Can Ozempic shots really prevent heart attacks? Here’s understanding a new study

Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has long been prescribed primarily for managing Type 2 diabetes mellitus due to its ability to regulate blood sugar levels. Previous research hinted at GLP-1 receptor agonists potentially benefiting cardiovascular health, yet concrete evidence remained elusive. However, the spotlight shifted when the NEJM published findings suggesting that Ozempic may play a significant role in reducing cardiovascular risks, raising hopes for an effective preventive measure against heart attacks and strokes. It reported a statistically significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events among participants treated with Semaglutide compared to those on a placebo, demonstrating a potential breakthrough in cardiovascular risk management for diabetic individuals.

But it is too early to call this. While the study shows promise, the long-term effects and broader applicability of Semaglutide in diverse patient populations remain uncertain. Questions linger about the study’s duration, the specific patient groups most likely to benefit and the potential side effects associated with the prolonged use of the drug.

Semaglutide suppresses appetite, making people feel full longer. So they avoid eating and lose weight. In the study, more than 17,000 people who were considered overweight or had obesity and who had cardiovascular disease but not diabetes took either Semaglutide or a placebo for an average of nearly three years. People who took the drug lost a significant amount of weight, thus reducing their risk of cardiac events. This is understandable as weight loss is a risk factor and with that gone, the body automatically can control inflammatory markers, which may trigger heart issues. But this is still a general understanding. There are a lot many triggers for heart disease and, therefore, this should not be seen as a magic pill.

A confusion has also arisen as experts say that the amount of improvement in cardiac health suggests the drug’s heart effects likely occurred through mechanisms besides weight loss alone. Without understanding those mechanisms and understanding their efficacy, there is no need to get overly enthusiastic.

Moreover, some experts advocate for a cautious interpretation of these findings, emphasizing the need for further extensive research and real-world data to solidify the drug’s role in cardiovascular risk reduction. They assert that the study should not overshadow the necessity for comprehensive patient evaluation and individualised treatment plans.

At the moment we need cautious optimism. The myth of its potential to prevent heart attacks and strokes is gradually being substantiated by emerging evidence, yet the reality demands continued research and vigilance to fully comprehend its long-term implications and ensure optimal patient care.