José M. Ordovás
Senior scientist and scientific advisor at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging and professor at the Gerald J and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.
I find the article to be well-researched, timely, and of high quality. Its main value lies in the fact that it doesn’t merely measure weight loss in kilograms, but rather analyzes aspects that are more relevant to the patient: quality of life, cardiovascular health, adverse effects, treatment discontinuation, and loss of lean body mass. In a field that generates a lot of media hype, it helps set expectations straight.
The study aligns with what we already knew: some medications lead to significant weight loss, but losing weight does not automatically mean improving all aspects of health. The scale tells part of the story, but not the whole story.
The fact that the cardiovascular profile improves only slightly can be explained by the fact that cardiovascular risk depends on many factors besides weight: blood pressure, blood glucose, lipids, inflammation, age, pre-existing conditions, diet, physical activity, and muscle mass. Furthermore, one year may be too short a time to detect clear benefits regarding cardiovascular events.
The practical implication is that these drugs should be evaluated based on more than just the kilograms lost: one must consider overall health, tolerability, cost, adherence, muscle preservation, and long-term benefits.
[Regarding potential limitations] Many trials have a relatively short follow-up period; there are few direct comparisons between drugs; and trial participants do not always represent real-world patients. Caution is also warranted with newer drugs, as some results are promising but the evidence is still limited.
In summary, these drugs are an important tool, but not a magic solution. In obesity, success should not be measured solely in kilograms, but in health, function, and quality of life.