Currently browsing posts about: Diet-drugs

As I keep saying, eating less is bad for business.

If you need proof, just look at how the food industry is scrambling to figure out what to do in response to the effects of GLP-1 drugs in decreasing appetite and food “noise.”

Here are a few examples.

The threat

Weight loss drugs may be melting US ice cream demand: Demand for frozen dairy products in the US has been declining for decades. Consumers’ growing interest in GLP-1 weight loss products is putting further pressure on demand…. Read more

Ozempic’s Effect on Food Innovation: Anti-obesity drugs have dropped on the food business in the last year like ChatGPT has dropped on the world. And according to experts assembled for a recent Mattson webinar on the topic, the effects of new appetite suppressants including Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound have only begun to be felt among American consumers and the food industry that sells to them.

The promise

Nestlé introduces Vital Pursuit brand to support GLP-1 users in the US: Nestlé is introducing Vital Pursuit, a new line of foods intended to be a companion for GLP-1 weight loss medication users and consumers focused on weight management in the US. The products are high in protein, a good source of fiber, contain essential nutrients, and they are portion-aligned to a weight loss medication user’s appetite. The new line is also well-suited to support a balanced diet for anyone on a weight management journey. Vital Pursuit is the first food brand from Nestlé intended for GLP-1 users with the goal of complementing the eating habits of millions of Americans who are currently prescribed a weight loss medication or actively working to manage their weight.

Food Companies Want a Piece of the Ozempic Pie, Too: Last fall, word of a looming existential threat to the packaged food industry began to bubble up in earnings calls and among analysts. Drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro, experts feared, could be a little too effective at curtailing people’s cravings for snacks and sweets, and if too many people got on the drugs, their changing habits could eventually do the industry real harm. Could buyers begin to forsake Doritos and Oreos and Pizza Bagels?

Danone Targets Health, Nutrition as Food Industry Braces for Ozempic Era: The food company is targeting like-for-like sales growth of 3%-5% for the 2025 to 2028 period, with operating income rising at a faster pace than sales. Danone plans to double down on health and nutrition in the coming years as food companies seek to tackle the effects of Ozempic and other blockbuster weight-loss drugs on eating habits.

Supergut’s Marc Washington on ‘Ozempic era’ opportunity: The IPA World Congress + Probiota Americas 2024 in Salt Lake City highlighted many of the innovations happening in the prebiotics space, including how GLP-1s are impacting the category…. Watch now

I was thrilled to be invited to be on Oprah last week to discuss the influence of the food environment on obesity.  Alas, I was disinvited when the topic switched to fat shaming.

While recovering from the disappointment, I ran across this article in FoodDive: The Ozempic effect is real: Study zeroes in on GLP-1 users’ food needs.

A study found people taking anti-obesity medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound to be looking for:

• Foods packed with protein
• Smaller portions
• Foods that help quell nausea
• Foods that help reduce gastrointestinal side effects

The potential size of this market is impressive:

Manufacturers looking to create products that cater to this growing market segment – which according to recent research from Goldman Sachs could be as much as 15 million people, or 13% of the U.S. population, by 2030 – should focus on creating products that meet their new needs.

The research group used “its proprietary AI to generate food concepts that it had panel participants evaluate and several were appealing including:

• Pre-portioned grilled chicken strips
• 2-ounce portions of Greek yogurt in pouches
• Electrolyte-enhanced fruit popsicles
• Mini meal cups

Hey—this is a win-win.  First the food industry makes products that people can’t resist eating and make them gain weight.  Then the industry creates products that help them take drugs more easily.

A marketing opportunity for all

Today I’m participating on a panel discussion on Ozempic at 12:30 EDT.  See announcement to the right; register for it here. 

I watched the Oprah special on the obesity drugs.

Its messages:

• Obesity is a disease, requiring treatment.
• These drugs offer treatment.
• The drugs are effective; side effects are minimal.
• Yes they are expensive and therefore, promote inequality; therefore, the government should pay for them.

The program was a one-hour, prime-time commercial for the drugs.

The physicians who testified on their behalf consult for the drug companies.

The program has already had an effect.  cause the FDA says semaglutide helps prevent heart attacks, strokes, and deaths in overweigth people, the government will now authorize payment through Medicare Part D.

Here’s what was not discussed.

• The fortunes the drug companies spent on getting doctors, health professionals, and influencers to promote the drugs and minimize their side effects.  See Reuters for US doctors and The Guardian for European influencers.
• The sharp rise in obesity prevalence between 1980 and 2000 and the environmental and commercial reasons for it.
• Anything about prevention. and changing that food environment.
• Anything serious about the down side of taking the drugs (lifetime treatment, cost, side effects, loss of joy in eating).

An editorial in The Lancet says:

A simple pill or injection will undoubtedly help some patients, but it cannot be the sole basis for addressing the complexities of obesity. Obesity is a product of not only an individual’s circumstances and behaviour, but also society at large, shaped by global food markets and trade agreements. Multidimensional approaches are needed to curb the effects of the obesogenic environment, particularly against an international industry that promotes overproduction of cheap food and drinks. Physical activity needs to increase; walking and cycling for journeys to work or school should be normalised and made easier and safer. Sugar taxes and curbs on marketing of high-energy, high-fat, ultra-processed foods need to be implemented. Prevention must be the foundation upon which everything else follows.

Other comments

• The New York Times account focuses on stigma.
• USA Today says people are suing the drug companies over side effects.

Much to be said about all this.  Stay tuned.

DRUGS

Here’s the headline: Maker of Wegovy, Ozempic showers money on U.S. obesity doctors

Drugmaker Novo Nordisk paid U.S. medical professionals at least $25.8 million over a decade in fees and expenses related to its weight-loss drugs, a Reuters analysis found. It concentrated that money on an elite group of obesity specialists who advocate giving its powerful and expensive drugs to tens of millions of Americans.

What’s extraordinary about this situation is the amounts.  Some doctors got millions.

This account follows one about similar efforts in the UK: Revealed: experts who praised new ‘skinny jab’ received payments from drug maker.

The drug giant behind weight loss injections newly approved for NHS use spent millions in just three years on an “orchestrated PR campaign” to boost its UK influence.  As part of its strategy, Novo Nordisk paid £21.7m to health organisations and professionals who in some cases went on to praise the treatment without always making clear their links to the firm, an Observer investigation has found.

Novo Nordisk knew what it was doing, and its efforts (presumably legal) are certainly paying off.

ALCOHOL

The headline: Scientists in Discredited Alcohol Study Will Not Advise U.S. on Drinking Guidelines: Two researchers with ties to beer and liquor companies had been named to a panel that will review the health evidence on alcohol consumption. But after a New York Times story was published, the panel’s organizers decided to drop them.

Five years ago, the National Institutes of Health abruptly pulled the plug on an ambitious study about the health effects of moderate drinking. The reason: The trial’s principal scientist and officials from the federal agency’s own alcohol division had solicited $60 million for the research from alcohol manufacturers, a conflict of interest and a violation of federal policy.

I wrote about that in a previous post.

I’m told by people in the know that I should not be too hard on the scientists.  NIH told them it would not fund the study and they should get the funding from industry.  If true, that is unfortunate.

For sure, NIH is not interested in nutrition research except for genetically based “Precision” nutrition aimed at individuals.  That leaves population studies out of the picture.  Unfortunate, indeed.

CLINICAL TRIALS

The study: Industry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022

Among 600 clinical trials with a median sample size of 415  participants:

• 409 (68.2%) had industry funding
• 303 (50.5%) were exclusively industry-funded
• 354 (59.0%) had industry authors
• 280 (46.6%) involved industry analysts
• 125 (20.8%) were analyzed exclusively by industry analysts.

Among industry-funded trials:

• 364 (89.0%) reached conclusions favoring the sponsor.

Industry involvement in research in general and in nutrition research in particular deserves close scrutiny and much skepticism.

Drug companies are required to do research and to find their own funding.  That is not true of nutrition.

Everyone should be lobbying for more independent funding for nutrition research.

Lots of people take supplements in the hope that they will help with body weight.  This is a big market.  Drug companies want in on it.  Most drugs don’t work, or have deal-breaking side effects.  In June,  The FDA approved Novo Nordisk’s Semaglutide for obesity management.

I subscribe to the Obesity and Energetics newsletter, which sends out weekly lists of research, articles, and commentary on those topics—a great way to stay up on current literature.

On July 2, it featured:

• From the Obesity Society: “Health care providers should be aware of the lack of evidence and deficiencies in regulatory oversight of dietary supplements marketed for weight loss.”  

This referred to: Perspective: Dietary supplements and alternative therapies for obesity: A Perspective from The Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee.  Srividya Kidambi, John A. Batsis, William T. Donahoo, Ania M. Jastreboff, Scott Kahan, Katherine H. Saunders, Steven B. Heymsfield.  Obesity 23 June 2021.

Our recommendation to clinicians is to consider the lack of evidence for non-FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight management approaches…we call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.

I am with the Obesity Society on this one, but what caught my interest was that several of the authors report financial tied to drug companies with interests in pharmacologic approaches to obesity treatment.

Conflicts of interest: SK serves as Medical Editor for TOPS Magazine (TOPS Inc. nonprofit weight loss club) and as Director for the TOPS Center for Metabolic Research at the Medical College of Wisconsin supported by TOPS Inc. JAB’s research reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number K23AG051681. JAB reports equity in SynchroHealth LLC. AMJ’s research is supported by the NIH/NIDDK, the American Diabetes Association, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; she serves as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. SKa has served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer. KHS reports an ownership interest in Intellihealth. SBH reports his position on the Medical Advisory Board of Medifast Corp.

The newsletter also featured the article referred to in the Perspective.

• Systematic Review: Dietary Supplements and Alternative Therapies for Weight Loss.

When I clicked on this link, it took me to the page where I could download the pdf.  I got the paper at this site.   But before I could read it, I had to see an ad for Novo Nordisk’s drug, Semaglutide.  Then I scrolled down to get the study:  A Systematic Review of Dietary Supplements and Alternative Therapies for Weight Loss.  John A. Batsis, John W. Apolzan, Pamela J. Bagley, Heather B. Blunt, Vidita Divan, Sonia Gill, Angela Golden, Shalini Gundumraj, Steven B. Heymsfield, Scott Kahan, Katherine Kopatsis … Obesity (2021) 29, 1102-1113

Study conclusion: “There is weak evidence for the efficacy of dietary supplements and alternative therapies.”

Authors’ disclosure: JAB reports equity in SynchroHealth LLC. AG reports consulting with Novo Nordisk and Unjury. SH reports personal fees from Medifast. SKa reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Vivus, and Gelesis. DR reports consulting and speaking fees for Novo Nordisk and Astra Zeneca. KHS has a relationship with Intellihealth Inc. SK is the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS Inc. SBH reports his position on the Medical Advisory Board of Medifast Corp.

I much prefer dietary approaches to weight management and policy strategies to make healthy diets the easy choice.

I am almost never in favor of supplements.  The evidence that they do much beyond placebo effects is usually pretty weak.

The ad gives the side effects for Semiglutide; it has to.

My point: all of this seems to be about marketing Semiglutide.

I was riveted by an article in today’s New York Times about the latest decision of an FDA drug advisory panel.

The panel voted to approve a new weight-loss drug, lorcaserin.  The vote was mixed: 18 for approval, 4 against, and 1 abstention. The majority felt that the benefits outweighed the risks and that even if there were risks, “new tools are needed to treat a major health problem.”

The benefits are worth a look.

• People taking the drug lost an average of  5.8% of their body weight in a year, compared to 2.5% for people taking a placebo.  This difference is below the FDA’s standard for approval which requires a 5% difference.
• Among those taking the drug, 47% lost at least 5 percent of their weight after a year, whereas only 23% of those taking the placebo did so.  This meets a second FDA standard for approval.

What about the risks?  The drug:

• Causes tumors in rats (although perhaps at higher doses than might be taken by people).
• Damages heart valves (in the same way the withdrawn drug, Fen-Phen, did).

Also in the Times is a piece by Dr. Danielle Ofri on her experience with patients who want weight-loss drugs.

She quotes from an essay called “Lemons for Obesity” by Dr. Michael S. Lauer, who was a minority voter on the FDA panel that approved the weight-loss drug Qnexa earlier this year.

The weight-loss field is strewn with lemons, more so than other areas of medicine, Dr. Lauer argues. Because of the enormous potential market for these drugs — two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese — pharmaceutical companies rush new drugs to market after conducting only small clinical trials. The F.D.A. and doctors are complicit in the process, Dr. Lauer says, leaving the population at large to act essentially as guinea pigs.

Shares of the maker of the drug nearly doubled after the decision.  The Times reported that “Arguments by investors have been passionate.”

People who cannot easily lose weight are desperate for help.

But is it ethical to put them at this kind of risk?

The latest issue of JAMA has a paper on a “portfolio” of dietary means to reduce blood cholesterol levels.

The paper is likely to get lots of press because it concludes that consuming the “portfolio”—a combination of plant sterols, soy protein, viscous fibers, and nuts—does a better job of lowering LDL-cholesterol (the “bad” kind) than does dietary advice to reduce saturated fat.

The paper is unusually difficult to read  (see the Abstract, for example).  But besides that, I interpret the study in part as a drug trial.

One look at the Abstract and I immediately suspected that this study must have been sponsored by a maker of plant sterol margarines.

Bingo!

Plant sterols are well established to reduce blood cholesterol levels.  Unilever, which makes Take Control margarines, is one of the sponsors.

As I interpret it, the study shows:

• Advising people who weigh an average of 76 kg (167 pounds) to consume a healthy diet doesn’t work.  Study subjects did not change their diets by much during the six months of the trial.  No news here.
• Advising people to add things to their diets has a better chance of succeeding than advising taking things away (like saturated fat).
• All of the portfolio items have been established to lower blood cholesterol in clinical trials, although the evidence for soy protein seems a bit iffy these days.
• The study does not distinguish between the relative effects of soy protein, fiber, or cholesterol lowering margarines. If soy is eliminated, that leaves fiber and margarines. I’m guessing the margarines were the critical factor. Hence: a partial drug trial.

And because my book on calories is coming out next March, I must point out that the study groups reported losing  losing small amounts of weight, which means they must also have reduced their calorie intake.  Weight loss alone should help with blood cholesterol.

The take-home message: if you really do substitute nuts, sources of fiber, and healthy foods for whatever less healthful foods you used to eat, you ought to get some health benefit, with or without plant sterol margarines.

QED: Healthy diets produce health benefits.

It’s always nice to see that confirmed.

The FDA has its hands full these days, what with peanut butter, no commissioner, and Daschle withdrawing for consideration as secretary of Health and Human Services (the FDA’s parent agency).  Even so, the FDA is concerned about weight loss supplements that it considers fraudulent, and has now gone after 70 of them.  The FDA has a lot on its plate, as it were, and let’s hope the new administration figures out a way to make oversight of the food supply a priority.

February 10 update: the New York Times has a long piece on this problem.  Turns out that a lot of these so-called herbal products actually contain weight loss drugs of one kind or another.  They are not supposed to.