It’s not just for diabetes anymore

GLP-1 receptor agonists [semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound)] are proving transformational for type II diabetes patients in particular and for obese individuals in general. Now, it appears they have benefits in cancer patients.

“Use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with four solid tumor types was significantly associated with lower rates of progression to metastatic disease over a 5-year period, a propensity score-matched analysis found.

“In patients with stage I-III colorectal, liver, breast, or lung cancers, those who started a GLP-1 drug after their cancer diagnosis had a 31% to 50% lower risk of progression to stage IV disease compared with patients who initiated another class of antidiabetic drug, DPP-4 inhibitors, reported Mark David Orland, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute.”

*snip*

“Initially approved for type 2 diabetes and obesity, GLP-1 drugs now carry indications in cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, steatotic liver disease, and more, with an estimated 20 million Americans taking the blockbuster medications . . . But GLP-1 agents have never been considered to just be glucose-lowering drugs, with anti-inflammatory and immune modulatory properties hinting at broader effects, along with emerging preclinical data suggesting possible anti-tumor activity.”

Further studies are needed before GLP-1 receptor agonists become standard of care, but it’s worth noting that it’s almost always metastasis that kills, not the primary tumor.

Stay tuned.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/asco/121397?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2026-05-21&mh=eb71348a5ff6ae370cc6759bc5dc3300&zdee=gAAAAABm4u1YoCP4y5SBTJUyUyqo9KxZhft26L1xeGdP0BzzQQN1Pb_ifR6vFqhFh-3U6Q_nU7DbA-EawzzXKxSRhMOwjrOGuOKbf7OE641eN0HfnK6eObE%3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Evening%20-%20Randomized%202026-05-21&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more