Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

sdu.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#71

Post by operator-name »

operator-name wrote: post #69
suzzer99 wrote: post #57

It drives me nuts when these things say stuff like "doubles your risk" w/o giving the original risk. Risk doubling from 5% to 10% is not in the same universe as risk doubling from .02% to .04%, which I believe is the actual risk in this case.

It's really frustrating because both papers clearly lays out the numbers in natural frequencies: > During 1,915,120 person-years of observation, 218 persons developed NAION. Semaglutide 51 exposure associated with a higher incidence rate (0·228 vs 0·093 per 1000 person-years, p > In this cohort study conducted in Denmark and Norway, use of semaglutide was associated with an increased risk of NAION; the pooled hazard…

Ah, hidden right at the end inside the "about the studies":

> Both Danish studies show that the risk of developing NAION for the individual patient receiving treatment with Ozempic is only 0.2 per thousand per year, which is fortunately significantly lower than in the American study. NAION is a relatively rare condition, and the extra risk is therefore low. The researchers estimate that for every 10,000 people treated in a year, between 1.5 and 2.5 extra cases will be seen.

Sadly it's still relative, and they still leave you the mental maths to work out the natural frequencies.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#72

Post by operator-name »

nohuck13 wrote: post #22
compiler-guy wrote: post #3

Important to note that this side effect is still very rare and that we still use drugs with similarly serious and rare side effects. The authors of the study do not recommend abandoning these drugs, rather we should understand and manage the risks.

The base rate is 1.5 to 2.5 cases per 10,000 people per year, according to the article.

To make that clear:

> The researchers estimate that for every 10,000 people treated in a year, between 1.5 and 2.5 _extra_ cases will be seen.

The existing rate is about 2 per 10,000 people per year:

> Both Danish studies show that the risk of developing NAION for the individual patient receiving treatment with Ozempic is only 0.2 per thousand per year, which is fortunately significantly lower than in the American study. NAION is a relatively rare condition, and the extra risk is therefore low.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#73

Post by KittenInABox »

formerly_proven wrote: post #66
KittenInABox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) Just because it exists doesn't mean it's statistically applicable to a population of people. I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, sustainable and side effect free ways to lose weight exists at a statistically significant level. If you're 100+ lbs overweight and you lose it all without any medical…

See France https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/global-obesity-rates/ It’s a policy intervention from the mid 2000s onwards and I kinda doubt the policy is “mandatory Ozempic injections”.

This is not a study. Furthermore, this isn't even a report on losing weight!

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#74

Post by averageRoyalty »

monero-xmr wrote: post #33
beardedwizard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone reading this might assume its zero sum to you - as if people on Ozempic have not already been exercising and monitoring caloric intake without the associated weight loss/health results they desire - and have only chosen it because they don't want to try something else. I'm sure you aren't trying to come across as fat shaming, but the reality is of course not zero sum. Diet and exercise doesn't magically work…

Diet alone is 100% guaranteed to cause you to lose weight. It really is as easy as counting calories. It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to gain, or maintain weight, if you cut caloric intake sufficiently.

Agreed. And if you want to stop smoking or gambling it really is as easy as not doing it.

Except reality is it's hard. Addiction is a real issue, people have underlying compulsions and habits as difficult to break as with physical pressure. For some people monitoring caloric intake isn't the option it is for others.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#75

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

LeSaucy wrote: post #37

Interesting synchronicity of seeing this article. I just had an optometrist appointment this morning and my glasses prescription updated/renewed. The only medication I am on is Ozempic for weight management, ~8 months, lost ~40 lbs so far. My old prescription was -1.75 / -1.0 (about 5 years ago), and my new one is -0.5, -0.5. My optometrist said it was unusual but likely due to having blood glucose under control as i…

Isn't that an improvement, in your case?

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#76

Post by Barrin92 »

KittenInABox wrote: post #30
Barrin92 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilization is built on long term sustainable practice, shortcuts in response to the lack of such practices is how civilizations burn down. Obviously T1 diabetics need to take medication because there's not much else they can do whatever side effects that has, but the topic is obviously relevant and posted here because these drugs are currently being used/abused for weight loss. Given that sustainable, side effect f…

> Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) Just because it exists doesn't mean it's statistically applicable to a population of people. I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, sustainable and side effect free ways to lose weight exists at a statistically significant level. If you're 100+ lbs overweight and you lose it all without any medical…

> I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale,

I mean visit Japan if you want to see a large nation manage its populations weight, but the entire reasoning is completely backwards. Statistics doesn't have a will of its own or causal powers, it's a description of aggregate behavior. Change the behavior and you get some new statistics. 100 years ago you didn't have a single statistic showing that obesity was an issue. What evidence do you need that making people move more and eat less will make them lose weight, there's no law of nature operating against you.

The obvious reason to even think like this is indicative of the problem, that in a lot of places we're so unused to simply enforcing sane cultural norms and incentivizing healthy behaviors and discourage crappy ones that people think it breaks some kind of ironclad law.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#77

Post by himinlomax »

akira2501 wrote: post #61
suzzer99 wrote: post #57

It drives me nuts when these things say stuff like "doubles your risk" w/o giving the original risk. Risk doubling from 5% to 10% is not in the same universe as risk doubling from .02% to .04%, which I believe is the actual risk in this case.

In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.

I'd happily double my risk of being hit by a meteorite for $10000.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#78

Post by akira2501 »

operator-name wrote: post #67
akira2501 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.

All medications increases the risks of side effects, but they are prescribed because the benifits outweigh the downsides - even if little is known about their mechanism.

> but they are prescribed because the benifits outweigh the downsides

Some are. Some are simply prescribed because the patient asks for them.

> even if little is known about their mechanism.

I wouldn't take it unless my condition was immediately life threatening and there were no other medications available. There are very few classes of treatment that fall within these parameters.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#80

Post by akira2501 »

himinlomax wrote: post #77
akira2501 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.

I'd happily double my risk of being hit by a meteorite for $10000.

0.02% relative risk increase implies 2 in 10,000 will end up with the condition where they would not otherwise.

Your chances of being hit by a meteorite are _at most_ 1 in 1,000,000.

My happiness would not extend across several orders of magnitude like that, but perhaps, some people just need the $10k more than I would.

Post reply on HN