Popular weight-loss drugs show promising new power against debilitating migraines
In a small study, a GLP-1 drug shrank the number of days people spent with a migraine by almost half in a given month.
Presented at the European Academy of Neurology Congress in Helinski, Finland, on June 21, the results suggest promising future uses of the popular obesity and diabetes drugs.
Nearly 40 million Americans deal with migraines, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) — and for many, they're more than just a headache.
Migraines are the second-leading cause of disability worldwide, the above agency states, with symptoms including severe headaches, nausea and sensitivity to light often disrupting daily activities.
Previous studies have shown that GLP-1s can reduce pressure inside the skull, which is a possible cause of migraines, according to multiple health organizations.
Neurologist and study lead Simone Braca of the University of Naples Federico II in Italy, along with his colleagues, explored whether liraglutide, an earlier version of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), could help migraine sufferers.
"Most patients felt better within the first two weeks and reported quality of life improved significantly."
Thirty-one adults, 26 of them women, got daily injections of liraglutide for 12 weeks. The participants, who all met the criteria for obesity, also continued to take their current migraine medications.
At the start of the experiment, participants reported headaches about 20 days out of a month. After 12 weeks of liraglutide, the average number dropped to about 11 days.
"Most patients felt better within the first two weeks and reported quality of life improved significantly," said Braca in a press release.
The relief from migraines lasted for the full three-month observation period, the researcher noted, although weight loss was "modest and statistically non-significant."
Participants' weight stayed about the same during the trial, suggesting that the headache reductions weren't tied to weight loss.
"Liraglutide is a 'middle-aged' GLP-1, with Ozempic and Mounjaro being newer," Dr. Sue Decotiis, a triple board-certified weight loss specialist in New York City, told Fox News Digital.
Decotiis, who was not involved in the study, said that liraglutide is not as effective as its newer cousins for weight loss or diabetes, and is not frequently used for these purposes.
"Many pharmacies are not even stocking it due to declining demand, yet it gets into the brain well enough to reduce migraines," she noted.
The trial didn't include a comparison group, and participants and researchers all knew that everyone received liraglutide, the researchers noted.
Mild gastrointestinal side effects (mainly nausea and constipation) occurred in 38% of participants, but did not lead to treatment discontinuation.
Further research may include other groups, such as control groups and people without obesity, to compare the drug's effects.
"The study was very small," Decotiis confirmed to Fox News Digital.
Given its size and brief duration, the findings could be limited until further research is conducted, according to the expert.
The researchers also tested only one drug, liraglutide, "which is not used as frequently in the general population as semaglutide or tirzepatide are," Decotiis added.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
Next, the team is planning a randomized, double-blind trial that will also measure pressure inside the skull.
"We also want to determine whether other GLP-1 drugs can deliver the same relief, possibly with even fewer gastrointestinal side effects," Braca said in the same press release.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
14 minutes ago
- Medscape
GLP-1s Don't Increase Suicide Risk
It's not uncommon for me, when discussing a GLP-1 medication with patients, to have them inquire about the drug's purported risk in increasing suicidal ideation. What has never occurred? Patients asking about the possible benefits of GLP-1 medications to mood and to their decreasing the risk of suicidal ideation. On the face of existing data, that's odd considering there is far more substantial evidence that GLP-1 users see improvements in mood: with no increase —and possibly decreased — risk of suicide. It's not odd, though, when considering things through the lens of how risk is overestimated by the public along with the lens of weight bias where, at least with obesity medications, negative findings — however small, tenuous, or early — tend to be readily internalized and amplified, while positive findings are often minimized and ignored. Where and how did the concern about suicide arise? On July 11, 2023, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released a statement that, consequent to the Icelandic medicines agency's highlighting three case reports involving suicide among GLP-1 users, they would be investigating further. The EMA's statement rightly and explicitly noted, ' The presence of a signal does not necessarily mean that a medicine caused the adverse event in question .' But much of the media didn't seem to care how premature or unsubstantiated the putative risk, and this story definitely had legs gaining scary coverage in most major media outlets. By way of example, the BBC, in its story headlined Weight-loss jabs investigated for suicide risk , rather than responsibly covering the prematurity of concluding anything at all, chose this quote from the EMA's statement to highlight, ' A signal is information on a new or known adverse event that is potentially caused by a medicine and that warrants further investigation .' No doubt this sort of reporting is in part why, to this day, patients still recount suicidality as a concern when discussing these medications. But what has happened on this file since the July 2023 initiated investigation of those three purported cases? While nonexhaustive, here's a brief rundown: In April 2024, the EMA's own investigation exonerated GLP-1 medications as a source of increased suicide risk in April 2024. The US FDA also conducted its own investigation and similarly found no ties between GLP-1s and suicide risk. In June 2024. a paper was published demonstrating no increase risk in suicidality among 36,083 adults prescribed GLP-1 medications. In August 2024, a paper was published investigating GLP-1 medications and their impact on 22 neurological and psychiatric outcomes over 12 months. It found no impact among 23,386 GLP-1 users. In September 2024, a paper was published demonstrating no increased risk in suicidality among a cohort of 124,517 adults prescribed GLP-1 medications over a 1-year period. In October 2024, a paper was published demonstrating a 33% reduction in suicide ideation or attempts among 6912 adolescents with obesity for those who initiated treatment with GLP-1s over 3 years of follow-up. In February 2025. a paper was published of a nationwide (France) case-time-control of individuals who had attempted or died by suicide which found no linkage with GLP-1 use. In May 2025. a paper was published demonstrating in a meta-analysis of doubly blind randomized controlled trials that, among the 107,000 patients studied, GLP-1 use was not associated with increased risk of psychiatric adverse events or worsening depressive symptoms relative to placebo. Instead, GLP-1 use was associated with improvements in both physical and mental health-related quality of life. Finally, in June 2025, a paper was published describing a multinational self-controlled case series analysis of suicide or self-harm attempts in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom that yes, again, demonstrated no increased risk among GLP-1 users and that, compared with the nontreatment period, lower suicide attempt or self-harm risk following GLP-1 treatment was observed, especially after longer periods of treatment. Negative publication bias appears to extend beyond academia into society at large. However, it manifests somewhat differently. The studies receiving the most attention are often those reporting literally negative (ie, adverse) outcomes. In contrast, more rigorous studies that challenge these negative findings, even if publicized, rarely achieve comparable societal penetration or awareness.
Medscape
44 minutes ago
- Medscape
You Say NOAC, I Say DOAC
Names matter. That's why I don't respond when people call me Steve for some inexplicable reason. So, it would be nice if we were a bit more consistent in our medical nomenclature. After all, why do we call it a heart attack but not a brain attack? Some renaming of diseases is clearly a good idea. I'm okay with the fact that Reiter syndrome is now reactive arthritis. Dr Reiter was not a good man. As a field, we are moving away from eponymous nomenclature, so my lifelong dream of being the first to diagnose Labos syndrome in some poor, unsuspecting patient is unlikely to come to fruition. But the diversity of our nomenclature is starting to get out of hand. If you have a sudden acute blockage in a coronary artery, your cardiologist might refer to it as a heart attack (if they think you're basic) or a myocardial infarction (if they think you're fancy) or an acute coronary syndrome (if they don't want you to ask any follow-up questions). But it would be nice if we could all get on the same page before the guideline writers come up with yet another term to confuse the new residents that started in July. TAVI vs TAVR, and Why Not 'Brain Attack'? The TAVI vs TAVR debate is similarly pointless. Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) tends to predominate in Europe (where the technique was invented), Asia, and other parts of the world, in the United States everyone talks about a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Technically, the outlanders are correct because the native aortic valve isn't 'replaced' during the procedure; it's just pushed to the margins like a washed-up celebrity. TAVI clearly makes more sense. I firmly expect that the United States will start calling them TAVIs just as soon as it switches over to the metric system. Once a term takes hold, it's difficult to dislodge it from the public consciousness. Despite efforts to rename strokes as brain attacks, the idea never seems to garner any traction. Granted, a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) isn't really an accident, and we have no problem calling it a transient ischemic attack (TIA), but for some reason, if brain tissue dies, we revert to the pathologic initialism CVA to reassure people that we know that they didn't do it on purpose. When the research community lumps strokes in with other cardiac events for a composite endpoint, they call it major adverse cardiac events (MACE), but occasionally they throw in an extra " C" for "cerebrovascular" (MACCE) to appease the neurologists. Maybe we should take a page from the nephrologists. They've renamed acute renal failure and chronic kidney disease to acute and chronic renal insufficiency. After all, decreased urine output in the acutely hypovolemic patient is renal success, not renal failure. (If anyone knows the source of this joke, please email me because I've genuinely forgotten.) In any case, the name change makes sense, even if I still write "CKD" in my notes and probably won't change unless someone makes me. So maybe it's time to rename heart failure and call it heart insufficiency. It is admittedly tough to explain to patients with a normal ejection fraction (EF) that they need to be seen in a heart failure clinic (or heart function clinic, if you're very trendy). Diastolic heart failure is hard enough to explain to residents, let alone patients. After all, their heart hasn't failed them; it's just not quite up to the task anymore. NOAC, DOAC, TSOAC? And while we're doing this etymologic reorganization, maybe we can finally decide what we're going to do with the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Their rebranding to DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants) held some promise and made sense, given dabigatran's mechanism of action (it binds directly to factor IIa). But people oscillate back and forth. With the CHEST guidelines using the former and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis suggesting we describe them according to their specific target and mode of administration, we aren't likely to see agreement on what we should call these anticoagulants anytime soon. If anyone suggests we use some new appellation like TSOAC (target-specific oral anticoagulant), ODI (oral direct inhibitor), or SODA (specific oral direct anticoagulant), you have my permission to stop being friends with them. We need fewer, not more, options. Some pretend that the N in NOAC actually meant 'non-vitamin K' all along, but that requires a degree of historical revisionism. I'm not a complete slave to tradition. I haven't worn a double-breasted suit in ages. And when the powers-that-be decided that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) should become metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), I wasn't too upset. Sure, I sometimes slip up and throw in an extraneous F for " fatty" (MASFLD) and I still see plenty of radiology reports talking about fatty liver, but there is something to be said for defining a disease by what causes it, not what doesn't. But it's important to know when a ship has sailed. Try as you might, we will never as a society call it PASC instead of 'long COVID.' "Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19" might be more accurate in terms of terminology, but the pandemic was such a global and universal event that no amount of proselytizing is going to change terms crystalized in the public discourse. The official name of the virus may have been SARS-CoV-2, but we all called it the COVID-19 virus and eventually officialdom just came to accept it. Language is messy. William of Normandy invaded England in 1066, and because he won the Battle of Hastings, we have one set of names for live animals and another set of names for when they're food. The English language has too many silent g's for us to be too worked up about the lack of consistency in our verbiage. Perhaps all we can do is accept the inherent chaos of medical nomenclature and do the best we can with the limited vocabulary at our disposal. As long as we don't give them Class I antiarrhythmics after their heart attack, the patients won't care all that much what we call their ACS.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
Stone Age People Brutalized Their Prisoners of War, New Evidence Suggests
When we think of Stone Age people, most imagine small communities living in caves, cutting into their most recent hunt with primitive tools, and imitating their environment with illustrative rock art. People during the Neolithic, however—the last stage of the Stone Age (around 9000 to 3300 BCE)—also waged wars and absolutely demolished their enemies. In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, researchers present horrific evidence suggesting that Neolithic people in northeastern France mutilated foreign invaders. Their findings might represent some of the earliest known indications of gruesome victory celebrations related to war. The international team of researchers analyzed skeletal remains and severed limbs from burial pits dating to between 4300 and 4150 BCE at two sites near Strasbourg, Achenheim and Bergheim. 'A total of 82 humans are analyzed,' they wrote in the study. Their analysis revealed 'differences between victims and nonvictims and suggest that the former were members of invading groups brutally killed, perhaps exposed and deposited in pits—together with trophies in the form of severed upper limbs—by local groups in what might be one of the earliest well-documented instances of martial victory celebrations in prehistoric Europe,' they explained. Previous research in the Upper Rhine Valley had already shown that this time period was marked by military invasions and cultural upheaval, but scientists didn't know whether the human remains at Achenheim and Bergheim were of locals or foreigners and/or prisoners of war. In addition to the severed upper limbs, the researchers also identified injuries such as skull fractures that had not healed. The team, including Valladolid University's Teresa Fernandez-Crespo, suggests these victims met violent ends during war. The individuals without these sorts of unhealed injuries, on the other hand, likely received a regular burial. To investigate the differences between those who were brutally killed and those who weren't, Fernandez-Crespo and her colleagues conducted isotopic analyses. By identifying ratios of isotopes—variants of the same element—in the remains, they discovered that, while the non-victims were locals, the victims of war violence came from other regions. According to the researchers, this indicates that the victims were likely invaders killed by locals. 'In view of their demise, it is probable that the identities of these victims can be attributed to socially remote, nonlocal enemies that became trophies or captives during battles or raids and that may have been considered by their captors as not properly 'human' and hence warranting such treatment,' the researchers explained. For once, the term 'overkill' applies literally.
