ResearchSafe

Genetics might predict who actually responds to GLP-1s, and I'm kinda into this

Posted by tiredmira in Weight Loss & Metabolic - 3 points, 4 comments.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/weight-loss-medications-hidden-side-effects

Nature just put out a study looking at genetic predictors of GLP-1 weight loss response and side effects. Basically they found real genetic associations with how well these meds work and how rough the side effects get, even if the effect sizes are small for now. The genetic angle is interesting because right now we basically just titrate up and hope 😅.

This kinda tracks with what I've seen in my own logs honestly. Some people drop weight fast on low doses and others stall even at higher ones, and I've always wondered if there's something deeper going on. If genetics can eventually flag who'll do well and who'll get destroyed by nausea, that's a real win for prescribing.

My question is whether any of you have actually done genetic testing and tried to match it to your response. Or is this still too early to be practical.

Comments

  • tracker_jade: Ancedotally I notice the same split in people I've talked to. Some are appetite dead at 2.5, others barely feel it at 10. Whether that's genes or habit or whatever they ate that week, who knows. I haven't done 23andMe or anything with the intent of matching it to a GLP-1 response, and I don't know a provider who uses genetics to pick a starting dose either. Seems like the data is still too thin to act on, even if the signal is real. The nausea prediction part is the most interesting to me anec
  • tiredmira: Yeah the nausea piece is what got me too. I've had people bail in week one because they couldn't get past it, and if a cheek swab could've warned them beforehand that's huge. Curious which SNPs they actually flagged in the Nature paper, did you see the full list or just the summary? Some of these GWAS hits end up being tissue-specific and useless clinically so I wanna know if any of them are in receptors that actually make sense mechanistically.
  • weekendnate: Same thing I keep coming back to in my own logs. The nausea piece especially, because that's the actual adherence killer, not the appetite stuff. Even a rough genetic flag for "this person will be miserable on dose 1" would change how I'd think about starting low and slow versus jumping in. For now I just assume everyone gets roughed up and plan around it.
  • tiredmira: Honestly yeah the nausea thing is exactly why I started paying attention to this paper. I had two stretches where I basically white-knuckled through dose escalation because I couldn't keep food down, and if some panel could've warned me about that ahead of time I would've started way slower or tried a different compound first. Right now I just assume the worst and bring protein shakes everywhere, which is not a strategy 😅 Have you ever actually been tested, or is it more of a "I'd want it if i

Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.