DYNOMIGHT ABOUT

The first RCT for GLP-1 drugs and alcoholism isn't what we hoped

The first RCT for GLP-1 drugs and alcoholism isn't what we hoped

Feb 2025

Subscribe? (Or try RSS or substack)

Mistakes?
Comments at lemmy, substack.

GLP-1 drugs are a miracle for diabetes and obesity. There are rumors that they might also be a miracle for addiction to alcohol, drugs, nicotine, and gambling. That would be good. We like miracles. But we just got the first good trial and—despite what you might have heard—it’s not very encouraging.

Semaglutide—aka Wegovy / Ozempic—is a GLP-1 agonist. This means it binds to the same receptors the glucagon-like peptide-1 hormone normally binds to. Similar drugs include dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and tirzepatide. These were originally investigated for diabetes, on the theory that GLP-1 increases insulin and thus decreases blood sugar. But GLP-1 seems to have lots of other effects, like preventing glucose from entering the bloodstream, slowing digestion, and making you feel full longer. It was found to cause sharp decreases in body mass, which is why supposedly 12% of Americans had tried one of these drugs by mid 2024.

(I’m skeptical that of that 12% number, but a different survey in late 2024 found that 10% of Americans were currently taking one of these drugs. I know Americans take more drugs than anyone on the planet, but still…)

Anyway, there are vast reports from people taking these drugs that they help with various addictions. Many people report stopping drinking or smoking without even trying. This is plausible enough. We don’t know which of the many effects of these drugs is really helping with obesity. Maybe it’s not the effects on blood sugar that matter, but these drugs have some kind of generalized “anti-addiction” effect on the brain? Or maybe screwing around with blood sugar changes willpower? Or maybe when people get thinner, that changes how the brain works? Who knows.

Beyond anecdotes, there are some observational studies and animal experiments suggesting they might help with addiction (OKeefe et al. 2024). We are so desperate for data that some researchers have even resorted to computing statistics based on what people say on reddit.

So while it seems plausible these drugs might help with other addictions, there’s limited data and no clear story for why this should happen biologically. This makes the first RCT, which came out last week, very interesting.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults With Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This paper contains this figure, about which everyone is going crazy:

I admit this looks good. This is indeed a figure in which the orange bar is higher than the blue bar. However:

  1. This figure does not mean what you think it means. Despite the label, this isn’t actually the amount of alcohol people consumed. What’s shown is the result of a regression, which was calculated on a non-random subset of subjects.

  2. There are other figures. Why isn’t anyone talking about the other figures?

What they did

This trial gathered 48 participants. They selected them according to the DSM-5 definition of “alcohol use disorder” which happens to be more than 14 drinks per week for men and 7 drinks per week for women, plus at least 2 heavy drinking episodes. Perhaps because of this lower threshold, 34 of the subjects were women.

The trial lasted 9 weeks. During it, half of the subjects were given weekly placebo injections. The other half were given weekly injections of increasing amounts of semaglutide: 0.25 mg for 4 weeks, then 0.5 mg for 4 weeks, and then 0.5 or 1 mg in the last week, depending on a doctor’s judgement.

Outcome 1: Drinking

The first outcome was to simply ask people to record how much they drank in daily life. Here are the results:

If I understand correctly, at some point 6 out of the 24 subjects in the placebo group stopped providing these records, and 3 out of 24 in the semaglutide group. I believe the above shows the data for whatever subset of people were still cooperating on each week. It’s not clear to me what bias this might produce.

When I first saw that figure, I thought it looked good. The lines are going down, and the semaglutide line is lower. But then I checked the appendix. (Protip: Always check the appendix.) This contains the same data, but stratified by if people were obese or not:

Now it looks like semaglutide isn’t doing anything. It’s just that among the non-obese, the semaglutide group happened to start at a lower baseline.

How to reconcile this with the earlier figure? Well, if you look carefully, it doesn’t really show any benefit to semaglutide either. There’s a difference in the two curves, but it was there from the beginning. Over time, there’s no difference in the difference, which is what we’d expect to see if semaglutide was helping.

The paper provides other measurements like “changes in drinking days” and “changes in heavy drinking days” and “changes in drinks per drinking day”, but it’s the same story: Either no benefit or no difference.

So… This is a small sample. It only lasted nine weeks, and subjects spent many of them on pretty small doses. But this is far from the miracle we hoped for. Some effect might be hiding in the noise, but what these results most look like is zero effect.

Outcome 2: Delayed drinking

There are also lab experiments. They did these at both the start and end of the study. In the first experiment, they basically set each subject’s favorite alcoholic drink in front of them and said them, “For each minute you wait before drinking this, we will pay you, up to a maximum of 50 minutes.”

How much were they paid, you ask? Oddly, that’s not specified in the paper. It’s also not specified in the supplemental information. It’s also not specified in the 289 page application they made to the FDA to be able to do this study. (Good times!) But there is a citation for a different paper in which people were paid $0.24/minute, decreasing by $0.01/minute every five minutes. If they used the same amounts here, then the maximum subjects could earn was $9.75.

Anyway, here are the results:

So… basically nothing? Because almost everyone waited the full 50 minutes? And they did this for only $9.75? Seems weird.

I don’t really see this as evidence against semaglutide. Rather, I think this didn’t end up proving much in either direction.

Outcome 3: Laboratory drinking

So what’s with that initial figure? Well, after the delayed drinking experiment was over, the subjects were given 2 hours to drink as much as they wanted, up to some kind of safe limit. This is what led to the figure everyone is so excited about:

When I first saw this, I too thought it looked good. I thought it looked so good that I started writing this post, eager to share the good news. But at some point I read the caption more carefully and my Spidey sense started tingling.

There’s two issues here. First of all, subjects were free to skip this part of the experiment, and a lot did. Only 12 of the 24 subjects in the placebo group and 13 of 24 in the semaglutide group actually did it. This means the results are non-randomized.

I mean, the people who declined to do this experiment would probably have drunk different amounts than those who agreed, right? So if semaglutide had any influence on people decision’s to participate (e.g. because it changed their relationship with alcohol, which is the hypothesis of this research) then the results would be biased. That bias could potentially go in either direction. But this means we’re sort of working with observational data.

The second issue is that what’s being show in this plot is not data. I know it looks like data, but what’s shown are numbers derived from regression coefficients. In the appendix, you can find this table:

regression table

Basically, they fit a regression to predict how much people drank in this experiment at the end of the study (“g-EtOH”) based on (a) how much they drank during the same experiment at the start of the study (“Baseline”) (b) their sex, and (c) if they got semaglutide or not (“Condition”). Those coefficients are in the B column.

How exactly they got from these coefficients to the numbers in the figure isn’t entirely clear to me. But using a plot digitizer I found that the figure shows ~56.9 g for the placebo group and ~33.3 g for the semaglutide group, for a difference of ~23.6 g. I believe that difference comes from the regression coefficient for “Condition” (-25.32) plus some adjustments for the fact that sex and baseline consumption vary a bit between the two groups.

So… that’s not nothing! This is some evidence in favor of semaglutide being helpful. But it’s still basically just a regression coefficient computed on a non-randomized sample. Which is sad, since the point of RCTs is to avoid resorting to regression coefficients on non-randomized samples. Thus, I put much more faith in outcome #1.

Discussion

To summarize, the most reliable outcome of this paper was how much people reported drinking in daily life. No effect was observed there. The laboratory experiment suggests some effect, but the evidence is much weaker. When you combine the two, the results of this paper are quite bad, at least relative to my (high) hopes.

Obviously, just because the results are disappointing does not mean the research was bad. The measure of science is the importance of the questions, not what the answers happen to be. It’s unfortunate that a non-randomized sample participated in the final drinking experiment, but what were they supposed to do, force them? This experiment involved giving a synthetic hormone and an addictive substance with people with a use disorder. If you have any doubts about the amount of work necessary to bring that to reality, I strongly encourage you to look at the FDA application.

OK, fine, I admit that I do feel this paper “hides the bodies” slightly too effectively, in a way that could mislead people who aren’t experts or that don’t read the paper carefully. I think I’m on firm ground with that complaint, since in the discussions I’ve seen, 100% of people were in fact misled. But I’m sympathetic to the reality that most reviewers don’t share my enlightened views about judging science, and that a hypothetical paper written with my level of skepticism would never be published.

(People think the problem with science is that it’s too woke. While I don’t really disagree, I still think the bigger problem is screwed up incentives that force everyone oversell everything, because that’s what you have to do to survive. But that’s a story for another time.)

Anyway, despite these results, I’m still hopeful that GLP-1 drugs might help with addiction. This is a relatively small study, and it only lasted 9 weeks. I don’t think we can dismiss the huge number of anecdotes yet. And the laboratory experiment was at least a little promising. Given how destructive addictions can be, I vote for more research in this direction. Fortunately, given the billions of dollars to be made, that’s sure to happen.

But given just how miraculous semaglutide is for obesity, and given the miraculous anecdotes, I don’t see how to spin this paper as anything but a letdown. It provides weak evidence for any effect and comes close to excluding the possibility of another miracle. If you’ve forgotten what miracles look like, here is the figure for body weight:

Subscribe? (Or try RSS or substack)

Mistakes?
Comments at lemmy, substack.

Do blue-blocking glasses improve sleep?

(are they worth looking like a huge dork?)

Back in 2017, everyone went crazy about these things: The theory was that perhaps the pineal gland isn’t the principal seat of the soul after all. Maybe what it does is spit out melatonin to...

How much information is in DNA?

While answering how much information is in DNA may seem straightforward, it actually requires a wild odyssey through information theory and molecular biology.

This is an article that just appeared in Asimov Press, who kindly agreed that I could publish it here and also humored my deep emotional need to use words like “Sparklepuff”. Do you like information...

So much blood

but how much exactly?

In a recent post about trading stuff for money, I mentioned: Europe had a [blood plasma] shortage of around 38%, which it met by importing plasma from paid donors in the United States, where blood...

Do you need permission from the government to do independent research?

IRB you kidding me?

Some of my favorite internet people sometimes organize little community experiments. Like, let’s eat potatoes and see if we lose weight. Or, let’s take some supplements and see if anxiety goes down. I’ve toyed with...

Nursing doubts: Is breastfeeding good?

(how good? how do we know?)

If you ask the internet if breastfeeding is good, you will soon learn that YOU MUST BREASTFEED because BREAST MILK = OPTIMAL FOOD FOR BABY. But if you look for evidence, you'll discover two disturbing...

It's probably just money: Why hosts do well at the Olympics

sometimes it's boycotts

They say that countries win more medals when they host the Olympics. But do they? And if so, why? I've seen various theories: 1. Jetlag. Maybe it's because athletes from the host country don't need...

Is there a homeless crisis?

A look at the data.

A few years ago, I took a look at the data on homelessness in the United States. We now have new data (and a new reality) so let’s revisit things, this time in superior list...

Conspiracy theory: Electric cars make more air pollution than gas cars

tires + battery + heavy

Claim: Per kilometer driven down the road, electric cars create more particulate air pollution than gas cars. That’s ignoring all other emissions and anything that happens at a power plant or during manufacturing.

WHO aspartame brouhaha

the territory under dispute

On July 14, two different arms of the WHO released their findings on aspartame. One designated it “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, while the other concluded that “dietary exposure to aspartame does not pose a health...

Numbers without which it's impossible to talk about weight loss

You lose glycogen before fat. Glycogen is heavy.

We lose weight when we burn more calories than we eat. But how much weight do you lose for a given caloric deficit? This isn’t complicated. But it’s not trivial either, because the body has...

A modest proposal: For preventing the heat in bathwater in Britain

FROM BEING A WASTE TO THE BATHER AND COUNTRY, AND FOR MAKING IT BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLICK

Europe is in an energy crisis. There are lots of things that might be done, but most are slow or expensive or painful or don't accomplish much. But here's a little daydream: 1. We use...

How much does a CT scan affect life expectancy?

If you get a CT scan (or an X-ray or a nuclear medicine scan) is it worth worrying about the radiation?

You're probably aware that if you get a CT scan, that exposes you to a fair of radiation. But I've always wondered—how much should I care about that? So here's an attempt at a rough...

Blocked persons and letters of marque

What are letters of marque and reprisal, and who is on the US's list of Block Persons?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" What...

Aspartame: Once more unto the breach

Like it or not, there's a clear scientific consensus

Look, I get it. Diet Coke tastes sweet because it has aspartame in it. Aspartame is a weird synthetic molecule that’s 200 times sweeter than sucrose. Half of the world’s aspartame is made by Ajinomoto...

Diet Coke probably isn't a cognitive performance enhancer

Investigating the (aspartame → phenylalanine → dopamine) theory

"Very ambitious and successful and competitive and rich person loves Diet Coke" has been in the news recently, and friend of the blog Aaron Bergman proposes a theory as to why. Spelled out in more...

Why nuclear weapons aren't getting bigger

Nations could build nuclear warheads much more powerful than they have now. But they have no interest in doing so. Why is that?

The Little Boy bomb detonated over Hiroshima in 1945 was a fission weapon where a critical mass of uranium-235 created a chain reaction of atoms splitting into lighter atoms, releasing energy and neutrons. While such...

So you want to invent a nuclear weapon

From atoms to big boom.

1. You’re in the mood for destruction. One day, you hear about this phenomenon of “radiation” where matter gives off energy. You think—perhaps you can harness this property of nature to make a big boom....

A breakdown of the data on the homeless crisis across the U.S.

Many people see a homelessness crisis, but what does the data say? We examine different locations, rates of change, types of homelessness, and mental health and substance abuse issues.

Is the US in the midst of a homelessness crisis? Many people think so, but that's largely based on based on anecdotes. What does the data say? At a glance, this doesn't look very crisisy....

The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it

Since around 2009, methamphetamines have been made with phenylacetone (P2P). Is there a chemical different causing schizophrenia?

Sam Quinones was recently on Econtalk and in the Atlantic talking about methamphetamines and homelessness. He points out that “old” meth was made from ephedrine and that “new” meth is made from a chemical called...

Two conspiracy theories about cola

Does cola contain a drug to prevent you from throwing up from the sugar? And is Mexican Coke somehow better than American Coke?

Our first conspiracy theory has all the best qualities: 1. It sounds insane. 2. At first, the facts seem to support it. 3. Later, the facts lead to disquieting reevaluations of the medical system. So...

The big alcohol study that didn't happen: My primal scream of rage

Why did a huge alcohol RCT get cancelled? A strange story of science, academia, bureaucratic maneuvering, ambition, politics, capitalism, the deep state, secret emails, and slippery ethical slopes.

What does drinking do to your health? We can say two things with confidence: 1. Drinking is associated with lots of health problems. 2. Heavy drinking is bad for you. Here's a graph of some...

A review of early split-brain experiments

What happens if you cut your brain in half?

What happens if you cut your cortex in half? When this was first tried on animals, the answer seemed to be not much. But starting in the late 1950s, a series of experiments found that...

Alcohol, health, and the ruthless logic of the Asian flush

Why did the Asian flush evolve? What does this say about alcoholism? What does this have to do with Odysseus?

Say you’re an evil scientist. One day at work you discover a protein that crosses the blood-brain barrier and causes crippling migraine headaches if someone’s attention drifts while driving. Despite being evil, you’re a loving...

Napoleon's failure in Russia as an analogy for T-cell based viral immunity

How the immune system's memory cells are like the Russian strategy for resisting Napoleon's invasion.

In June of 1812 Napoleon assembled the largest European army in history and invaded Russia. After months of bloody fighting, the French finally arrived in Moscow in September, surprised to find the city mostly abandoned....

What happens if you drink acetone?

How dangerous is it to drink acetone or nail-polish remover? Here's the key scientific facts, compared to ethanol.

Question: Should you drink acetone?