Ozempic cuts risk of dementia, study suggests
Scientists at the University of Florida said that semaglutide in particular, whose brand names include Wegovy and Ozempic, showed promise in cutting the risk of conditions that impair memory and thought processes.
Experts said the study was encouraging and called for further research to shed light on how these drugs affect the brain.
A study by the University of Oxford in 2024 suggested that Ozempic could cut the risk of dementia by half.
Academics in the US analysed data from type 2 diabetes patients who were taking either GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), which work by reducing food cravings, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) which reduce the amount of glucose the kidneys re-absorb, allowing it to pass out of the body in urine.
GLP-1RAs is a class of medication that includes semaglutide as well as the brand Rybelus, which is taken as a tablet.
Wegovy was approved to tackle weight loss on the NHS in 2023, while Ozempic and Rybelus are available as treatments for type 2 diabetes.
The study included the health records of 396,963 people over 50 from January 2014 to June 2023.
Statistically significant results
All had type 2 diabetes but no diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD).
Researchers compared those on GLP-1RAs, SGLT-2i and other, second-line glucose-lowering drugs.
The analysis found that 'both GLP-1RAs and SGLT2is were statistically significantly associated with decreased risk of ADRD compared with other GLDs, and no difference was observed between both drugs'.
Meanwhile, it was found that among the GLP-1RAs, 'semaglutide seems to be promising in reducing the risk of ADRD'.
'This finding is particularly intriguing given the existing research on semaglutide's neuroprotective properties,' researchers added.
Dr Leah Mursaleen, head of clinical research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: 'We don't know yet why these medicines may be offering a protective effect and will need more research to understand how they are affecting the brain.'
She added that while the findings were 'interesting', it was important to consider if other factors might be influencing results such as overall health, income or education.
Researchers in Ireland have suggested GLP-1RAs are 'associated with a statistically significant reduction in dementia '.
Their study analysed 26 clinical trials involving almost 165,000 patients to determine if drugs such as SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs, as well as diabetes medications metformin and pioglitazone, led to a reduction in risk of dementia or cognitive impairment.
It found most drugs 'were not associated with an overall reduction in all-cause dementia' although GLP-1RAs were associated with a 'statistically significant reduction'.
Both studies have been published in the journal Jama Neurology.
Track people for longer
Dr Richard Oakley, director of research and innovation at Alzheimer's Society, said: 'Whilst both of these studies found a link between GLP-1RAs and reduced dementia risk, only one found SGLT2is, another class of diabetes drug, were also associated with a reduced risk.
'More research is needed by tracking people for longer, especially as they get older.'
Prof Tara Spires-Jones, director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, said the data was 'encouraging'.
'But even within these two strong studies, there are slightly conflicting results over SGLT2is, highlighting the need for further research,' she said.
'It is important to note that these drugs do have side effects and they are not guaranteed to prevent dementia.
'The studies had important limitations including a relatively short follow-up time.'
Masud Husain, a professor of neurology and cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford, said: 'These analyses suggest that GLP-1 receptor agonists, particularly semaglutide, might reduce the risk of developing dementia in people with type 2 diabetes.
'The wider question of whether such drugs might also be protective against dementia in people who don't have diabetes is a really intriguing one, and the focus of several ongoing clinical trials,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
18 minutes ago
- Scotsman
My Dad had a stroke on a Sunday. On a weekday, he might have lived
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On a quiet Sunday afternoon in June 2023, my Dad, Anthony James Bundy, collapsed whilst out shopping at Costco in Glasgow. He was 53. One moment, he was fine. The next, he couldn't stand. He was vomiting, sweating, his eyes struggling to focus. His brain was shutting down in real time. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad At first, stroke wasn't suspected due to the lack of the 'Fast' – face, arms, speech and time – symptoms. An ambulance wasn't initially dispatched. My Dad didn't improve. Finally, an ambulance was sent. Again, stroke was not suspected. Though my family raised concerns, the system, focusing on Fast signs, did not respond as it should have. My Dad spent five-and-a-half hours in Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Then a full-blown stroke struck, this time with clear Fast symptoms. When a scan confirmed a stroke caused by a blood clot, my Dad had to be transferred to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Why? Because, as the Significant Adverse Event Report (Saer) confirmed, thrombolysis at Glasgow Royal is only available between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. READ MORE: New research shows strokes are on the rise in young people James Bundy, left, with his late father Anthony Bundy, his mother Selena Bundy, and sister, Anthea Bundy, right | Photograph courtesy of James Bundy Blood clot did not fully dissolve Thrombolysis has been described by the NHS as the 'clot-busting drug'. It 'dissolves the clot, restoring blood supply to that part of the brain and reduces the amount of damage caused'. The NHS then explains that it 'must be given within four-and-a-half hours of the onset of symptoms, and the sooner it is given, the more effective it is likely to be'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It's deeply concerning that this vital treatment remains unavailable at weekends in one of Scotland's major hospitals, something I believe can and should be addressed. Thankfully, it is available on a 24/7 basis at the Queen Elizabeth. My Dad finally received thrombolysis, but the blood clot did not fully dissolve. The next step in such a scenario is a thrombectomy: a surgical procedure where doctors physically remove the clot using a tiny device. A 17-hour wait But when my Dad arrived at the Queen Elizabeth, a thrombectomy was not available. The Saer report stated that, on the date he had his stroke, 'thrombectomies were only available to patients on the Hospital 2 site [the Queen Elizabeth], Monday to Friday 9am-5pm'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad My Dad waited 17 hours from the first 999 call to receive a thrombectomy because care wasn't available 24/7. The NHS states that thrombectomy is 'most effective when performed within six hours after stroke symptoms begin'. This, therefore, begs the questions: Why is thrombectomy not available everywhere in Scotland on a 24/7 basis? Why is thrombolysis not available at one of Scotland's major hospitals at the weekend? Sadly, my Dad passed away. We will never know if he would have survived if he got the emergency stroke care on time. Whilst the pain of losing your Dad is always immeasurable, the 'what if' question adds extra weight, like an anchor, to the grief. It's hard to move on when this simple, penetrating question keeps circling your mind. Hard to justify Knowing this pain, I don't want others to go through it. That's why I am campaigning to improve emergency stroke care in Scotland. If my Dad's death can result in Scots having 24/7 access to life-saving treatment, then some good will come from the pain my family continues to experience. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Since my Dad's death, thrombectomy services in Scotland have expanded slightly . In the best-equipped parts of Scotland, thrombectomy is only available between 8am and 8pm, with provision at the weekend still limited. It's hard to justify a situation where this lifesaving, time-sensitive treatment is simply unavailable for 12 hours each day, regardless of need. This doesn't reflect what we expect from an emergency service. Stroke care must be available whenever it's needed, not just part-time. Last year, Scotland's stroke charities highlighted that 'Scotland trails Ukraine in thrombectomy procedures', pointing to data showing that although around 1,000 people in Scotland qualified for a thrombectomy in 2023, just 153 received the treatment, meaning only one-in-seven stroke patients who needed it got it. Let's think about that. Imagine seven people in a waiting room, all needing the same life-saving treatment. Six of them will leave without it. If 1,000 Scots a year had a heart attack and only one in seven received the life-saving treatment in time, the front pages would be screaming. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If 1,000 Scots needed emergency surgery and only one in seven got it, parliament would demand action. So why hasn't this changed yet for stroke patients? The NHS was founded on the principle of care at the point of need. Yet for many stroke victims in Scotland, that principle isn't being met. Cross-party support This campaign isn't about party politics. It's about patients. It's about fairness. It's about life and death. Over the past year, our campaign for 24/7 thrombectomy has gained cross-party support, from Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens. There is a rare political consensus. A chance for Scotland to lead, not fall further behind. Now is the time for the Scottish Government to act, and with cross-party backing, I believe real progress is possible. I understand that 24/7 delivery can't happen overnight. It will take more trained specialists, interventional radiologists, and better coordination across services. But the first step is political will. I'm not asking for full delivery tomorrow. I'm asking for a commitment: that by the end of the next parliament, every Scot who needs a thrombectomy can get one: no matter the day or time. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In parts of England, 24/7 thrombectomy is already becoming the standard. Services are expanding in Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland must not lag behind. Your chances of surviving a stroke shouldn't depend on where you live or what time it is.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Breakthrough weight-loss drug works without nausea or vomiting, scientists reveal
A breakthrough has been made in weight-loss drugs after scientists discovered a new medication – known as TDP – that works without causing side effects of nausea or vomiting. Millions of Americans are already using Ozempic and other GLP-1 class drugs to lose weight. While largely successful, the shots can cause uncomfortable gastrointestinal side effects. Those symptoms and others have landed patients in emergency rooms in recent years, with 25,000 visits occurring from 2022 to 2023, according to scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers say the new experimental rival largely forgoes those issues although how it works to curb appetite is still being researched. 'This paper shows for the first time that giving a smaller version of octadecaneuropeptide in the periphery is still effective to improve body weight and metabolic control without side effects,' Caroline Geisler, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky's College of Pharmacy, told Gizmodo this week. Octadecaneuropeptide, commonly referred to as ODN, is a protein produced by brain cells called glia that support the nervous system. The researchers used ODN to create the drug TDP. 'Now we know that [glia] play a large role in sensing and communicating the status of the body, and we hope that by targeting a glial signaling molecule, we can engage many energy-regulating pathways in the brain and avoid the side effects of nausea and vomiting,' Geisler said. In studies, the researchers inserted ODN into the hindbrain of rats, which contains the brainstem and cerebellum. The cerebellum is a part of the brain that controls movements and other cognitive processes, such as language and attention span. Once the rats were treated with ODN, they lost weight and improved their ability to control their blood sugar. Whereas when the researchers blocked ODN, the animals showed a weaker response to treatment with the popular GLP-1 drugs. They also dosed mice, rats, and shrews with TDN. The drug also improved blood sugar control, causing weight loss without nausea or vomiting in the rats for over a week. The shrews did not vomit either, and the drug appeared not to have effects on the animals' movement, body temperatures, and heart rate. However, the results, published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, are only a proof of concept. The study's authors are hoping to test the drugs in people next. 'We have an optimistic timeline that we could be ready to start clinical trials within two years,' Geisler said.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The five-day doctors' strike will only do harm
Between 7am on Friday 25 July and 7am on Wednesday 30 July, there will be a significant deterioration in healthcare in England and Wales. Whatever else may be claimed about patient safety protocols and safeguards, people in pain and distress will suffer more than they would if the resident doctors were working and not going on strike. After all, if the coming five days of industrial action were likely to go unnoticed, the strike would not be taking place. It is hard to see how, over the next week or so, lives will not be put at more risk than if the hospitals and clinics were working normally – and that is still, sadly, an unsatisfactory situation to start from. Indeed, there will be unwelcome extra pressure on the NHS for some time to come, because of the backlog of postponed procedures that will have to be cleared. These may not be as severe as after past disputes, because this time hospital managers are not prioritising emergency care to the same extent, and are protecting scheduled, 'elective' surgery to a greater extent. There is clearly a will on the part of management to ensure that those who cause this interruption in service do not then go on to receive generous overtime for reducing the backlogs they themselves have created. None of this is anything that the striking doctors desire, and there's no reason to doubt that many feel they are being forced into this position. Those on duty will still do their very best for their patients. Nonetheless, the doctors should ask themselves whether all of the misery, and worse, that will inevitably occur is necessary this time. There are strong reasons why this round of industrial action will not be worth it. First, no group of strikers can succeed without public support. In the past, under the Conservatives, the incessant NHS strikes by resident doctors, nurses, support staff and consultants were, in fact, solidly backed by the public, who sympathised with their cause even if it meant that the medical treatment they needed might be postponed. Now, the support is much softer, and a majority of the population opposes the strikes. There have been major changes, too, since the previous round of strikes, all connected to the election of a Labour government committed to the survival of the NHS. One of the first things the new chancellor, Rachel Reeves, did on arriving at the Treasury last July was to pay the salary increases recommended by the independent pay review body in full – a 22 per cent uplift over two years, a startling settlement by comparison with most other workers. Not long after that, Ms Reeves raised taxes to pay for an immediate programme to reduce waiting lists, recruit and train more staff, and invest for the longer term in the NHS. The new health and social care secretary, Wes Streeting, also announced his plan to abolish NHS England, and to implement radical reforms to improve productivity. Taken together, these developments should have signalled to NHS staff that this was a government that wanted the best for the service. In this context, at the start of the journey to a renewed NHS, and with that sizeable pay rise having been implemented, it feels very wrong that the doctors should undermine these efforts, and the progress that has already been recorded, by setting things back again for weeks, if not months, to come. Worse than that, to many it will seem as though the NHS is unfixable, and that it needs more fundamental change. If it appears that Labour can't do much better than the Conservatives at making the NHS work, people will wonder whether it is time for a more radical approach. If they cannot get the treatment they need, when they need it, then they will be more receptive to the siren calls from figures such as Nigel Farage for a French-style insurance system (but, he never adds, without French-style funding). The doctors, in other words, may or may not win a bigger pay award, but they are gambling with the future of the very thing they profess to love – the National Health Service itself, free at the point of use, and paid for by general taxation. The striking doctors should also examine once again the merits of their claim – for a 29.2 per cent award. To everyone else, this looks like an outlandish figure, even as a starting point for talks. It is not part of any pay review recommendation. It is based on a calculation of how much doctors' pay scales would have to change (on a disputed measurement of inflation) to bring them back in real terms to levels prevailing in 2008, before they were eroded. But how many groups of workers would like their pay restored in real terms to some advantageous point in the past, when times were better? The doctors reply that they'd love for everyone to get such a rise, but everyone knows that's not possible – and, given public sentiment, it's not realistic for them either. In short, the chances are that the doctors will not win their strike. Any improvements they do secure will be modest when set against their tarnished reputation and the damage they will do to the trust the public want to place in the NHS. If the doctors do force a pay increase that requires another hike in taxes and causes a reduction in NHS services, then it is not going to be sustainable – because the public will not tolerate it, and the NHS won't survive for the coming decade. The more this strike hurts, the more chance there is that it will, in the long run, fail. It is not worth it.
