Can Weight Loss Drugs Curb Alcoholism? See What Study Says

Updated Feb 13, 2025 | 09:02 AM IST

SummaryResearchers have pointed out on the limited data on the research and have suggested to continue using the three approved drugs by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, namely, Disulfiram, Naltrexone, and Acamprosate to treat alcohol use disorder until large studies confirm these findings.
Can weightloss drug curb alcoholism?

Credits: Canva

Until law, GLP-1 drugs were used to treat diabetes, obesity and even the recent evidences suggest that it could as well be used to treat chronic kidney problems. There is yet another research, published in JAMA Psychiatry on February 25, titled Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults With Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial that explores if GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide reduce alcohol consumption and cravings in adults with alcohol use disorder.

What Do Studies Say?

The research was conducted over a period of 9 weeks, where in the randomized clinical trial, the participants who were administered semaglutide, it led to reductions in some but not all measures of weekly consumptions. It also reduced weekly alcohol and craving related to placebo, and also led to a greater relative reduction in cigarettes per day.

The research also found that weekly injections of semaglutide, which is the active ingredient in weight loss drugs like Wegovy also helped reduce cravings in people with alcohol use disorder.

The lead author Christian Hendershot said that these findings will help in developing new approaches to treat alcoholism. "Two drugs currently approved to reduce alcohol consumption aren't widely used. The popularity of Ozempic and other GLP-1 receptor agonists increases the chances of broad adoption of these treatments for alcohol use disorder," said Hendershot in news release by the University of Southern California's Institute for Addiction Research, where he is the director.

The study is government-funded research and was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, part of the National Institutes of Health.

How Was The Study Conducted?

The study was small, and took in account for only 48 adults over two months, thus experts say that it is not yet clear how safe these drugs are for people who do not need to lose weight. Though the results do add up with the evidence form animal studies on drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy on how it helps manage cravings, not just for food, but also for tobacco and alcohol. Scientists are also studying these drugs on smokers, people with opioid addiction and cocaine users.

Co-author Dr Klara Klein of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who treats people with obesity and diabetes said, "This is such promising data. And we need more of it. We frequently will hear that once people start these medications that their desire to drink is very reduced, if not completely abolished."

Why Does It Work So Well Against Alcoholism?

The GLP-1 receptor agonists work by mimicking hormones GLP-1 in the gut and brain that regulates appetite and feelings of fullness. This response is what helps one lose weight, and what helps one curb their craving for alcohol. These drugs that mimic the functioning of your brain, which is responsible to tell your body when to stop consuming, are the same hormones that tell your body about other kinds of consumptions, including alcohol. Therefore by consuming the weight loss drugs one can treat alcohol use disorder.

However, the researchers have pointed out on the limited data on the research and have suggested to continue using the three approved drugs by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, namely, Disulfiram, Naltrexone, and Acamprosate to treat alcohol use disorder until large studies confirm these findings.

End of Article

Fournier Gangrene: Woman Develops Rare Flesh-eating Infection After Bikini Shave, Herbal Application

Updated Aug 13, 2026 | 11:33 PM IST

SummaryWhile men are more frequently affected, women should not be assumed to be at low risk. Severe or rapidly worsening pain and swelling around the genital or perineal region should not be ignored.
Fournier Gangrene: Woman Develops Rare Flesh-eating Infection After Bikini Shave, Herbal Application

Credit: AI Image

A 40-year-old woman developed a rare and potentially life-threatening “flesh-eating” infection of the genital and perineal region about a week after shaving her bikini line and an application of herbal preparation.

The woman, a mother of four with a BMI of 39 kg/m², was diagnosed with Fournier gangrene, a severe form of necrotizing fasciitis that can rapidly destroy soft tissue around the genitals and perineum.

She spent 77 days in hospital undergoing treatment, wound care and reconstruction. Complete wound healing was documented by Day 121, reported doctors from King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the American Journal of Case Reports.

Severe Pain and Swelling

The woman presented with worsening pain and swelling of the left labia that had spread toward the area above the pubic bone. She also experienced vomiting and lower abdominal pain.

About a week before admission, she had undergone perineal shaving and had a herbal preparation applied to her vulva by an alternative practitioner. She had not used antibiotics or other topical treatments before seeking medical care.

On admission, her heart rate was elevated at 140 beats per minute, although she had no fever and her blood pressure remained normal. Examination showed marked tenderness and swelling, while laboratory tests indicated a significant inflammatory response.

Samples taken from the infected wound grew several different types of bacteria (E. coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter cloacae). However, no bacteria were detected in her bloodstream.

Multiple Surgeries

After doctors diagnosed her with Fournier gangrene, they performed urgent surgical debridement to remove the affected tissue.

She subsequently underwent multiple surgical re-explorations and negative-pressure wound therapy.

She was initially given broad-spectrum antibiotics, and later amoxicillin-clavulanate.

What Is Fournier Gangrene?

Fournier gangrene is a rare, rapidly progressive form of necrotizing fasciitis affecting the perineum and external genitalia. It is often described as a “flesh-eating” infection because bacteria can cause rapid destruction of skin and underlying soft tissue.

The condition is much more common in men, but women can also develop it. Reported male-to-female ratios range from 10:1 to 40:1.

Risk factors include diabetes, obesity, immunosuppression, malnutrition, peripheral vascular disease, kidney disease, malignancy and other serious underlying conditions. However, Fournier gangrene can also occur in people without the classic risk factors.

Local trauma, disruption of the skin barrier and invasive or cosmetic procedures can potentially provide an entry point for infection.

Why Fournier Gangrene Can Be Missed in Women

The researchers noted that Fournier gangrene may be underrecognized in women, partly because its symptoms can initially resemble a gynecological condition.

Early symptoms may include severe pain, swelling, redness and tenderness around the genital or perineal area. As the infection progresses, tissue destruction, skin discoloration, blisters or systemic signs of severe infection may develop.

"While men are more frequently affected, women should not be assumed to be at low risk. Severe or rapidly worsening pain and swelling around the genital or perineal region, particularly when accompanied by systemic symptoms, warrants urgent medical evaluation," the team said.

Treatment generally requires emergency surgical removal of dead and infected tissue along with broad-spectrum antibiotics and intensive supportive care. Survivors may require multiple operations, prolonged hospitalisation and complex wound management.

How Serious Is Fournier Gangrene?

Fournier gangrene is a medical emergency. Although rare, it can progress rapidly and become fatal if treatment is delayed.

The condition has historically been associated with high mortality, with risk increasing when diagnosis and surgical treatment are delayed.

End of Article

Donald Trump's Order To Change Childhood Vaccine Schedule: Which US States & Countries Have Opposed To It?

Updated Aug 13, 2026 | 09:16 PM IST

SummaryUS President Donald Trump's newly proposed vaccination schedule has been opposed by several states, who have maintained that they would be maintaining their existing plan.
Trump Orders Childhood Vaccine Changes. Which US States Are Refusing To Change Their Schedules

Credit: X

US President Donald Trump recent move of overhauling childhood vaccine recommendations has sparked debates across the globe. Several US states have opposed to it too, refusing to follow Washington’s lead.

Trump signed the executive order on August 10, calling for federal childhood vaccine recommendations to be narrowed to vaccines routinely recommended for children against 11 diseases, down from 18 at the end of 2024.

It also calls for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to be given as three separate shots and says childhood vaccines should, where feasible, be administered during separate medical visits.

The order also asks states to review their school vaccination requirements. But there is an important question here: states, not the federal government, generally set vaccine requirements for children attending schools.

Which States Are Refusing To Follow Trump’s Directives?

At least 29 states and Washington, DC, had already rejected at least some federal vaccine guidance, choosing instead to rely on recommendations from medical organisations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Among the states that have opposed Trump's order and maintained independent, medicine-based vaccine policies are Colorado, Maine and Washington.

Colorado has gone further by passing legislation allowing the state to rely on organisations including the AAP, American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when setting its childhood vaccine policy, rather than depending on federal CDC directive.

Maine has also said it will continue following guidance from established medical and public-health organisations instead of Trump's order.

Washington state officials said its school vaccine requirements have not changed for the upcoming academic year and remain based on recommendations from trusted medical and public-health experts.

This means Trump's order does not automatically change every child's vaccination schedule across the United States. The legal and political battle is likely to continue state by state.

Also read: What Trump’s Childhood Vaccine Order Means: When Will It Take Effect?

Trump's MRI Proposal Sparked Controversy

The MMR vaccine has been used as a combined vaccine for several decades. Trump’s order calls for separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines, once they become available in the US.

Public-health experts have warned that separating vaccines could mean more appointments, higher costs and more chances for children to contract these infections as they may remain unvaccinated between doses.

The World Health Organization has also defended established immunisation schedules, saying they are based on decades of scientific evidence and proven clinical trials

The timing is particularly controversial as the US has already recorded 2,465 confirmed measles cases in 2026 as of August 6, according to the CDC.

Also read: Kennedy Announces Food Policy Reforms Under Trump’s MAHA Agenda: What Has Been Proposed?

Countries React To Trump's Vaccine Recommendation

The UK has taken a stand against Trump's newly proposed vaccine recommendation. On August 12, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reaffirmed that childhood vaccines are safe and effective and said there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.

“The benefits of vaccination are endorsed by the NHS and all major UK public health and paediatric bodies,” said Dr Alison Cave, chief safety officer at the MHRA. She urged parents to follow NHS vaccination has an guidance.

The UK's routine schedule continues to use combination vaccines, including the six-in-one vaccine, and since January 2026 has included a universal two-dose chickenpox programme through the combined MMRV vaccine.

End of Article

Supreme Court Asks 19 States, UTs To Declare Cancer Notifiable Disease For Early Detection

Updated Aug 13, 2026 | 08:00 PM IST

SummaryThe Supreme Court has asked 19 states and Union Territories to consider declaring cancer a notifiable disease to help early detection and better outcomes.
Supreme Court Asks 19 States, UTs To Declare Cancer A Notifiable Disease For Early Detection

Credit: AI

The Supreme Court has asked 19 states and Union Territories that have not yet done so to consider declaring cancer a “notifiable disease”, stressing the need for a uniform system to report cancer cases across India.

The direction was issued on August 11 by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking mandatory cancer notification across the country.

The court was informed that 17 of India's 36 states and UTs have already notified cancer, following recommendations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare.

“Why don't you issue some mandatory guidelines for all States/UTs? There should be uniform policy,” CJI Surya Kant asked the Centre during the hearing.

The court subsequently asked the remaining states and UTs to consider the recommendations and take appropriate decisions, while also asking them to file compliance affidavits.

What Does ‘Notifiable Disease’ Mean?

A notifiable disease is a condition that healthcare providers or designated authorities are legally required to report to the government when it is diagnosed.

Unlike infectious diseases, cancer is not being considered for notification because it spreads from person to person. The purpose behind SC's recommendation is surveillance.

Mandatory reporting to the government could give health authorities a clearer picture of how many new cancer cases are being diagnosed, where they are occurring, which cancer types are increasing and which populations may be disproportionately affected.

This information can help governments take initiatives towards planning screening programmes, cancer centres, diagnostic facilities, medicines, and other healthcare resources.

Despite the encouraging move, simply making cancer notifiable will not automatically lead to earlier diagnosis and better planning for resources to treat and manage the disease.

However, more complete data can help identify gaps in screening and follow-up care and allow health programmes to be targeted more effectively.

Also read: Why Non-Smokers Too Are At High Risk Of Lung Cancer

How Could SC's Move Help In Early Cancer Detection?

The issue has been linked to alarming gaps in India's cancer surveillance system. The Parliamentary Standing Committee had recommended that cancer be made a notifiable disease to improve the accuracy of cancer incidence and mortality data.

The Committee also noted that cancer deaths can sometimes be recorded under broader causes, making it difficult to establish the true burden of cancer in the country. It recommended stronger cancer registration and a digital system for real-time data collection to anaylse the actual number of cases and their severity.

The PIL was filed by Dr Anurag Srivastava, former Head of the Department of Surgical Disciplines at AIIMS, New Delhi.

His petition states that the absence of mandatory reporting has resulted in inaccurate data and inadequate surveillance. It also proposes a centralised, real-time digital registry for cancer, similar to the CoWIN platform used during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also read: The Office Actress Lucy Davis Reveals Incurable Stage 4 Breast Cancer: 'It’s Too Late For Chemo'

The Centre has pointed out that health is a State subject. Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik told the court, “Moreover, 17 states have notified the disease.”

The court's latest direction therefore puts the focus on closing the gap between states that already have mandatory notification systems and those that do not.

End of Article