Ozempic Linked to Significant Reduction in Dementia—Study
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.
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
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Feeling more than a pinch from RFK Jr.'s germ theory denial
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up So why is Kennedy allowing the disposal of this treasure trove of biological samples that could lead to many more insights into the development of human ailments and could prove his theories correct? Tragically, because of political divisiveness or vindictiveness, there may be much that we will never learn about the causes of cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Advertisement Can anyone help Kennedy understand the incongruity of his actions? When will Congress step in and prevent further damage to research that could actually help make Americans healthy, as Kennedy claims he wants to do? Sharon Schumack Watertown Health secretary misses a key truth of germ theory In his article Advertisement Germ theory doesn't deny the importance of factors such as good nutrition and overall physical fitness in maintaining good health. It asserts what is a well-established scientific fact: that specific diseases are linked to specific microbes infecting the human body. Both notions can be true. Kennedy is right in citing important determinants of health apart from microbes invading the body. These factors may in fact be essential in determining the course of a disease and its final outcome subsequent to the specific microbes entering the body. Jim Cain Wakefield Eat right, get exercise … tell that to the Mayans Five hundred years ago, a thriving Aztec civilization of 16 million people in Mexico was devastated within a short time by Hernán Cortés and his 500 men from Spain. Europeans also brought their diseases to what is now the United States, including reportedly deliberately infecting Indigenous people, with the same devastating results. World history would have been very different if only these people in the Americas had eaten the right foods, exercised sufficiently, and promoted better sanitation practices. Marilyn Levin Arlington Does RFK Jr. have an Rx for the times we live in? So, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if I eat my veggies and avoid stress, I will not need a vaccine from Moderna or any other drugmaker to fight any new bird flu mutations. Regular exercise, three salads a day, and abstinence from exposure to news of atrocities from the Trump administration should keep me and my octogenarian friends in good health? Advertisement Sorry, I'm not buying that bridge. Rosemary Jones Jamaica Plain
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
First meeting of new CDC vaccine panel reveals policy chaos sown by RFK Jr
The first meeting of a critical federal vaccine panel was a high-profile display of how the US health secretary and vaccine skeptic Robert F Kennedy Jr has injected chaos into vaccine policy infrastructure. Wednesday's meeting was held amid controversy, not only regarding the new members unilaterally appointed by Kennedy, but also the questions they would consider, their conflicts of interest and views on vaccines, and the scheduled speakers. The new chair of the committee, former Harvard University professor of medicine Dr Martin Kulldorff, who was fired for refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19, began the meeting by criticizing both his former employer and the media. 'Some media outlets have been very harsh on the new members of this committee,' said Kulldorff, who he said were put into 'either a pro- or anti-vaccine box'. 'Such labels undermine critical scientific inquiry and it further feeds the flames of vaccines hesitancy. As Secretary Kennedy has eloquently stated, opposing mercury in fish doesn't make you anti-fish, and opposing mercury in vaccines doesn't make you anti-vaccines,' Kulldorff continued, referring to one of the issues the panel would consider. Kulldorff also quickly announced the formation of two new working groups, in addition to the 11 that already serve the panel. One would study the interaction of vaccines and the cumulative childhood vaccine schedule – issues that have for years been talking points of anti-vaccine advocates including Kennedy – and another to reevaluate vaccines that have not been looked at in more than seven years. The latter would provide the committee's new members an opportunity to change recommendations for long-approved vaccines. The panel, the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP) to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), develops recommendations for how to administer vaccines to the American public. The ACIP meeting is high-stakes and will be widely watched within the scientific community, as former members argue that the nation's vaccine approval, research and distribution systems are being dismantled. The panel's decisions are highly influential in deciding which vaccines the CDC ultimately recommends for children and adults. In turn, those recommendations form the basis of how health insurers decide which vaccines to cover, and thus have a direct impact on the price and availability of vaccines to the American public. Experts consider the current situation so dire that outside groups are attempting to develop a system to provide vaccines to Americans in spite of Kennedy's attempts to disrupt the system. 'What we're seeing today, and if this were to continue, the medical public health professionals and the entire country are no longer going to trust ACIP,' said Dr Sean O'Leary of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health. 'That's very clear.' Related: US experts fear all vaccines at risk as Trump officials target mRNA jabs The panel met in spite of lack of clarity about a seemingly fundamental issue: conflicts of interest. Kennedy fired the 17 previous members of the panel after arguing they had 'been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest'. Before the presentations of the meeting started in earnest, the new members were asked to introduce themselves and verbally describe any conflicts of interest. It's unclear whether the new members have had conflict of interest disclosures published in writing ahead of the meeting. The new members did not appear on the Trump administration-developed conflict of interest tracker specifically for ACIP members as of Wednesday morning. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told the Guardian that the new members had undergone ethics review but did not respond to inquiries about when and where these disclosures would be published. The spokesperson also said one of the eight Kennedy-appointed members had dropped out on Tuesday evening after a government financial review. A spokesperson told the Guardian last week: 'Before they start their work on ACIP, the new members' ethics agreements will be made public.' Some members did not address any conflicts of interest, seeming to focus only on their introduction. Others, like Kulldorff, did not disclose past involvement with litigation against vaccine makers. Similarly, Dr Robert Malone did not appear to disclose his work in the litigation against the Merck vaccine. Instead, Malone said: 'Any potential conflicts of interest have been analyzed and vetted and declared lacking both internally by HHS and specifically by CDC.' Vicky Pebsworth, a nurse who holds a doctorate degree and has worked for decades as the volunteer research director for one of the oldest high-profile anti-vaccine groups in the country, said she was 'disclosing I hold stock to a healthcare sector fund including vaccine manufacturers; however, the amount of that stock holding is under the office of government ethics regulatory de minimus amount. I understand I therefore can fully participate in the ACIP meeting.' The agenda for the panel was also remade before the committee met. Previously, experts on the panel were scheduled to consider a recommendation for Covid-19 boosters. That vote was removed from the agenda – leaving experts to hear planned presentations on Covid-19, but not to vote – because the CDC was unable to hold a final working group call. It is unclear why the call was not held. CDC scientists explained how the Covid-19 'does remain a substantial burden among youngest and oldest age groups'. After the presentations, members of the ACIP asked whether the low uptake of the vaccine – that some had actively sown doubt about – should be considered a reason not to recommend it. 'The fact [that uptake is] so low is a reflection of the lack of trust many parents have with the Covid vaccination recommendation that the ACIP has been giving,' said Kulldorff. In another exchange, Pebsworth suggested that the CDC should be looking at 'animal studies' and 'reproductive toxicity' in relation to Covid-19 vaccines, arguing that only '10% of adverse events are reported'. Dr Sarah Meyer, a researcher with the CDC's immunization services division who presented on the topic, said the numbers referenced by Pebsworth were misleading because they included even the most minor 'adverse events', such as sore arms. 'For serious reports, we are confident we get a majority of those reported' to surveillance systems such as the Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System. Instead, members were scheduled to only vote on whether to recommend a second monoclonal antibody, called Clesrovimab, for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for all infants younger than eight months old born during respiratory virus season. The vote was postponed because the meeting ran late. The committee is scheduled to meet again on Thursday. Other advisers joining the meeting reflect the way that Kennedy has remade the federal health department. Representing the Food and Drug Administration was Tracy Beth Høeg, a sports medicine physician and epidemiologist who has called for more scrutiny of vaccines. One of the experts scheduled to present to the panel on Thursday is nurse Lyn Redwood, the ex-president of Kennedy's anti-vaccine group Children's Health Defense, according to Politico. Key Republican Dr Bill Cassidy, whose vote helped assure Kennedy's confirmation to HHS, called for the meeting of the panel to be delayed, citing the new members' 'lack of experience' with vaccines and, in some cases, 'preconceived bias against them', according to STAT News. Further, the panel's new agenda cited a study that the cited author said he did not conduct or publish, according to Reuters, continuing a pattern of Kennedy's health department producing references to garbled or nonexistent studies even as Kennedy repeatedly touts 'gold-standard' science.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate struggle over Medicaid cuts threatens progress on Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — One key unsettled issue stalling progress on President Donald Trump's big bill in Congress is particularly daunting: How to cut billions from health care without harming Americans or the hospitals and others that provide care? Republicans are struggling to devise a solution to the health care problem their package has created. Already, estimates say 10.9 million more people would be without health coverage under the House-passed version of the bill. GOP senators have proposed steeper reductions, which some say go too far. 'The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts, and I think that's problematic,' said GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Senators have been meeting behind closed doors and with Trump administration officials as they rush to finish up the big bill ahead of the president's Fourth of July deadline. Much of the package, with its tax breaks and bolstered border security spending, is essentially drafted. But the size and scope of healthcare cuts are among the toughest remaining issues. It's reminiscent of the summer during Trump's first term, in 2017, when Republicans struggled to keep their campaign promise to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, only to see the GOP splinter over the prospect of Americans losing health coverage. That legislation collapsed when then-Sen. John McCain famously cast a thumbs-down vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is determined to avoid that outcome, sticking to the schedule and pressing ahead with voting expected by the end of the week. 'This is a good bill and it's going to be great for our country,' Thune said Wednesday, championing its potential to unleash economic growth and put money in people's pockets. The changes to the federal health care programs, particularly Medicaid, were always expected to become a centerpiece of the GOP package, a way to offset the costs of providing tax breaks for millions of Americans. Without action from Congress, taxes would go up next year when current tax law expires. The House-passed bill achieved some $1.5 trillion in savings overall, a large part of it coming from changes to health care. The Medicaid program has dramatically expanded in the 15 years since Obamacare became law and now serves some 80 million Americans. Republicans say that's far too high, and they want to shrink the program back to a smaller size covering mainly poorer women and children. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans are 'trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans.' Democrats are uniformly opposed to what they call the 'big, ugly bill.' Much of the health care cost savings would come from new 80-hour-a-month work requirements on those who receive Medicaid benefits, even as most recipients already work. But another provision, the so-called provider tax that almost all the states impose to some degree on hospitals and others that serve Medicaid patients, is drawing particular concern for potential cuts to rural hospitals. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said several senators spoke up Wednesday during a private meeting indicating they were not yet ready to start voting. 'That'll depend if we land the plane on rural hospitals,' he said. States impose the taxes as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics decry the system as a type of 'laundering' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage. The House-passed bill would freeze the provider taxes at current levels, while the Senate proposal goes deeper by reducing the tax that some states are able to impose. 'I know the states are addicted to it,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. But he added, 'Obviously the provider tax needs to go away.' But a number of GOP senators, and the hospitals and other medical providers in their states, are raising steep concerns that the provider tax changes would decimate rural hospitals. In a plea to lawmakers, the American Hospital Association said the cuts won't just affect those who get health coverage through Medicaid, but would further strain emergency rooms 'as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people.' 'And worse, some hospitals, especially those in rural communities, may be forced to close altogether,' said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the hospital group. The Catholic Health Association of the United States noted in its own letter that Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for one in five people and nearly half of all children. 'The proposed changes to Medicaid would have devastating consequences, particularly for those in small towns and rural communities, where Medicaid is often the primary source of health care coverage,' said Sister Mary Haddad, the group's president and CEO. Trying to engineer a fix to the problem, senators are considering creating a rural hospital fund to help offset the lost Medicaid money. GOP senators circulated a proposal to pour $15 billion to establish a new rural hospital fund. But several senators said that's too high, while others said it's insufficient. Collins has proposed that the fund be set at $100 billion. 'It won't be that big, but there will be a fund,' Thune said. Hawley, who has been among those most outspoken about the health care cuts, said he's interested in the rural hospital fund but needs to hear more about how it would work. He has also raised concerns about a new $35 per service co-pay that could be charged to those with Medicaid, which is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. 'Getting the fund is good. That's important, a step forward,' Hawley said. But he asked: 'How does the fund actually distribute the money? Who will get it to hospitals? ... Or is this just going to be something that exists on paper?' A new analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates the package would result in up to $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, a markedly different assessment from other analyses. In contrast, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's dynamic analysis of the House-passed measure estimates an increase in deficits by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. __ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Mary Clare Jalonick, Joey Cappelletti and Fatima Hussein contributed to this story.
