dose

A HIGHER ‘golden dose’ of Wegovy than is currently approved is safe and could be more effective – helping patients lose nearly a fifth of their body weight.

The once-weekly injection containing the semaglutide – also the active ingredient in diabetes jab Ozempic – is prescribed on the NHS at a maximum dose of 2.4mg.

1

Now, two major studies show that tripling doses to 7.2mg can trigger significant weight loss, without bringing on more side effects or risking patient safety.

The findings, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology journal, suggest a higher dose of semaglutide could be an option for people with obesity – as well as type 2 diabetes – who haven’t lost enough weight on standard doses.

“Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg is approved for weight management in people with obesity and related complications,” researchers said.

“However, some individuals do not reach their therapeutic goals with this dose.

“We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of a higher dose of semaglutide in people with obesity.”

Researchers investigated whether 7.2mg semaglutide injections could provide patients with “further benefits” and boost fat loss for people whose weight had plateaued “without jeopardising safety or significantly increasing the risk of adverse events”.

The two trials involved more than 2,000 adults with obesity, some of whom also had diabetes.

They were conducted across 95 hospitals, specialist clinics, and medical centres in 11 countries, including Canada, Germany, Greece, Norway and the US.

Researchers randomly assigned participants the 7.2mg dose, the 2.4mg dose, or placebo injections.

All participants received advice on improving diet and increasing exercise.

After 72 weeks, people without diabetes given the higher dose lost an average of 18.7 per cent of their body weight.

Those on the standard dose 15.6 per cent of their weight and those on placebo injections lost just 3.9 per cent.

Almost half of those on the higher dose lost at least 20 per cent of their body weight, while nearly a third shed 25 per cent or more.

This rivals the average weight lost with competitor jab Mounjaro, known as the ‘King Kong’ of weight loss injections.

Participants on the higher dose also saw their waists shrink and reported improvements in their blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol levels – all key factors in reducing obesity-related health risks.

As for obese adults with type 2 diabetes, the 7.2mg dose caused them to lose 13 per cent of their weight.

Those on 2.4mg lost 10 per cent of their body weight on average, while placebo-users lost 4 per cent.

Both trials showed the higher semaglutide dose to be safe and generally well tolerated, though people taking 7.2mg did report more side effects.

“Serious adverse events” were reported by 68 of 1004 participants receiving the 7.2mg dose of semaglutide – about 7 per cent – researchers said.

Meanwhile, 22 of 201 taking 2.4mg reported side effects – about 11 per cent – and 11 of 201 receiving placebo injections, researchers said.

Nausea and diarrhoea, and some sensory symptoms like tingling, were the most common.

However, most side effects were manageable and resolved over time, researchers said.

One in 20 patients taking the higher dose stopped treatment because of side effects, similar to the standard jab.

Study authors concluded: “Semaglutide 7.2 mg was superior to placebo and semaglutide 2.4 mg in reducing bodyweight, including reaching reductions of 20 per cent or greater and 25 per cent or greater over 72 weeks.

The higher dose was “well tolerated and provided additional clinically meaningful weight loss compared with 2.4 mg, suggesting that higher doses could help patients who do not achieve sufficient weight loss with the currently approved dose”, they added.

But Professor Alex Miras, an obesity expert at Imperial College London, was more hesitant in touting the benefits of the 7.2mg dose.

He told the Daily Mail: “Tripling the dose only gives a marginal extra benefit, but the dose increase is massive.

“Going from 2.4mg to 7.2mg is a very big jump. I’m concerned many patients won’t tolerate such a high dose.

“In clinical practice people already struggle at 2.4mg.

“Even if 7.2mg is approved, I suspect uptake will be low because of cost and side-effects – the top dose is already expensive.”

It comes as many Brits taking weight loss jabs privately are priced out of paying for Mounjaro – after manufacturer Eli Lilly hiked up prices.

The highest dose was set to rise from £122 to £330 a month – an increase of 170 per cent – from September 1.

It was later reported that some pharmacies would be able to offer the jabs at a discount, saving patients £83 on the cost of the maximum dose.

But the price rise has still made Mounjaro unaffordable for many – leading Brits to switch to cheaper Wegovy or give up the jabs altogether.

In the UK, fewer than 200,000 people are thought to be accessing weight-loss jabs through the NHS, but over 1.4 million are estimated to be using them privately, according to the health think-tank the King’s Fund.

Meanwhile, jabs such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro have been connected to 24 deaths in the 21 weeks since January, The Sun revealed.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is purchasing enough doses of a new twice-a-year HIV prevention shot to share with up to 2 million people in poor countries by 2028, the State Department announced Thursday.

Gilead Sciences had already announced it would sell that supply of the protective drug lenacapvir at no profit for use in low- and middle-income countries that are hard-hit by HIV. The question was who would buy and distribute it after the Trump administration slashed foreign aid earlier this year — forcing closures of health clinics and disrupting HIV testing and care in many countries.

Under Thursday’s move, the U.S. will purchase the doses under the PEPFAR program and work with governments in hard-hit countries on how to distribute them. The priority will be to protect pregnant or breastfeeding women, said Jeremy Lewin, a State Department senior official.

Lewin said the program will be a collaboration with the Global Fund, another international program that funds HIV treatment and prevention efforts, but wouldn’t disclose how much the U.S. was investing.

“We’re hoping, with the Global Fund, to help 2 million people get on the medication over the next three years but could potentially see more,” he said.

There are more than 30,000 new HIV infections in the U.S. every year and 1.2 million people are living with the virus. Worldwide there are 1.3 million new infections annually and nearly 40 million people living with the virus.

Many experts say lenacapavir is the most powerful option yet for what’s called PrEP — using preventive medicines to guard against sexually transmitted HIV. Unlike daily pills that people may forget, each lenacapavir shot offers protection for six months. In two groundbreaking studies with people at high risk, it nearly eliminated new infections.

The drug already has been approved for use in the U.S. and Europe.

In March, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency urged the Trump administration and Gilead to make the preventive shots available worldwide for millions.

Gilead has signed agreements with generic drugmakers to produce low-cost versions of the shot for poor countries, mostly in Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean. The doses provided at-cost for up to 2 million people in those countries were intended to be a stopgap until the generics are available.

Neergaard writes for the Associated Press.

OK, I’ll say it. I’m sick of superheroes. I blame the Marvel Cinematic Universe (36 movies and counting over 17 years) and the DC Extended Universe (43 movies and counting, mostly since the late 1970s). Maybe Earth’s not big enough for two universes. They’re running pretty thin these days, down to rebooting reboots, making sequels for prequels and squeezing every ounce from the intellectual property tube to fill out streaming platform minutes.

But there’s always Superman. The Krypton-born alien, orphaned, sent off into space for survival and then raised by adoptive parents in Kansas. He’s now been with American pop culture for 10 decades (eight in film). Despite an outfit modeled after a circus strongman, he’s become a durable, transcendent symbol of the ultimate immigrant and somehow a simultaneous embodiment of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.”

Superman’s the classic American good guy, and so this weekend’s opening of the new “Superman” with David Corenswet is a great time to think about the real good guys and gals in American life — that is, if you can find any. Where are all the good guys and gals in America? What qualifies someone for the title these days?

The idea has definitely shifted. It’s as if by sheer screen volume the fake superheroes overwhelmed the public consciousness. Superheroes are dialed up so high we can’t hear what real heroes sound like anymore. A 2008 poll in Britain found almost a quarter thought Winston Churchill was fake, while a majority of Britons believed Sherlock Holmes was real.

We’ve become confused: We prefer to watch fake heroes on screen rather than expect real ones to emerge in life. And so the fake ones become the only kind of hero we recognize.

The historian Daniel Boorstin described this transition from heroism to fame in his 1961 book “The Image.” He noted that heroes in American history were typically known for great public contribution through immense difficulty and danger. It didn’t matter much what they looked like because their deeds had saved lives and mattered to so many.

But pictures and movies changed everything in the 20th century. Heroes became celebrities. We traded away enduring contributions to the public good in exchange for flimsy, flashy fame that works for a paycheck. Value over values; money over all.

This isn’t hard to see. Look at how college sports has been conquered by contracts and name-image-likeness deals. How law firms kowtowed to an administration making unprecedented demands. How media heavyweights keep bending knees to the same. And let’s not get started with social media “influencers” except to say that doing the right and honest thing has been swept aside by the twin tsunamis of popularity and the Almighty Buck.

Where’s our real truth, our real justice, our real American way?

Not in Congress. The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a perfect example. It might take a Mt. Rushmore makeover to honor the profound contributions to cowardice in the votes surrounding this act. Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) couldn’t vote fast enough to add trillions to the national debt despite arguing, less than a year ago, that Congress is “turning a blind eye to this $35 trillion in debt,” that it’s “unsustainable” and that “we have to get our fiscal house in order, and we have to do this for our children and our grandchildren.”

Or Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), long-time fiscal hawk on the debt, who repeatedly railed against the Big Beautiful Bill’s deficit spending in the final stretch. And then he voted for it.

Or Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), known for saying “we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid” because “slashing health insurance for the working poor” would be “both morally and politically suicidal.” That was in May. But come July, Hawley voted to cut Medicaid.

The final vote came down to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). In a mid-June town hall, she said, “I have made clear very early on that we cannot move forward with a bill that makes cuts to Medicaid.” And yet, despite the fact that nearly 40,000 Alaskans (more than 5% of the state’s population) will likely lose their healthcare coverage as a direct result of the bill, Murkowski caved.

Sarah Longwell, founder and publisher of the Bulwark, spared nothing in her criticism of Murkowski. She wrote that this one action “defines our pathetic political moment,” embodying:

“Selfishness: I’m taking care of me and mine, the rest of you can pound sand;

Lack of accountability: I know the bill is bad, hopefully someone else will fix it;

Cowardice: I’m scared of Trump and his voters and need to go-along to get along with my GOP colleagues;

Moral rot: I know the difference between right and wrong, and actively chose wrong.”

Not exactly Superman. Sounds more like Lex Luthor at his most self-serving and callous.

We don’t need someone faster than a speeding bullet in the House. We don’t need senators leaping tall buildings in a single bound. We don’t need Superman.

But we do need our Clark Kents and Lois Lanes to step up. We do need our real heroes right now. Maybe Crank or Roy or Hawley or Murkowski will see the movie this weekend. Maybe they’ll find some courage for the next vote.

Maybe.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh