logo
Does This Side Effect Spell Doom for the GLP-1's?

Does This Side Effect Spell Doom for the GLP-1's?

Medscape19 hours ago
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor , your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson from the Yale School of Medicine.
About a year ago, I was talking to one of my friends about the slew of studies showing very broad benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as semaglutide (Ozempic) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro). including weight loss and improved diabetes control. But studies also showed improved heart and kidney health, as well as lower overall mortality. Some analyses found reductions in problem drinking, smoking, and even compulsive shopping among people taking these drugs. I told my friend that I thought these drugs were complete game changers, fundamentally 'anticonsumption' agents that are the cure for society's primary ill of overconsumption.
'Yeah, but what about the side effects?' he said. I said, 'Sure, some gastrointestinal issues can come up, but usually it's not that bad.' Still, I demurred, 'It's early days; perhaps after 10 years on the drugs your eyes fall out or something.'
This week's study doesn't suggest that GLP-1's cause your eyes to fall out exactly, but, as you'll see in a second, it's not that far off.
We're talking about this study, ' Semaglutide or Tirzepatide and Optic Nerve and Visual Pathway Disorders in Type 2 Diabetes,' appearing in JAMA Network Open , which looks at eye problems in people taking the two most potent GLP-1 drugs.
This was a huge retrospective cohort study using the TrinetX database, which contains electronic health record data on millions of patients across the United States.
Researchers identified more than a million individuals with diabetes in the database who had no history of eye disease. They then identified when they were first prescribed Ozempic, Mounjaro, or a bunch of non-GLP-1 diabetes medications (such as insulin and metformin) which serve as controls here.
They were on the lookout for conditions that some smaller studies had suggested might be associated with the weight-loss drugs: disorders of the optic nerve — in particular, a rather rare condition that can occur even outside diabetes, known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). This is a syndrome caused by a decline in blood supply to the optic nerve and is characterized by the sudden and painless loss of eyesight in one eye, which can lead to permanent blindness.
It seems straightforward to ask which group — those who got the GLP-1 drugs or those who took other diabetes drugs — had more eye problems. But you probably suspect that these two groups weren't exactly comparable even before they started the drug.
People who took weight-loss drugs were younger, more likely to be female, more likely to be on antihypertensive drugs, more likely to have a history of sleep apnea, and much more likely to have obesity.
This is a classic apples-vs-oranges problem in observational research, one that was overcome, in this case, through a form of statistical wizardry called propensity score matching. In this process, each patient is assigned a likelihood of being prescribed the weight-loss drug, and then they are matched with someone with similar propensities. Thus, only one of each pair actually received the drug.
Naturally, not everyone was matched; the apples and oranges that were just too appley or orangey were dropped from further analysis. After matching, the two groups were much more similar.
Now that we have two similar groups — one of orangish apples and the other of appley oranges — we can compare the rates of NAION between them.
Of 79,699 individuals started on either Ozempic or Mounjaro, 35 developed NAION within 2 years of follow-up. Of 79,699 started on non-GLP-1 diabetes drugs, 19 developed NAION over a similar duration of follow-up. That's 0.04% compared with 0.02%.
There are a couple of ways to look at the data. On the relative scale, we see nearly a doubling of the risk for this eyesight-threatening disorder among people taking GLP-1 drugs. But on the absolute scale, any given individual's chance of actually getting this disorder is vanishingly small; the rate in the GLP-1 group was 462 per million individuals, compared with a baseline rate of about 238 per million individuals.
Identifying rare risks like this is still important, especially for drugs that are as widely prescribed as the GLP-1's. Patients and providers need to have this in the back of their minds so that, if an unusual eye symptom does develop, everyone can react quickly.
It's still not clear how these drugs could lead to NAION. It's true that the optic nerve has GLP-1 receptors on it, so this could be a direct drug effect. But the researchers suggest other possibilities as well, including the idea that sudden metabolic changes associated with weight loss or glucose effects from the drugs may change the microenvironment of the eye. I hate to fall back on 'more research is necessary,' but the truth is, more research is necessary to figure out how this works and, importantly, who is most at risk.
I should remind you that this study shows us correlation, not causation. Even with propensity score matching, there will still be differences between the comparison groups that aren't fully accounted for.
Beyond that, the very fact that people may be on alert for eye disorders among those taking GLP-1's may become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in a study like this. If physicians are primed to think of a rare diagnosis like NAION when they see a patient on a GLP-1 drug, they might be more likely to make the diagnosis than they would if presented with exactly the same symptoms in someone not taking the drug. When the outcome is rare like this, minor biases can drive the results.
So, I'm not ready to go back on my statement that these drugs are game changers. They clearly are. But we'd be naive to assume that there wouldn't be some risk. I'm encouraged that this particular risk is not nearly of a magnitude and frequency to counteract the obvious benefits of the drugs. In the end, this is one of those knowledge-is-power things. I don't think we'll see enthusiasm dampen for the GLP-1 drugs because of NAION, but it doesn't hurt for any of us — patients or providers — to be aware of it.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said he survived a stage 4 cancer battle that lasted more than a decade
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said he survived a stage 4 cancer battle that lasted more than a decade

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said he survived a stage 4 cancer battle that lasted more than a decade

Jerry Jones sometimes says too much about his Dallas Cowboys. His cancer battle for more than a decade remained a secret though. Jones told the Dallas Morning News that he beat stage 4 melanoma. The Cowboys owner's battle lasted more than a decade, he said, and included four surgeries. "I now have no tumors," Jones, who is 82 years old, told the Dallas Morning News. Jones told the Dallas Morning News the initial diagnosis came in 2010. Over the next 10 years he had four surgeries, two on his lungs and two on his lymph nodes. He credited the experimental drug PD-1 — short for Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 — for his recovery. 'I was saved by a fabulous treatment and great doctors and a real miracle [drug] called PD-1 [therapy],' Jones said, via the Morning News. 'I went into trials for that PD-1 and it has been one of the great medicines." In an episode of the soon to be released Netflix series "America's Team: The Gambler and His Cowboys," Jones mentioned having cancer treatments, leading the Dallas Morning News to ask him about it in an interview. Jones is the NFL's most visible owner, and his Cowboys are the most valuable sports franchise in the world. They're the first sports team to pass the $10 billion mark in Forbes' annual survey. In 2017 — when, according to Jones, he was still fighting stage 4 cancer — he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Jones has no problem seeking out the media for attention on practically any matters regarding his team. But his long battle against cancer was out of the spotlight, until now.

A Nurse in Every School?
A Nurse in Every School?

Medscape

time23 minutes ago

  • Medscape

A Nurse in Every School?

As a school nurse, Traci Jones, RN, PhD, NCSN, handed out ice packs and bandages, but she also helped students manage chronic health conditions ranging from diabetes and asthma to seizure disorders and life-threatening allergies. 'There can't be an expectation that the teachers know how to identify healthcare issues,' said Jones, a school nurse administrator in Temple Hills, Maryland. '[There should be] a nurse in every school.' School nurses oversee case management, assist with individualized education plans for students with disabilities; implement public health strategies for immunizations, natural disasters, and school violence; and connect families with community health resources. Despite the essential role that school nurses play in ensuring the safety and well-being of schoolchildren, a growing number of districts do not have enough nurses to meet student needs. Data from the National Association of School Nurses (NASN) found that just 65% of schools had access to a registered nurse (RN), licensed practical nurse (LPN), or licensed vocational nurse. About Medscape Data Medscape continually surveys physicians and other medical professionals about key practice challenges and current issues, creating high-impact analyses. For example, the Medscape RN/LPN Job Market Report 2025 found that Both RNs and LPNs younger than 45 years were slightly more motivated to job search than older nurses. About 6 in 10 RNs and LPNs checked out a potential new job within the past 3 years. About 1 in 6 nurses don't think they have much negotiating power when it comes to getting a new job offer. Although 20 states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, require K-12 schools to have a school nurse, students in other states often lack access to healthcare in school. Rural areas and districts in the Midwest and West employed the fewest number of school nurses, according to NASN. The Nurses for Under-Resourced Schools Everywhere (NURSE) Act was recently reintroduced in an effort to increase healthcare access in education. The legislation aims to establish a federal grant program to help Title I schools where at least 20% of students are enrolled in free- or reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs to hire and retain school nurses. 'The NURSE Act recognizes the critical role of school nurses in providing students with access to quality healthcare so they can be healthy, safe, and ready to learn,' explained NASN president-elect Pat Endsley, PhD, RN, NCSN, FNASN. More Than Bandages and Ice Packs Injuries, illnesses, and disabilities lead to chronic school absences for almost 6% of school-aged children, and school nurses can help manage acute and chronic illnesses that are linked with poor attendance. In schools without a school nurse, 18% of students were sent home for illnesses or injuries compared with just 5% of students in schools with a school nurse. School nurses don't just affect absenteeism. Studies have found that students with access to school nurses experience better management of chronic conditions and improved academic outcomes, too. 'Sometimes we're just that place where students can come for some reassurance…Sometimes they just need 5 minutes to come in and decompress before going back to class,' Endsley said. 'We're a safe place [and] our goal is getting that student back to class and getting the most out of their education.' However, providing healthcare and safe spaces in schools comes at a cost. On average, the cost of having an LPN in a school nursing program was $115,707 per school year at a time when US schools are facing their biggest budget crunch in years. Funding for school nurses comes from a patchwork of sources, including the federal Department of Education, Medicaid, state health departments, and grants. The patchwork approach leads to disparities in resources between states and even among school districts. Cuts to Medicaid and uncertainty about the future of the Board of Education could also affect the number of nurses in schools today. The expiration of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funding allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic led to severe implications in school districts that included job cuts and loss of critical programming, including the loss of school nurses. 'Schools got COVID funds to hire a lot of school nurses, but…after those funds expired, not very many schools made those positions permanent,' said Endsley. While previous recommendations from organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested a ratio of one school nurse for every 750 students, it's considered an outdated standard, according to Endsley. Instead, she believes districts should conduct ongoing assessments to determine student needs and inform hiring decisions. A school with 500 students but few chronic health conditions might need just one school nurse, while a less populated school with a higher proportion of students with ongoing medical needs might need two (or more) nurses, she explained. But there is more to addressing the school nurse shortage than coming up with student-to-nurse ratios. Changing Perceptions Hiring school nurses is challenging. Misconceptions about the role of school nurses and burnout are among the biggest reasons that 50% of RNs and LPNs leave school nursing in 3-6 months. 'Most people don't know what school nurses do,' said Jones. 'I've had people tell me, 'You sit at the desk all day and hand out candy.'' The perception that school nursing is all about 'Band-Aids, ice, and lice' prevents school nurses from entering the profession — but the RNs who work in school settings appreciate some of the perks: There are no weekend, rotating, or overnight shifts, and many school nurses work 10 months of the year, leading to better work-life balance. There are challenges, too. School nurses experience significant pay disparities. NASN data show that just 34% of school nurses make more than $60,000 per year compared with almost 70% of the total RN workforce. This often forces school nurses to pick up additional shifts in hospitals and clinics, Jones added. The workforce also tends to be older — more than two-thirds of school nurses are over 40 — and retire sooner, leading to greater turnover. The role is also best suited to mid-career nurses. Jones calls it 'grassroots nursing.' 'You have blood pressure cuffs and a stethoscope, and your own knowledge, judgment and skill set,' she added. 'You're usually the only medical expert in the building, and you need a solid foundation.' However, when RNs work in schools, sick and injured students aren't the only ones who benefit. Schools with full-time nurses receive an average return on investment of $1.59 for every dollar invested as well as significant savings in teacher, secretary, principal, and parent productivity — and the community benefits, too. 'School nurses really are an integral part of the whole education system,' Endsley said. 'We work in partnership with our school community, with our teachers, our administrators, but also with the community at large.'

With Deep N.I.H. Cuts, Research Into Health Disparities Falters
With Deep N.I.H. Cuts, Research Into Health Disparities Falters

New York Times

time24 minutes ago

  • New York Times

With Deep N.I.H. Cuts, Research Into Health Disparities Falters

The federal government has for decades invested vigorously in research aimed at narrowing the health gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups, pouring billions of dollars into understanding why minority and low-income Americans have shorter lives and suffer higher rates of illnesses like cancer and heart disease. Spending on so-called health disparities rose even during the Trump administration's first term. But in its second, much of the funding has come to a sudden halt. Following a series of executive orders prohibiting diversity, equity and inclusion policies at every level of the federal government, the National Institutes of Health this year began terminating initiatives that officials said smacked of identity politics and offered dubious benefits. 'Spending billions on divisive, politically driven D.E.I. initiatives that don't deliver results is not just bad health policy — it's bad government,' said a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services. The N.I.H will invest in projects that support 'all vulnerable populations,' and expand participation 'based on clinical need — not identity,' she added. She declined to be identified. In letters from the N.I.H., scientists were told that their projects were canceled because they 'harm the health of Americans,' 'provide a low return on investment,' or 'do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store