Ozempic and Other GLP-1s Linked to Fewer Serious Infections, Including TB
GLP-1s Are Being Linked to Fewer Serious Infections, Including TB
Two recent observational studies suggest that GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide may reduce the risk of serious infections, including tuberculosis and infections requiring hospitalization. The Nature Communications study found GLP-1 users with type 2 diabetes had a significantly lower TB diagnosis rate over five years. The BMJ study reported tirzepatide users had fewer hospitalizations for infections and lower infection-related mortality. While the mechanism isn't clear, improved metabolic health may play a role, but more research is needed to confirm causality.
These findings suggest that beyond their established metabolic benefits, GLP-1RAs may confer additional advantages in lowering infection risk.
- master_crab
Using a large database of (deidentified) medical records, the researchers compared the outcomes of people taking a GLP-1 for their type 2 diabetes to people taking other common diabetes drugs between 2017 and 2025. GLP-1 users were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with TB for up to a five-year span, they found.
Both of these studies are observational and retrospective, meaning they can only show a correlation between GLP-1 use and reduced (or at least less severe) infections, not prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship. At the same time, these are the only latest pieces of evidence pointing to a genuine germ-busting benefit from GLP-1 drugs.
I wonder if the likelihood that people taking a GLP-1 are probably better off financially, have a health care provider willing to spend on the drugs (and therefore probably a better medical system) or a combination of these and other traits are the real reason there are fewer infections.
- scheme271
Could be due to better control of blood sugar. E.g. lower blood sugar increases inflammation, decrease immune response and provides bacteria a readily available source of food.
- tarxvf
How expensive are GLP-1s again?
- cromka
Inam betting it's because of lowered inflammation allowing for stronger immune response.
- faangguyindia
This study is questionable because, where I live, TB is not a disease that happens to just anyone; it usually happens to people in poorly sanitized places with lower socioeconomic status. But pharma giants are going to publish ghost studies; they simply have too much money not to use it to further their drug empire.
Severely cutting calories while staying sedentary
trashes the immune system, disrupts hormones, impairs reproductive function, and
strips away bone density and muscle?
If this happens to high-performing athletes, there is no reason to believe
sedentary folks are immune. The research behind Relative Energy Deficiency in
Sport breaks down these exact mechanisms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_energy_deficiency_in_...
GLP medications blunt your appetite so you eat less, but you still end up
feeling completely drained because your body lacks fuel. The goal should never
be just blindly slashing calories. You have to feed your body what it needs
rather than solely cutting what it craves, and GLP drugs cannot distinguish
between nutrient-dense meals and the junk food binges you are trying to avoid.
They do not fix metabolism, either. Any claimed "metabolic boost" has never been
proven beyond a minor 100 kcal increase in resting metabolic rate (RMR). Most
people pushing that claim rely on an older study where glucagon raising RMR was
merely an interpolation by the authors. To put that in perspective, a 100 kcal
bump is less than two slices of bread, which sit arou […]