Category: Health

• A new study has found a decline in the number of people getting bariatric surgery for weight loss.
• The widespread availability of GLP-1 medications and weight management programs is likely contributing to this trend.
• Experts say that bariatric surgery has been shown to be an effective long-term strategy for weight loss.
• Bariatric surgery also has quick recovery times due to procedural advancements, such as laparoscopic techniques.
• Your doctor can help you decide whether weight loss surgery or weight loss drugs are best for you.

Until recently, bariatric surgery was considered a first-line treatment for weight loss.

The study’s authors aimed to understand how the types and numbers of bariatric surgeries have changed in response to the growing popularity of GLP-1 drugs and other weight loss treatments.

After examining data from 2020 to 2024, the researchers observed a decline in the number of bariatric surgeries performed across the United States.

The study highlights how patients and doctors are increasingly opting for surgery alternatives, reflecting evolving attitudes and options to treat obesity.

However, as noninvasive therapies advance, it’s important to track how these shifts affect surgical practices and patient choices.

To investigate these trends, the researchers analyzed a large national database called the ACS-MBSAQIP, which tracks bariatric surgeries performed in the United States.

They focused on surgeries performed from the beginning of 2020 through 2024, including both initial weight loss surgeries and follow-up revision or conversion procedures — procedures performed to modify or adjust earlier operations.

The data revealed that the overall number of bariatric surgeries reached its highest level in 2022, then declined in the following years. This drop reflects a growing preference for nonsurgical options among patients and healthcare professionals.

Alongside this reduction, the study found that the types of surgeries being performed have also shifted.

One key finding is a decrease in the frequency of sleeve gastrectomy, a common procedure in which a portion of the stomach is removed to reduce its size. While still the most popular surgery, its share of total procedures has steadily decreased since 2020.

In contrast, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgeries — which create a small stomach pouch and reroute the intestines — have become more common, particularly as conversion surgeries. Many people who initially had a sleeve gastrectomy later undergo a gastric bypass to further aid weight loss or address complications.

Additionally, the study noted an overall increase in other bariatric procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and lap-band surgeries. This suggests that surgeons and patients are exploring a wider variety of surgical options tailored to individual needs.

By examining these trends, the study sheds light on how the field of weight loss treatment is evolving. It underscores the importance of ongoing research and adaptation in medical practice as new therapies emerge and patient preferences evolve.

John DeBarros, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Pivot Weight Loss Center, said he doesn’t necessarily feel this trend is either positive or negative for those seeking help with weight loss. DeBarros wasn’t involved in research.

“The honest answer would be it depends,” he told Healthline. “It depends on the reason why patients are making that choice.”

If they have researched their options and discussed their decision with a qualified surgeon before making their decision, and they still feel that a GLP-1 medication is best for them, that’s patient-centered care, according to DeBarros.

“What very much concerns me deeply, however, is when patients bypass surgery simply because GLP-1 feels easier or the less intimidating choice,” he said.

“I think the decline in bariatric surgery becomes a grave problem when patients with severe obesity, those with a BMI of 35+ with serious comorbidities, without understanding that surgery may be infinitely more effective for them,” said DeBarros.

Sergey Terushkin, MD, a bariatric surgeon with ThinEra, added that he thinks the conversation around GLP-1 medications has become too extreme on both sides. “Some people act like bariatric surgery is suddenly obsolete, other people dismiss the medications completely,” he told Healthline. “Neither is true.”

However, Terushkin, who was also not part of the study, acknowledged that GLP-1 drugs “have absolutely changed the field.”

“That’s a good thing,” he said. “Surgeons shouldn’t be angry that some patients are improving without an operation.”

With more weight loss treatments becoming available, it’s important to understand your options so you can make the best choices for yourself.

According to Terushkin, bariatric surgery is still the most effective treatment long term, based on years of data.

“Surgery is not just ‘making the stomach smaller,’” he explained. “It alters hunger hormones, metabolism, diabetes progression, sleep apnea, blood pressure, [and] mobility.”

Terushkin added that laparoscopic surgery, a type of procedure where a thin tube with a camera and a light on it is inserted through an incision in the abdomen, is not what many people expect. It allows most to recover quickly and go home soon after surgery.

“What concerns me most is when patients delay treatment for years waiting for a perfect answer that probably doesn’t exist,” said Terushkin. “I’ve done revision surgeries on patients who spent ten years bouncing between diets, supplements, medications, then came in with worsening diabetes and major health problems.”

Terushkin said that the best treatment really depends on the individual.

“Severity of obesity matters. Medical history matters. Whether someone can realistically stay on medication long term matters,” he said. “Sometimes medications are enough. Sometimes surgery is the better option. Sometimes they work very well together.

“The worst approach is treating obesity like there’s one universal answer for everybody,” he said.

While weight loss surgery has the most research supporting its long-term effectiveness, it’s also important to discuss your options with your doctor to determine what is best for you.

In 1996, Barbara Roberts thought she had a bad case of the flu that wouldn’t go away. After several days of experiencing a high fever and sweating, she decided to go to the emergency room, where she was sent home with antibiotics.

“I just still didn’t feel well,” Roberts told Healthline. “And I remember going back to the emergency room.”

She stayed in the hospital for three days while doctors ran tests. On December 21, 1996, Roberts was diagnosed with HIV. She was 44 years old.

“It surprised me because it never occurred to me that that’s what was going wrong with me,” she said. “I was in total shock, disarray, scared to death because back then, it was like a death sentence.”

Roberts left the hospital with a medication regimen and visited an HIV clinic for guidance.

“Everyone was so nice to me there. They were so kind and calmed all my fears; they tried to at least,” said Roberts.

Initially, her medications helped ease symptoms, and she felt better.

However, a year after her diagnosis, Roberts became extremely tired and experienced shortness of breath and nosebleeds. She also noticed that the skin on her hands and the bottom of her feet darkened.

An intense nosebleed led her back to the ER, where doctors discovered she had significantly low blood platelets. For 25 days straight, she received blood and platelet transfusions in the hospital.

During this time, doctors determined that one of her medications caused her symptoms, and they adjusted accordingly.

“After that, I have never gone back to the hospital or had any problems with my medications, and I’ve had different ones over the years,” said Roberts.

In 2021, Roberts’ rheumatologist, Debbie Hagins, MD, medical director of the Coastal CARE Centers in southeast Georgia, asked if she would like to participate in a clinical trial for try Idvynso, a daily two-drug single-tablet treatment for people with HIV who are virally suppressed.

“She explained the medication to me and asked if I would like to be in a study,” said Roberts. “I felt it was a privilege for her to ask me to be in this study.”

She decided to enroll in the clinical trial because she couldn’t pass up the opportunity to take only one medication a day.

“The only thing I remember from initially taking the medication was I had really vivid dreams for about two weeks, and it’s been smooth sailing [since],” said Roberts.

On April 21, 2026, the FDA approved Idvynso.

Roberts continues to participate in the clinical trial as part of an open-label extension, in which additional data are collected to better understand the drug’s long-term safety profile.

While she lives with age-related back pain and arthritis, at 74 years old, she said she’s grateful she doesn’t live with any other chronic conditions that require medication.

“I hear of people [having to take] many different medications in a day because their HIV had caused them so many other problems like organs breaking down and skin tissue issues, so that was a reason that I decided to get in the study…if this could help me, why shouldn’t I be able to help someone else?”

Hagins said that although HIV is a chronic and manageable disease, it is associated with increased risks of bone, cardiovascular, and renal diseases, and accelerated aging.

“Prescribing the least amount of medication and at the lowest dose possible to achieve the desired goal is always the objective,” Hagins told Healthline.

An HIV provider since 1989, Hagins said she witnessed treatment undergo revolutionary advances. She remembers patients who felt that the treatment was worse than the disease and whose quality of life was reduced.

“They gave up their dreams of having a family, of traveling, of pursuing a career, and the like,” she said. “Today, with HIV medications like Idvynso, persons living with HIV no longer embrace those limitations.”

However, she said more treatment options are needed, especially because those living with HIV require lifelong treatment, which can cause unwanted side effects that may not appear until several years into treatment.

“And though our currently FDA-approved medications have not changed in their efficacy, people change. As we age, our bodies respond and react to illnesses and their treatments differently with each decade of life,” said Hagins.

“It is standard medical practice to review a patient’s medications during office visits and to consider dose reductions, changes or discontinuations for each condition being managed.”

When Roberts was first diagnosed with HIV, she didn’t tell anyone about it except her close family members.

“It was just a private thing that I had and that I managed because…I didn’t want people to think of me with all the different stigmas that were attached to it,” she said.

But then she met the love of her life, Johnny L. Roberts, on Labor Day in 1997.

“It was just casual until it was serious, and I got afraid because I had to tell him. I had never been in any other relationship to have to tell someone about my HIV,” Roberts said.

One Friday night, she let him know.

“And he just embraced me, and he told me, ‘You’re going to be fine,’” she said. “He told me about the sadness that he saw in my eyes that I never thought I presented, but I guess that I did.”

She believes that education and understanding of HIV have helped with the stigma around it and that today, people are more open to sharing the reality of their condition.

She hopes this encourages others to open up and be true to their experience.

“Sometimes it’s hard because people and places and times can be mean, but I’m grateful that there’s more positive information now, and people are [more accepting than] they used to be,” she said.

• A study has found promising results with the breast cancer prevention drug (Z)-endoxifen.
• The drug reduced breast density safely and with fewer side effects than tamoxifen.
• It also had fewer troublesome side effects than this standard preventive treatment.
• Experts say that if further research confirms these findings, the endoxifen could help increase compliance and improve outcomes.

The protocol involves low doses of (Z)-endoxifen, a metabolite of the well-known drug tamoxifen.

The study, known as the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, tested the effects of two daily doses of (Z)-endoxifen on mammographic breast density, a known marker of breast cancer risk and treatment response.

Researchers examined whether (Z)-endoxifen could reduce breast density safely and with fewer side effects than tamoxifen, potentially offering a new option for breast cancer prevention. Here’s what they found.

The KARISMA Endoxifen trial was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study that enrolled premenopausal women ages 40 to 55.

Researchers recruited 240 healthy participants from Sweden’s national breast cancer screening program between December 2021 and November 2023.

To be eligible, participants needed to have regular menstrual cycles or confirm premenopausal status via blood tests, and to have a baseline mammogram showing measurable breast density. Women taking medications that could interfere with endoxifen metabolism were excluded.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups receiving daily oral capsules for six months: a placebo, 1 milligram (mg) of (Z)-endoxifen, or 2 mg of (Z)-endoxifen.

The study was “double-blinded,” meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew who was receiving which treatment until the trial was completed, ensuring unbiased results.

Mammographic breast density was measured from full-field digital mammograms obtained at the start, 3 months, 6 months, or upon early discontinuation. A specialized automated method, STRATUS, assessed breast density area in square centimeters, and images were aligned to reduce measurement errors.

Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the study by monitoring vital signs and blood chemistry, and by assessing participant-reported side effects via a digital application and questionnaires.

Tolerability was assessed using the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Eight Symptom Scale (BESS Plus), a validated symptom questionnaire, supplemented with questions specific to tamoxifen-related symptoms based on previous research.

The trial’s main goal was to determine whether either dose of (Z)-endoxifen was better than placebo at reducing mammographic breast density, a proxy for breast cancer risk reduction.

Statistical analysis focused on relative changes in breast density adjusted for baseline values and compared the results between placebo and active treatment groups.

Of the over 126,000 females invited to participate, 240 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups, with 75 females in each group completing baseline and end-of-treatment mammograms for analysis.

The groups were balanced in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, and family history of breast cancer.

The key finding was that both doses of (Z)-endoxifen significantly reduced mammographic breast density compared to placebo.

Females receiving 1 mg of (Z)-endoxifen showed a 19.3% reduction in breast density, while those on 2 mg experienced a 26.5% reduction. In contrast, the placebo group showed virtually no change. These reductions are comparable to those previously seen with the standard 20 mg dose of tamoxifen used for breast cancer prevention and treatment.

Blood tests confirmed that (Z)-endoxifen levels in the blood corresponded with the doses given, with average plasma concentrations of 4.75 ng/mL in the 1 mg group and 9.69 ng/mL in the 2 mg group.

However, breast density reduction plateaued at concentrations of 3-4 ng/mL, suggesting that higher doses may not provide additional benefit.

Regarding safety, the overall number of adverse events (AEs) reported was similar across all groups; however, more women in the (Z)-endoxifen groups reported side effects related to the study drug.

The most frequently reported side effects in the treatment groups included:

Additionally, the 1 mg dose had fewer participants discontinue treatment due to side effects than the 2 mg group, indicating better tolerability at the lower dose.

No clinically significant changes were noted in blood chemistry, hematology, or vital signs, and serious adverse events were rare and unrelated to the study drug.

According to the authors, the findings suggest that a low dose of (Z)-endoxifen can effectively reduce breast density with a manageable side-effect profile, especially at 1 mg.

Blen Tesfu, MD, a physician and Medical Advisor at Welzo, wasn’t involved in the clinical trial but said the findings are important.

The trial shows that a significantly lower dose of (Z)-endoxifen is as effective as the standard tamoxifen dose in reducing mammographic breast density, which is most commonly used for prevention, Tesfu noted.

“Since there are established associations between breast density and breast cancer risk, even modest reductions could have implications for preventive approaches,” she told Healthline.

Tesfu further pointed out the benefits of improved tolerance.

“[T]his could help to address what has been identified as one of the primary impediments to patient compliance with long-term use of hormone-based drugs,” she said.

Brian Clark, BSN, MSNA, a certified registered nurse anesthetist and founder and CEO of United Medical Education, agreed. He said that many people who can’t tolerate the side effects of tamoxifen simply don’t receive adequate hormonal prevention. Clark wasn’t involved in the trial.

“This opening of the population to a drug that offers similar effects at 1 mg opens the door to populations previously not afforded this quality of care,” he told Healthline, adding that it could change the way breast cancer risk reduction is approached at the population level.

It should be noted, however, that this is a proof-of-concept trial, meaning that larger, longer trials will be needed to determine whether (Z)-endoxifen actually reduces breast cancer risk.

Still, if these findings hold up, a lower-dose option like (Z)-endoxifen could make preventive treatment more manageable for many people.

By reducing side effects without sacrificing effectiveness, it may help more patients stay on therapy long enough to see meaningful benefits, a challenge with current options.

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has blocked the publication of COVID-19 and shingles vaccine safety studies, citing concerns over their conclusions.
• Experts question the decision to withdraw the studies, since both vaccines have substantial evidence supporting their safety and effectiveness.
• Some experts say the decision may be influenced by HHS Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine agenda.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has pulled back the publication of several studies on the safety and efficacy of broadly used COVID-19 and shingles vaccines.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the FDA, confirmed the decision, which was first reported by The New York Times.

The studies, which involved millions of patient records and taxpayer dollars, were conducted by FDA scientists and data contractors before they were blocked from publication.

Two studies on COVID-19 vaccines that were accepted by medical journals were withdrawn in October 2025 before they were published.

The FDA also failed to sign off on two safety studies on the shingles vaccine, Shingrex, which required the federal agency’s approval prior to their submission to a drug safety conference.

The Department of Health and Human Services couldn’t be reached for comment, but an HHS spokesperson told The New York Times that the studies were blocked due to concerns about their conclusions.

“Scientists and physicians aren’t buying that explanation,” said Robert Glatter, MD, attending physician in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, and assistant professor of Emergency Medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/ Northwell.

“The public health implications of blocking such studies are serious … secrecy can backfire. People who are already distrustful may see suppression where officials see caution,” Glatter told Healthline.

A robust body of evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of both COVID-19 and shingles vaccines, which has experts concerned about the FDA’s decision to pull the recent studies.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, echoed Glatter’s remarks. “The COVID-19 vaccine safety studies had been peer reviewed and would have been extremely important to be published for reassurance of the public of the safety of these vaccines,” she said.

William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases in the Department of Health Policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, agreed.

“Both vaccines are in widespread use, not only here in the United States, but around the world. Having these data available so that professional people can look at them and make their own assessments when they see the data is very important.”

We spoke with infectious disease experts unaffiliated with the studies to find out why scientific research might be barred from publication, and why it’s potentially problematic to block it from public view.

These interviews have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity and length. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Healthline Media.

Gandhi: I am extremely concerned about the FDA’s decision to pull publications of well-conducted studies documenting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as a study showing the effectiveness of the Shingrix vaccine in preventing shingles.

The COVID-19 safety studies reviewed side effects of these vaccines among millions of people with data collected by FDA scientists from Medicare and other insurance databases, and found the vaccine to be safe among those who are 65 and older and those between the ages of 6 and 64 years.

The FDA’s decision suggests a political rather than a scientific motivation and aligns with the anti-vaccine views of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Glatter: The broad reaction from my colleagues and myself is skepticism and outrage toward the decision itself, not because every study is beyond criticism, but more to the point that withholding research is viewed as unethical and irresponsible.

In science, disagreement is normally handled through peer review, editorial commentary, replication, and publication of rebuttals, not by stopping publication of a research paper altogether.

That is especially true for vaccines, where confidence depends on showing the public both the evidence and the process.

Federal health agencies themselves routinely argue that transparency is essential to trust, and the FDA has recently emphasized the importance of making trial results public to avoid distorted perceptions of safety and efficacy.

Gandhi: There are no concerns that I could see which would block these COVID-19 vaccine safety publications given that the design of looking at large datasets of people who receive the vaccine before and after vaccine receipt is a sound one and can be accomplished in millions of people using large insurance-based databases.

FDA scientists conduct such studies after a new vaccine is approved, and these studies are peer reviewed and nearing publication. Their blockage suggests a political, rather than a scientific, motivation.

Schaffner: We should realize that no single study or method is perfect; it’s the assemblage of many different studies done by different investigators using methods that are sometimes slightly different, but that nonetheless have a long track record of reliability. That’s how we come to a consensus on effectiveness and safety.

The studies in question were done by highly experienced investigators using well-established methods. Are they the single and only and perfect answer, no, but they do reflect a real-life experience that goes beyond the constrained experience you get from prospective, controlled clinical trials.

The methods used by these investigators are well established and well recognized. They cannot be published unless they are peer-reviewed first, so they undergo careful critical analysis before publication.

Glatter: Could there ever be legitimate reasons to delay publication of a government-funded study? In principle, yes. Methodological flaws or errors, premature conclusions, or conflicts with stronger evidence are valid grounds for internal review.

But such conversations should happen in the open. Scientists revise, resubmit, respond to peer critique and review. What allegedly happened here — leadership halting accepted research without transparent scientific justification — falls well outside normal regulatory conduct.

Gandhi: The public health implications are to erode trust in vaccines such as those used for COVID-19 and shingles prevention. The public can be reassured by large database-based studies such as these on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Schaffner: Over the last several years, there’s been a great deal of controversy and concern about the effectiveness and the safety of vaccines. Having data from very large real-life experiences assembled, analyzed, and then published is very important.

That information goes out to medical care practitioners of all kinds — physicians, nurses, pharmacists — so that they can honestly and clearly represent the effectiveness and safety of vaccines to their patients.

Not having this information readily available and published in the scientific literature is, therefore, very unfortunate, as it impedes the appreciation of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines now being recommended for use.

Glatter: Critically, COVID vaccines are among the most studied in history, with large clinical trials and post-market surveillance consistently showing clear and substantial population benefits that outweigh any noted rare risks.

Blocking confirmatory safety data doesn’t strengthen the science — it simply removes it from view. The public health stakes are real. Vaccine confidence is not a fixed quantity; it erodes incrementally, and it erodes fastest when people sense that information is being managed rather than shared.

Under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., federal agencies have already softened COVID vaccine recommendations, cut vaccine research funding, and attempted to overhaul the childhood immunization schedule. Each of these steps, individually, might be debated on policy grounds.

Together, and now compounded by the suppression of internally favorable safety data, they form a pattern that the public is right to scrutinize.

Schaffner: I hope these studies are published as quickly as possible, because the information is important. They both reinforce the effectiveness and the safety of one of the COVID vaccines and also the shingles vaccine.

Gandhi: I very much hope the FDA will reverse its decision and publish the studies. This matters deeply to public perception that the agency is upholding its formerly high standard of scientific integrity and is not compromised by the HHS Secretary’s ideological views.

Glatter: The bottom line is that these studies should be published. Not because we need more evidence that COVID and shingles vaccines are safe (we already have it), but because the act of suppression is itself the problem. Science earns public trust through transparency, including the willingness to publish findings that challenge assumptions.

When the government funds research and then buries its own reassuring conclusions, it doesn’t protect scientific integrity — it damages it. And in a moment when vaccine hesitancy is already elevated, that damage doesn’t stay within the walls of a federal agency. It spreads like wildfire in 2026, amplified by social media and influencers.

The FDA should reverse course, release these findings through normal peer review, and let the data speak for itself. That is, after all, what the data was intended to do.

• European scientists say ultra-processed foods increase the risks of a variety of health ailments, particularly heart disease.
• They recommend that medical professionals discuss the health dangers of ultra-processed foods with their patients.
• Experts agree that doctors should advise their patients on how to identify ultra-processed foods and reduce them in their daily diets.

European scientists say that medical professionals aren’t doing enough to warn the public about the health dangers of ultra-processed foods.

The scientists are urging doctors to talk with their patients about the amount of ultra-processed foods they eat and how to reduce them in their daily diets. They said those discussions should include an explanation that many foods marketed as “healthier” are often ultra-processed.

The scientists said this guidance is particularly important for people at risk for heart disease. They further noted that most dietary guidelines prioritize nutrient-centered recommendations but don’t address food processing.

The scientists recommended that medical professionals promote better public understanding of food labeling, food regulation, and updated guidelines. They reached their conclusions by reviewing all published research on ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular health.

“[Ultra-processed foods], made from industrial ingredients and additives, have largely replaced traditional diets,” Luigina Guasti, MD, an associate professor at the University of Insubria in Italy and a co-author of the statement, said in a press release.

“Research suggests these foods are linked to several risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, and to the risk of developing and dying from heart disease. However, this evidence has not yet made its way into the advice we give to patients on healthy eating,” Guasti continued.

Ultra-processed foods are foods that have been altered from their original form and contain additives such as sugar and salt, as well as substances that aren’t typically used in culinary preparations.

Those additional substances add flavor and texture to foods but can also increase the risk of several diseases.

A 2025 study concluded that ultra-processed foods are tied to more than 120,000 preventable deaths in the United States every year.

Recent research has also linked ultra-processed foods to worse muscle health, weakened bones, and fertility issues in females.

The European scientists reported that adults with a high consumption of ultra-processed foods have a 19% higher risk of coronary artery disease, a 13% higher risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), and as much as a 65% higher risk of cardiovascular-related death compared with adults with a lower consumption of ultra-processed foods.

They added that ultra-processed foods also worsen key risk factors for conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and the buildup of unhealthy fats in the bloodstream.

They reported that the risk from ultra-processed foods seems to be consistent across large, diverse populations.

Cheng-Han Chen, MD, an interventional cardiologist and medical director of the Structural Heart Program at MemorialCare Saddleback Medical Center in Laguna Hills, CA, wasn’t involved in the study, but agreed with the scientists’ recommendations.

“This review of the current evidence regarding the health effects of ultra-processed foods makes it clear that consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Chen told Healthline. “We need to better educate the public on the risks of these foods and on the need to prioritize eating whole foods.”

Jennifer Wong, MD, a cardiologist and medical director of Non-Invasive Cardiology at MemorialCare Heart and Vascular Institute at Orange Coast Medical Center in Fountain Valley, CA, echoed this sentiment. Wong wasn’t involved in the study.

“This [paper] highlights an important and increasingly relevant issue — the impact of ultra-processed foods on cardiovascular health,” she told Healthline. “Bringing attention to this topic is critical given how prevalent these foods are in modern diets.”

Consuming ultra-processed foods may harm the body in several ways.

“We think that ultra-processed foods increase risk of cardiovascular disease through many mechanisms,” Chen said. “[These foods] are typically high in added sugars, unhealthy fats, and sodium, all of which lead to increased inflammation and increased risk of many cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes.”

“These foods also seem to disrupt our natural gut bacteria, further worsening systemic inflammation,” Chen added. “Also, increased intake of [ultra-processed foods] leads to less intake of heart-healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.”

Amit Khera, MD, director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, lists other ways ultra-processed food consumption contributes to health issues:

• may lead to excess calorie intake
• may contain high levels of saturated fat, added sugars, or sodium
• may trigger the brain to stay hungry even after eating
• may cause potential disruptions to blood sugar levels

“Most [ultra-processed foods] are foods with poor nutritional quality, contributing to excessive calories, and are typically high in saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium,” Khera told Healthline.

A February review stated that ultra-processed foods may be as addictive as tobacco.

They noted that the percentage of calories from ultra-processed foods ranges from 61% in the Netherlands to 57% in the United Kingdom, 25% in Spain, 22% in Portugal, and 18% in Italy.

It’s estimated that over 50% of the adult diet in the United States comes from ultra-processed foods.

A 2025 review on the rise of ultra-processed foods notes that the increase in consumption may be attributed to their convenience, lower cost, longer shelf life, and aggressive marketing.

An executive summary of a three-paper series on ultra-processed foods notes that societal changes are needed to reverse these trends.

“This rise in ultra-processed foods is driven by powerful global corporations who employ sophisticated political tactics to protect and maximize profits,” the authors wrote.

“Education and relying on behavior change by individuals is insufficient. Deteriorating diets are an urgent public health threat that requires coordinated policies and advocacy to regulate and reduce ultra-processed foods and improve access to fresh and minimally processed foods.”

Christopher Gardner, PhD, a professor at Stanford Medicine, said the uncertainty about exactly what an ultra-processed food is can also add to the challenges. Gardner wasn’t involved in these studies.

“If it were easy to point out exactly what an ultra-processed food was, that is different than junk food, or unhealthy food, it could be helpful,” Gardner told Healthline.

“But the overlap is significant. And there are hundreds of cosmetic additives to be on the lookout for. And we don’t actually have great data or great science on each and every one of the cosmetic additives.”

Eating fewer ultra-processed foods may start with better knowledge of unhealthy foods.

“The first step is for people to better understand the types of foods they eat and which foods in their diet would be considered ultra-processed,” Chen said. “They can then better replace those types of foods with healthier alternatives such as fruits and vegetables.”

Wong agreed. “Clear and informative food labeling can improve public awareness and help individuals make healthier dietary choices,” she said. “Individuals can reduce intake by reading ingredient labels carefully, choosing minimally processed or whole-food alternatives, and preparing meals at home using fresh, healthy ingredients.”

• Prepare more foods at home.
• Be deliberate in food purchases at the grocery store.
• Make smart choices when ordering out.
• Snack smarter.

Khera added that some “simple swaps” can also help.

“Make your own simple vinaigrette instead of buying bottled salad dressing,” he said. “Add fruit to plain oatmeal, cereal, and yogurt instead of buying the sweetened or flavored kind. Slice up leftover roasted chicken or make a light tuna salad for sandwiches instead of using processed deli meat.”

Gardner agreed that focusing on foods that we know are healthy is a simple way to eat more healthy.

“Shift the approach to consuming more unprocessed or minimally processed foods,” he said.

“Whole foods: Veggies, fruits, legumes, nuts, seeds, [and] whole grains. Those are easier to define. Eat more of the good foods and, hopefully, by the time you have eaten those, you will be full and satiated and no longer in the mood for eating the junk, unhealthy, ultra-processed foods.”

• Dolly Parton shared a new health update with fans in an Instagram video.
• Though she didn’t specify exactly what health issues she’s facing, Parton noted previous challenges with her kidney health as well as weakened immune and digestive systems.
• Parton also revealed that medication side effects forced her to cancel her upcoming Las Vegas shows.

Dolly Parton shared “some good news, and a little bad news,” about her health in an Instagram reel posted across her various social media accounts on Monday, May 4.

“The good news is, I’m responding really well to meds and treatments, and I’m improving every day,” Parton said.

Though the country music icon didn’t specify exactly what she’s being treated for, she noted that she’s “always had problems with my kidney stones,” joking that “they dig more stones out of me a year than the rock quarry in Rockwood, Tennessee.”

Parton further elaborated that her immune and digestive systems “got all out of whack over the past three years,” and that her care team is “working real hard on rebuilding and strengthening those.”

She also apologized to fans for needing to cancel her previously postponed Las Vegas shows “because some of the meds and treatments make me a little bit swimmy-headed … and of course, I can’t be dizzy carrying around banjos, guitars and such on five-inch heels.”

The new update comes only eight months after Parton originally announced on Instagram that she needed to postpone her Las Vegas concerts due to “health challenges” she was facing that would require “a few procedures.”

However, despite the “serious business” of her current health, Parton assured fans that she is “doing really well” and has “great doctors” who told her “everything I have is treatable.”

Though Parton said “it’s going to take me a little while before I’m up to stage-performance level,” she hopes to be “up to snuff again soon” and intends to continue working during her recovery.

“The truth is, I am still working. I still do videos. I still record. I run up and down to Dollywood now and then,” Parton said.

She also noted that she’s “working hard on getting my museum and my hotel open in Nashville later this year,” as well as “spending a lot of time writing and reworking” her upcoming Broadway musical, Dolly: A True Original Musical, which is set to open in “fall or early winter” of 2026.

Parton also thanked fans for the outpouring of love and support she received following the death of her husband, Carl Dean.

Dean, who married Parton in 1966 and largely stayed out of the public spotlight throughout their decades-long marriage, passed away on March 3, 2025, at the age of 82.

“A lot of you’ve been concerned about me and Carl, and you were so great about that,” she said in the video. “I will always love him, and I will always miss him, but you would be surprised at how much your love and concern meant to me during that time.”

“From the bottom of my heart, I thank you,” she continued. “You have been a big part of my healing.”

Despite the challenges she’s faced, Parton told fans she remains optimistic about the future and grateful for the support she continues to receive, noting in the video’s caption, “I’ve still got some healing to do, but I am on my way!”

• “Office Air Theory” is trending on social media, with claims that office environments can negatively impact skin and hair throughout the day.
• Experts say there is some truth to the trend, as low humidity and dry indoor air can dehydrate skin.
• Stress, screen time, hormones, and hygiene habits can also play a role.
• Staying hydrated, moisturizing, and avoiding touching your face throughout the day can also help.

A new theory about skin and hair health has been gaining traction on social media platforms like TikTok.

Known as the “office air theory,” proponents claim that indoor environments, such as offices, can negatively affect the appearance and health of skin and hair.

In one now-viral TikTok video, creator Noa Donlan attempted to document the effects of “office air,” showing how, at 9 am, her hair appears “clean, skin clear,” and “face not puffy.” However, by 1 pm the same day, her hair is “oily, eye bags dark,” and her face looks “puffy.”

In other videos she has shared, Donlan suggests that air quality and other factors in an office environment can contribute to a variety of dermatological issues, including dry or greasy skin and frizzy hair.

The comment sections of these videos are full of people sharing similar experiences, which may seem to lend credibility to the claims.

But can “office air” really affect the health of your skin and hair, or is it just another overhyped social media trend?

Brendan Camp, MD, a double board certified dermatologist at MDCS Dermatology, said the “office air theory” straddles the line between fact and fiction.

He explained that when people say “office air” is affecting their skin or hair, they’re usually referring to factors like air conditioning, heating, and ventilation, all of which can contribute to low humidity in a workspace.

“A lot of offices do have low humidity levels,” he told Healthline. “The low humidity in offices can pull water from the skin, leading to dehydration.”

A little dehydration may not seem like a big issue, but Camp noted that even a small change can make skin look dull and feel dry, which explains why your face may not appear as perky as it did in the early morning.

“When the skin is dehydrated, it can sometimes overcompensate by producing more oil,” he said, pointing out that dehydration can also alter your skin barrier.

“When you have an altered skin barrier, your skin can be more prone to inflammation, which may present as eczema or even acne.”

Camp said the biggest misconception about the viral “theory” is that “office air” is the primary cause of changes in skin and hair appearance throughout the day.

In reality, he said it may be due to other factors.

“Beyond air quality, stress is a big one and impacts a lot more than people think,” he said.

“Stress causes inflammation, which can impact the skin. On top of that, it can also cause hormonal imbalances, which can further affect your skin.”

He noted that screen time can also be a factor.

“After a long day of staring at the screen, the eyes may feel strained and can appear more tired looking,” Camp said.

Camp also pointed out that shared office environments can harbor a surprising amount of bacteria. Frequently touched surfaces like keyboards, desks, phones, and door handles can transfer germs to your hands and, ultimately, your face.

Touching your face throughout the day can introduce germs to your skin, potentially causing irritation, breakouts, or, in some cases, infections.

“Some easy ways to help protect the skin daily are to use a moisturizer to support the skin barrier and keep the skin hydrated,” Camp said.

Other helpful habits include using a gentle cleanser morning and night to remove buildup, avoiding touching your face, and keeping items like your phone and keyboard clean.

You may also benefit from using a hydrating facial mist during the day, and choosing lightweight, noncomedogenic skin care and makeup products that won’t clog pores.

“Don’t forget your daily SPF either,” Camp added.

Camp also suggests incorporating a humidifier into your workspace, if possible.

• The GLP-1 medication Ozempic is now available in pill form for people with type 2 diabetes.
• The oral tablet is a reformulated version of the current Rybelsus pill but comes in smaller doses.
• Experts say the pill may be a better alternative for people who don’t want to administer weekly injections of Ozempic.

A pill form of the widely prescribed GLP-1 medication Ozempic is now available in the United States.

Officials at Novo Nordisk have announced that an oral tablet version of the GLP-1 drug became available on May 4 for adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

The Ozempic pill is replacing Novo Nordisk’s Rybelsus daily oral medication, which was approved in 2019 for type 2 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 3 milligram (mg), 7 mg, and 14 mg doses.

The Ozempic daily pill is a reformulation of Rybelsus and comes in 1.5 mg, 4 mg, and 9 mg doses.

Novo Nordisk officials say the new formulation delivers the same efficacy and safety profile as the originally approved formulation, but at a lower dose.

will also remain available as a weekly injection for diabetes treatment. It is also commonly prescribed off-label for weight loss.

This is the third GLP-1 medication to be approved in pill form this year. In January, FDA regulators gave the OK for another Novo Nordisk product, Wegovy, to be sold as an oral tablet. Wegovy is approved for use for weight management.

In April, the FDA also approved the Eli Lilly medication Foundayo in pill form, but the agency ordered the company to study the heart, liver, and other potential risks associated with this new pill. Foundayo has been approved for use in weight management.

Novo Nordisk officials say they expect a decision from federal regulators on a 25-mg Ozempic tablet dose by the end of 2026. They add that the new pill provides more options for patients.

“With an updated formulation and new branding, oral semaglutide, now under the Ozempic name, helps patients and healthcare professionals more easily recognize the available FDA-approved treatment options for type 2 diabetes that contain the semaglutide molecule,” said Michael Radin, MD, the executive medical director for Novo Nordisk.

“By offering Ozempic in both a pill and injection form, patients can work with their healthcare professional to pick the option that best fits their lives and daily routines,” Radin told Healthline.

Pouya Shafipour, MD, a family and obesity medicine physician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, said a pill form of Ozempic will likely be more appealing to many people than an injection.

“A lot of people are needle-averse,” Shafipour told Healthine. “Over the long term, a lot of people get tired of poking themselves.”

Mir Ali, MD, a bariatric surgeon and medical director of MemorialCare Surgical Weight Loss Center at Orange Coast Medical Center in Fountain Valley, CA, said the significance of the new Ozempic-branded pill is that it “carries greater name recognition.”

A diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and a prescription are needed for a person to obtain the new Ozempic pill.

Novo Nordisk officials say the oral tablet will be available in more than 70,000 pharmacies in the United States.

They add that the Ozempic pill will be covered by insurance for most patients with type 2 diabetes, at as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

People who don’t want to use insurance can purchase the tablets through the NovoCare Pharmacy or certain telehealth providers for $149 for the starting dose of 1.5 mg, $199 per month for the 4 mg pills, and $299 per month for the 9 mg pills.

They add that the pill has also proven effective in reducing the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death in those who are also at high risk for these events.

Radin said it’s important for people to know that the Ozempic pill is not the same as the injection.

“Oral and injectable Ozempic are not interchangeable. Before a patient considers any transition between formulations, they should consult a healthcare professional,” he said.

Ozempic, whether in a pill or an injection, can produce side effects in some people. Some of the common side effects are:

• abdominal pain
• constipation
• diarrhea
• nausea

Shafipour said more GLP-1 medications may be offered in pill form in the near future, as scientists appear to be solving the “absorption issue.”

Shafipour explained that injections go directly into the bloodstream, so they are absorbed quickly by the body. He said that pills take longer to be absorbed, so a higher dose has been necessary to achieve the same effectiveness.

He said higher doses can lead to more side effects and less weight loss success. Having a pill in smaller doses may reduce that likelihood.

Ali said that he expects to see an increase in the use of GLP-1 oral tablets. “Most people are more comfortable with pills than injections, so I believe we will see more oral medications for the treatment of diabetes and obesity in the future,” he told Healthline.

Shafipour said there are several advantages to a pill form of a GLP-1 medication.

He noted that many people are more comfortable with taking a pill than sticking themselves with a needle.

Shafipour added that injections need to be refrigerated, so pills can be more convenient when traveling. Pills are also generally less expensive.

Nonetheless, Shafipour said some people prefer the injection because they only have to administer a treatment once a week.

There’s also the requirement that a GLP-1 oral medication be taken on an empty stomach.

Ali agrees there are pluses and minuses for both forms of GLP-1 drugs.

“The advantages of the pill form include ease of use, transport, and storage as well as lower manufacturing costs,” he said. “The disadvantages are slightly lower efficacy and the requirement for daily use rather than weekly injections.”

GLP-1 medications work by suppressing appetite. They do not cause weight loss or improve blood sugar levels on their own.

Experts say it’s important for people taking these drugs to also adopt healthy lifestyle habits.

Shafipour said people should talk with their doctor to develop a plan before starting a medication routine.

“People should realize that these are long-term drugs,” he said.

Shafipour points out that the body can adapt to medications, so the drugs can become less effective over time for weight loss and blood sugar control.

He said that’s why it’s important to eat a healthy, protein-rich diet and to maintain a consistent exercise schedule that includes strength training.

Ali agreed. “These medications work by reducing hunger and slowing gastric emptying so that the patient feels full for longer,” he said.

“Most studies indicate that these medications must be taken long term, as weight is easily regained once treatment stops. It is also important to make significant dietary and lifestyle changes to see optimal results,” he noted.

• A cluster of three deaths among cruise ship passengers has raised concerns about a deadly hantavirus outbreak aboard a cruise ship in the Atlantic Ocean.
• A suspected 7 cases have been identified as investigators are working to determine whether the deaths are linked to hantavirus.
• The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains that the risk to the general public is low.

Three people have died and several others have fallen ill aboard a Dutch cruise ship in what appears to be a deadly hantavirus outbreak.

The MV Hondius, a cruise liner operated by Oceanwide Expeditions, is currently located in the waters near Praia, Cape Verde, a small archipelago in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of West Africa. Officials in Cape Verde have refused to allow the ship to dock over fears that the suspected outbreak might spread to shore.

A married Dutch couple and a German national who were passengers on the ship have died. A British national aboard the ship was evacuated and is being treated in South Africa. That passenger was the first to be diagnosed with hantavirus infection.

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that seven cases of hantavirus have been identified — two confirmed “laboratory cases” and five suspected cases. At this time, two of the three deaths have been linked to hantavirus.

The WHO, which is managing the outbreak, maintains that the risk to the general public is low.

Hantavirus cases in humans are rare. A recent case that made headlines involved the death of Betsy Arakawa, wife of acclaimed actor Gene Hackman, who was discovered dead in their New Mexico home in April 2024. While Arakawa’s cause of death was attributed to hantavirus, Hackman died of Alzheimer’s.

While hantavirus infection is uncommon, it is often fatal. The onset typically begins with nonspecific, flu-like symptoms. Infection is most often transmitted through exposure to rodents’ urine or feces. Although human-to-human transmission is possible with a specific viral strain, such cases are exceptionally rare.

Steven Bradfute, PhD, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center who specializes in hantavirus research, said the situation aboard the cruise ship was unusual.

“Usually you have isolated cases, so to hear about a cruise ship with multiple people being infected was definitely not something on our radar,” he told Healthline.

Roughly 150 people, including passengers and crew, from more than 20 nations, still remain aboard. The ship may next be bound for the islands of Las Palmas or Tenerife, farther north on the African coast, in hopes of allowing passengers to disembark and undergo medical screening.

“[We are] working closely with local and international authorities,” said Oceanwide Expeditions in a statement on May 4.

“Strict precautionary measures are in process on board, including isolation measures, hygiene protocols and medical monitoring. All passengers have been informed and are being supported. Oceanwide Expeditions is in close contact with those directly involved and their families, and is providing support where possible.”

The incubation period for hantavirus ranges from 1 to 8 weeks after exposure. This may have complicated investigations aboard the ship and public health risk assessments.

The Dutch-flagged MV Hondius, operated by Oceanwide Expeditions, left Ushuaia, southern Argentina, in March, roughly three weeks ago, on a long expedition cruise.

Its route included several stops in the Atlantic Ocean, including Antarctica, the Falkland Islands, and Cape Verde.

A 70-year-old Dutch man died on April 11 after reportedly developing fever, headache, and abdominal pain. On April 24, his body was removed in Saint Helena, a British territory in the South Atlantic. His wife, a 69-year-old Dutch woman, also disembarked, accompanying his body for repatriation.

After disembarking, the woman began showing signs of illness during her journey home. She later died in South Africa at O. R. Tambo International Airport while attempting to return to the Netherlands.

On April 27, the same day that the Dutch woman died, a British national aboard the MV Hondius became seriously ill after the ship left St. Helena.

The passenger was subsequently transferred to South Africa and treated in Johannesburg. The patient is in critical but stable condition. This case was the first laboratory-confirmed hantavirus infection linked to the incident.

Onboard the ship, the situation continued to escalate. A German national died on May 2; details are sparse and the cause of death has not yet been established by Oceanwide Expeditions or the World Health Organization (WHO).

Two crew members, one British and one Dutch, have also reported symptoms consistent with possible hantavirus illness. One was described as mild, and the other as severe; both reportedly require urgent medical care. No other passengers with symptoms have been identified at this time.

“It’s possible someone got the infection in Argentina, got on the boat, and it spread from person to person. It’s also possible that passengers on the boat got it from the rodents that were already present on the ship,” Bradfute said.

Hantavirus is part of a group of related viruses that can cause serious illness in humans. It is most commonly transmitted through exposure to the urine, droppings, or saliva of wild rodents, including mice and rats.

The virus can also spread through inhalation of contaminated dust or aerosolized particles stirred into the air, particularly in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces.

Symptoms of hantavirus infection vary by geographic region and virus type.

In North and South America, so-called “New World” hantaviruses are most common. Early symptoms typically resemble the flu — fever, body aches, and vomiting — but can progress to a severe respiratory illness known as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS).

In early 2024, a spate of deaths linked to HPS made headlines in the United States. Three individuals died in the rural area of Mammoth Lakes, CA.

“In the United States, the principal pathogen is Sin Nombre virus, the most common cause of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS),” said Robert Glatter, MD, attending physician in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, and assistant professor of Emergency Medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/ Northwell.

“Exposure is classically linked to infected deer mice and to aerosolized rodent urine, droppings, saliva, or nesting material. U.S. cases remain concentrated in the western states, especially west of the Mississippi River, although sporadic cases occur elsewhere,” Glatter told Healthline.

HPS affects the lungs, causing fluid buildup that makes breathing difficult. As oxygen levels drop, other organ systems can begin to fail.

“The clinical presentation of HPS is deceptive at onset,” Glatter said.

“Patients usually begin with a short febrile prodrome marked by fever, myalgias, malaise, headache, and often gastrointestinal symptoms. What makes hantavirus dangerous is the potential for abrupt progression over the next several days to cough, shortness of breath, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, shock, and rapid respiratory failure,” he continued.

Early warning signs of hantavirus may include low platelet counts, dehydration, high white blood counts, and mild elevation of liver enzymes, Glatter explained.

“Severe ‘Old World’ viruses such as Hantaan and Dobrava can carry materially higher fatality than milder viruses such as Puumala or often Seoul virus, whereas New World HPS viruses in the Americas can have fatality in the 30–40% range, and sometimes higher in specific South American outbreaks,” Glatter said.

There are no approved vaccines or therapeutics available to treat HPS.

Instead, the disease is treated through supportive care, primarily supplying the blood with oxygen.

Despite the alarming reputation of hantavirus, Bradfute emphasizes that infection is both preventable and rare.

“Panicking is not a good thing to do. We haven’t had huge hantavirus outbreaks like flu or COVID because these viruses just don’t transmit well,” Bradfute said.

“Most hantaviruses are not spread person-to-person,” Glatter said. “CDC cruise guidance and reporting materials support that cruise-related public health reporting focuses mainly on gastrointestinal and respiratory illness and death reporting, not hantavirus as a typical onboard transmissible risk,” he noted.

• A new weight loss drug called survodutide has shown promising results in a phase 3 clinical trial.
• The drug, which stimulates GLP-1 and glucagon receptors, led to a 16.6% drop in body weight.
• Survodutide also reduced waist circumference, an indicator of metabolic health.
• Experts hope the drug will be useful for both obesity and liver disease; however, it is not yet approved for use.

Boehringer Ingelheim, a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany, has announced promising results from its Phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE-1 clinical trial testing survodutide.

Survodutide is a novel dual-action drug designed to treat obesity and related metabolic conditions.

The trial, conducted across multiple international sites and involving 725 adults living with obesity or overweight but without type 2 diabetes, concluded in April 2026 after 76 weeks of treatment.

Survodutide, which activates both glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptors, demonstrated significant and sustained weight loss.

Participants lost an average of 16.6% of their body weight, a significant improvement compared to just 3.2% in the placebo group.

Treatment with survodutide also showed meaningful metabolic improvements, including reductions in waist circumference, a key predictor of cardiometabolic risk.

Survodutide (BI 456906) is similar to the active ingredient tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) in that it combines two mechanisms of action. However, it acts on a different combination of hormone receptors.

While GLP-1 receptor agonists can aid weight loss by reducing appetite and increasing fullness and satiety, survodutide goes a step further by activating glucagon receptors, which are believed to help regulate metabolic functions in the liver.

This is significant because it may allow an additional reduction in liver fat, potentially helping to reduce liver inflammation and fibrosis, two causes of obesity-related complications.

The SYNCHRONIZE-1 trial evaluated survodutide’s safety and efficacy in adults with overweight or obesity, excluding those with type 2 diabetes.

Participants received weekly injections of survodutide at doses of 3.6 milligrams or 6.0 milligrams, or a placebo, over nearly a year and a half.

The primary goals of the study were to assess the percentage change in body weight and the proportion of participants achieving at least a 5% reduction in body weight from baseline after 76 weeks of treatment.

According to the researchers, up to 85.1% of those treated with survodutide achieved at least a 5% reduction in their weight, contrasting with only 38.8% in the placebo group who reached this goal.

On average, people lost 16.6% of their weight, which was equivalent to about 39.2 pounds. The researchers further noted that this was mainly composed of fat rather than lean muscle tissue.

Another positive indicator was a significant decrease in waist circumference among the participants. Waist circumference is associated with visceral abdominal fat, which is linked to metabolic dysfunction and cardiovascular risk.

The researchers further reported that common GLP-1 gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, were mostly mild to moderate and temporary. These events occurred mainly during the early phase of treatment when the dose was being titrated up. No new safety concerns emerged during the trial.

Hector Perez, MD, lead bariatric surgeon at Renew Bariatrics and an advisor at Bariatric Reports, told Healthline that when it comes to weight loss, it’s too early to call survodutide a “game-changer.”

“[W]hile the reported weight loss number is impressive, we already have very strong performers in this category,” he said.

Perez, who was not involved in the SYNCHRONIZE-1 trial, cautioned that the full data should be made available before any claims are made about its side effects.

“In real life, the best drug is often the one patients can actually stay on,” he said.

However, survodutide acts on multiple metabolic pathways, so it could be useful beyond its appetite-suppressing effects, Perez noted.

Survodutide may treat liver disease by addressing the underlying metabolic problems that cause fatty liver, such as excess body fat, insulin resistance, and inflammation.

Its ability to reduce appetite can lower the amount of fat stored in the liver, Perez explained.

On the other hand, its glucagon-based action could help the body burn more fat, including harmful visceral and liver fat.

This could lead to improved liver enzymes, less liver inflammation, and slower progression of scarring.

“In simple terms, it may help the liver heal by improving the whole metabolic system,” said Perez. “If this drug truly improves liver inflammation and fibrosis markers while driving weight loss, that’s where it could carve out a real niche.”

Kristin Kuminski, a registered dietitian nutritionist with The RX Index, who wasn’t involved in the trial, called the results “significant,” placing survodutide at a similar level of efficacy to tirzepatide.

However, she said that any questions you ask your physician should focus on how it compares to existing weight loss drugs as far as side effects, and how it performs for people with co-existing conditions like fatty liver disease.

“It’s not yet approved, so the conversation with a doctor right now is about what’s in the pipeline, whether current GLP-1 options are working, and whether to watch for survodutide trials to participate in,” she said.

Perez added that you should also discuss other practical questions with your doctor before taking a weight loss medication, such as whether you are a good candidate for bariatric surgery.

“[M]any people lose years trying medications when surgery would have given them a better long-term outcome,” he said.

You should also ask whether weight loss is realistic for your body, how to protect muscle while losing weight, what side effects you can expect, what happens when you stop taking the medication, and whether your insurance covers your treatment.

“Basically, my advice is to choose your treatment according to your body, your habits, your finances, and what you can realistically sustain for years instead of getting impressed with a shiny new drug,” Perez said.