP-1 medication use are so far unclear. A recent study discovered a new link between taking GLP-1 drugs and elevated risk of pancreatitis and kidney conditions, including kidney stones. And GLP-1 medications have also been associated with a higher risk of digestive problems, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and even stomach paralysis in rare cases.
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Rebalancing Pharmaceutical Pricing Without Sacrificing Innovation
Medications are stored on shelves at a pharmacy on May 12, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by) Getty Images Two weeks ago, President Trump sent letters to 17 leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, giving them 60 days to propose plans to lower U.S. drug prices to align with the lowest prices offered in other developed nations. This is an opportunity to recalibrate pharmaceutical pricing in a way that brings relief to U.S. consumers, corrects global imbalances and safeguards innovation, a transition the entire healthcare ecosystem must eventually adopt. Most discussions about drug prices focus narrowly on the retail cost patients see at the pharmacy counter, but these are only a fraction of the real economic picture. Trump's directive aims to address a decades-long imbalance: Americans pay significantly more for the same products than consumers abroad, in effect subsidizing both foreign healthcare systems and pharmaceutical profits. The 'most favored nation' concept could give consumers better pricing, but it also raises critical questions about sustaining innovation and ensuring access. By putting pharmaceutical manufacturers on the clock, the administration signals a willingness to use negotiation and policy leverage, similar to its tariff strategy, to change entrenched practices. As I've long argued in previous columns, focusing solely on high drug prices misses the larger problem: healthcare as a whole delivers too little value for what we spend. The need for transparency in both cost and quality, as well as a greater appreciation of outcomes that matter to patients, applies to every sector, from pharmaceuticals to hospital care. Pharma is a practical starting point because public attention is already here, but the real target is an ecosystem-wide business model change. Without a broad value-based framework and a clear vision of how to proceed, reforms will default to piecemeal fixes that merely shift costs from one part of the system to another. Some policymakers have advocated for blunt price caps as a quick solution to escalating drug prices. Experience shows this approach distorts markets, erodes innovation and ultimately harms patients, the topic of one of my past columns. In Europe, where prices are heavily controlled, access to new therapies can be delayed or denied, a cautionary example for the U.S. Innovation is inherently risky: only a fraction of drug candidates ever reach the market, and the returns on successful products fund the failures. Suppressing returns discourages the investment needed for breakthrough discoveries. The goal should be rebalancing—with Europe paying more, the U.S. paying less—not penalizing one of America's most important and competitive industries. The administration has made it clear it is prepared to disrupt the status quo. Disruption is most productive when it's channeled toward structural reform. Pharmaceutical pricing reform can set a precedent for other segments of healthcare—delivery systems, payers and PBMs—where misaligned incentives drive up costs without improving outcomes. Stakeholders should view the 60-day deadline not just as a compliance exercise but as an invitation to propose creative, sustainable models that link payment to measurable results. This is a rare alignment of political will, public attention and market readiness, an environment conducive to bold experimentation. If the industry responds defensively or minimally, the likely result will be more prescriptive regulation and less flexibility to innovate. Conversely, failure to address pricing inequities will keep U.S. consumers shouldering disproportionate costs, fueling political pressure for heavy-handed solutions. Past decades of incremental tweaks have left us with a fragmented, opaque system. The risk now is that we repeat that pattern rather than rethinking the fundamentals. Rebalancing pharmaceutical pricing is not about punishing one sector or enacting price controls. It's about creating a market where cost reflects value, competition rewards innovation and consumers benefit from both affordability and access. Pharmaceutical companies are simply the first to face this scrutiny, but the value conversation must extend to every corner of healthcare delivery. This moment, if met with creativity and commitment, can be a catalyst for systemic change that has eluded us for decades.
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Record low number of Americans report drinking alcohol, and new teetotalers are explaining why
More Americans than ever are choosing not to drink alcohol, according to a new Gallup Poll. Only 54% of respondents to Gallup's annual Consumption Habits survey conducted last month say they consume alcohol, which is the lowest on record in nearly 90 years. "This coincides with a growing belief among Americans that moderate alcohol consumption is bad for one's health, now the majority view for the first time," Gallup said in a press release. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism cites nine body systems impacted by alcohol use. "Current research points to health risks even at low amounts of alcohol consumption, regardless of beverage type," its website says. Those who do drink are drinking less, Gallup reported, averaging about 2.8 drinks a week. Over the past two years, Republicans have reported a sharp drop in drinking habits, but Democrats' percentage has held fairly steady. The highest number of Americans who reported drinking alcohol, at 68 to 71%, were all recorded between 1974 and 1981, Gallup said. Beer is still the "most preferred alcohol," the global analytics and advisory firm said, adding that it "[h]as documented three consecutive years of decline in the U.S. drinking rate as research supporting the 'no amount of alcohol is safe' message mounts." Gallup does not believe the decline in alcohol consumption is caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances, in particular recreational marijuana, which is not legal in approximately half of the U.S. states.
