4.7 Article

Glucagon-like peptide-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and glucagon receptor poly-agonists: a new era in obesity pharmacotherapy

期刊

OBESITY
卷 30, 期 9, 页码 1718-1721

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.23521

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR000448]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [P30 DK020579, P30 DK056341, T32 DK007120]
  3. Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Achieving long-term weight loss in people with obesity is difficult, highlighting the need for effective pharmacotherapy. New poly-agonists, such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, have shown promising results in terms of weight loss. However, the long-term efficacy, safety, and economic implications of chronic pharmacotherapy for obesity need to be further analyzed.
Achieving successful long-term weight loss with lifestyle modification in people with obesity is difficult and underscores the need for effective pharmacotherapy. Since 1947, a total of 18 medications have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating obesity; however, only 5 remain available for long-term use in the US. Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist approved in 2021, demonstrated much greater weight loss than previous medications, which stimulated the development of poly-agonists that combine GLP-1 receptor agonism with glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon receptor agonism. The potential of this approach was recently demonstrated by the extraordinary weight loss achieved by tirzepatide, a GLP-1/GIP receptor dual agonist. The therapeutic efficacy of poly-agonists is likely to change the treatment paradigm for obesity. However, the use of medications for obesity, as for other chronic diseases, will likely require lifelong treatment, which makes it important to analyze the long-term efficacy, safety, and economic implications of chronic pharmacotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据