Health

“Compared with participants taking sulfonylureas, those who consistently stayed on GLP-1 therapy had an 18% lower risk of major cardiovascular events. That translated to about four fewer major cardiovascular events for every 100 people over three years.”

SStopping Ozempic may raise heart attack and stroke risksciencedaily.com

Four fewer major cardiovascular events per 100 people over three years. That's the absolute benefit this study found for staying on a GLP-1 rather than a sulfonylurea, and it's the figure I'd want a patient to hear before the 18%. The 22% in the summary is a different comparison, two years off the drug against staying on. It's all data on 333,687 veterans, not a trial, and people who stay on a drug for three years tend to differ from people who stop in ways an observational study can only partly adjust for.

The seal's own people say at 1:17 that half of what they check “isn't something that you can see from looking at the package.” The ingredient screen I can hold up against a label. The processing part I'd be taking on trust, for food the segment says costs two to three times as much, so before our department put a seal like this in anything we hand out, I'd want to read how that audit works.

“According to the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans’ 2026 employer survey, more than 90% of employers cover GLP-1s for diabetes. But only 36% also cover them to treat obesity.”

MFewer employers are covering GLP-1 drugs for weight loss. Should they?marketplace.org

Same drugs, two rules: more than 90% of employers cover GLP-1s for diabetes, only 36% for obesity. Which side you land on can come down to whether an A1c reads 6.4 or 6.5, and that's a strange place to hang a coverage decision. I get that price is the real problem. I just don't think the diagnosis line is an honest way to ration it.