Stosować lek GLP-1 na odchudzanie długoterminowo czy odstawić po osiągnięciu docelowej wagi?
Jeśli działasz
Odstawienie leku po osiągnięciu wagi docelowej
55%
Jeśli nie działasz
Długotrwałe przyjmowanie leku
56%
Odsetek osób, które później żałują każdego wyboru. Słupki i pełna kartoteka danych poniżej.
Zdrowie
Ostatnio sprawdzono 2026-06-13
Jakość dowodów 4.13/5
Ocena recenzji w ośmiu wymiarach względem
rubryki jakości
. Każdy wymiar oceniony w skali 1–5.
D1 Weryfikacja źródeł
5/5
D2 Autorytet i niezależność źródeł
4/5
D3 Dokładność wskaźnika żalu
3/5
D4 Porównywalność źródeł
3/5
D5 Wzorzec Gilovicha
4/5
D6 Jakość tekstu
5/5
D7 Kompletność zastrzeżeń
4/5
D8 Jakość próby
5/5
Średnia4.13/5
Dane zastępcze — dla tej decyzji nie istnieje bezpośrednie badanie żałowania. Wskaźniki są oparte na ocenach zadowolenia i danych o barierach dostępu, a nie na pytaniach bezpośrednio dotyczących żałowania. Zobacz zastrzeżenia poniżej.
Żal za działanie
Odstawienie leku po osiągnięciu wagi docelowej
55%
55% osób z grupy otyłościowej odstawiających lek przybrało jakkolwiek na wadze w ciągu roku (wskaźnik zastępczy oparty na wyniku ponownego przyrostu masy — a nie ankieta o deklarowanym żalu; średni przyrost netto wyniósł tylko 0,5%, gdyż wiele osób wznowiło lub zmieniło leki)
Adults with obesity who stopped injectable semaglutide or tirzepatide 3-12 months after starting
1 year after discontinuation
Żal za zaniechanie
Długotrwałe przyjmowanie leku
56%
56% użytkowników GLP-1 mówi, że lek jest trudny do sfinansowania (wskaźnik zastępczy o charakterze postawy dotyczący obciążenia kosztowego — a nie ankieta o deklarowanym żalu)
U.S. adults currently or formerly using a GLP-1 drug
ongoing use (surveyed Oct-Nov 2025)
% żałuje tej decyzji
Odstawienie leku po osiągnięciu wagi docelowejDługotrwałe przyjmowanie leku
55%56%
balanced — Mniej więcej zrównoważone — obie opcje wiążą się z podobnym żalem.
Powiązane decyzje
Semantycznie podobne decyzje — ten sam obszar, inne kompromisy.
Both arms of this decision are reconstructed from outcome and attitude data, not from anyone asking patients whether they regret the choice they made. There is no published regret survey for GLP-1 continuation as of mid-2026, so the numbers here are proxies: weight regain stands in for regret over stopping, and the reported difficulty of paying for the drug stands in for the burden of staying. Read them as the rate at which each path produces the thing people say they wanted to avoid, not as a count of stated regret.
Stopping at goal weight reverses most of the loss for most people. In the STEP-1 trial extension, participants who came off semaglutide regained a mean of two-thirds of their prior weight loss over the following year, and a 2026 meta-regression of six randomized trials put the figure at 60% regained by 52 weeks, plateauing near 75% of the original loss. Real-world data is gentler but points the same way: in a Cleveland Clinic cohort of 7,938 adults with obesity who stopped semaglutide or tirzepatide, 55% gained weight in the year afterward while 45% kept losing or held steady. The trial figures describe how much weight comes back; the 55% is the share of individual stoppers who saw the scale move the wrong way, which is why it, rather than the regain magnitude, anchors the action side.
Staying on carries a different cost, and a large share of long-term users describe it as hard to bear. In KFF’s late-2025 polling, 56% of GLP-1 users said the drug was difficult to afford, a share barely lower among the insured. The burden is concrete enough to end treatment for most people who start: a clinical-practice study found 54.9% discontinued within the first year, with cost or insurance driving 47.6% of those exits and side-effect intolerance another 14.6%. Those discontinuation figures are not folded into the regret rate here, because someone who quits has effectively taken the stopping path rather than the staying one. They establish only that the open-ended expense and tolerability of indefinite use is severe enough to push a majority off within twelve months.
The two proxy rates land almost on top of each other, 55% for stopping and 56% for staying, so the comparison is close to balanced rather than favoring either path. The symmetry is partly an artifact of proxy choice: a magnitude-of-regain framing would tilt the stopping side higher, and a stated-regret survey, if one existed, could move both. What the data does support is narrower and firmer. Stopping usually means regaining most of the loss, and staying usually means an expense a majority find difficult to sustain. Neither path offers a clean exit from the trade-off.
Źródła: działanie
Rejestr twierdzeń
Każda liczba poniżej jest tym, co podało dane źródło — z dosłownym cytatem, na którym się oparliśmy, i sposobem, w jaki doszliśmy do naszej wartości. Kliknij dowolny link, żeby zweryfikować bezpośrednio.
1/2 źródeł niezależnie zweryfikowanych słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem
[1]Cleveland Clinic Newsroom — What Happens When Patients Stop Taking GLP-1 Drugs? New Cleveland Clinic Study Reveals Real-World Insights
Zweryfikowane
Źródło referencyjne
Among the obesity group, 55% gained weight in the year after discontinuation, while 45% kept losing or stayed the same (n=7,938 adults; study published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, March 2026).
Cytat
“55% gained weight in the year after discontinuation, while 45% kept losing or stayed the same.”
Dane źródłowe z
2026-03-12
Dostęp
2026-06-13
Weryfikacja
Cytat niezależnie pobrany ponownie i potwierdzony słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem podczas naszego audytu ugruntowania.
Obliczenie
PROXY (no direct regret survey). The active choice is stopping the drug at goal; the regret driver is weight regain. Person-level proxy: of obesity patients who stopped semaglutide/tirzepatide, 55% gained weight in the following year. regret_rate = 0.55 taken directly as the fraction of stoppers who saw their weight move the wrong way. This is an outcome proxy (regain), not a survey of stated regret — the 45% who kept losing or held steady are treated as the not-regretting share. CAVEAT — the proxy likely OVERSTATES regret: the 55% counts anyone who gained ANY weight, but the obesity group's mean net regain was only 0.5% of body weight one year out (vs. 8.4% lost before stopping), because 27% switched drugs, 20% restarted, and 14% continued via lifestyle visits. So "55% gained weight" is the share whose weight ticked up at all, not the share with clinically meaningful regain. Underlying study: Gasoyan et al., Cleveland Clinic, real-world cohort in Ohio and Florida, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (March 2026).
Niezależność
Reports the Gasoyan/Cleveland Clinic real-world cohort. Independent in mechanism from the trial-extension regain magnitude (STEP-1) cited as supporting context.
[2]Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (Wilding et al.) — Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: The STEP 1 trial extension
Recenzowane naukowo
After withdrawal of semaglutide and lifestyle intervention, participants regained a mean of two-thirds of their prior weight loss over the 1-year off-treatment extension (n=327; weeks 68-120).
Cytat
“After withdrawal of semaglutide and structured lifestyle intervention, participants regained a mean of two-thirds of their prior weight loss in the 1-year off-treatment extension phase.”
Dane źródłowe z
2022-04-19
Dostęp
2026-06-13
Obliczenie
SUPPORTING CONTEXT for the regain mechanism, NOT the headline rate. This is a magnitude of regain (two-thirds of lost weight, mean 11.6 percentage points regained), not a fraction of people who regret. Used to substantiate that stopping reliably reverses most weight loss. Trial extension subset n=327 over 52 weeks off-treatment.
Niezależność
STEP-1 RCT extension. Likely one of the six RCTs pooled in the eClinicalMedicine 2026 meta-regression cited on the inaction side, so the two regain figures are not fully independent.
Źródła: bezczynność
Rejestr twierdzeń
Każda liczba poniżej jest tym, co podało dane źródło — z dosłownym cytatem, na którym się oparliśmy, i sposobem, w jaki doszliśmy do naszej wartości. Kliknij dowolny link, żeby zweryfikować bezpośrednio.
2/2 źródeł niezależnie zweryfikowanych słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem
[1]KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) — Poll: 1 in 8 Adults Say They Are Currently Taking a GLP-1 Drug, Even as Half Say the Drugs Are Difficult to Afford
Zweryfikowane
Źródło referencyjne
About half of GLP-1 users (56%), including 55% of those with insurance, say it was difficult to afford these drugs (nationally representative sample of 1,350 U.S. adults; surveyed Oct 27-Nov 2, 2025).
Cytat
“about half of GLP-1 users (56%), including a similar share among those with insurance (55%), say that it was difficult to afford these drugs.”
Dane źródłowe z
2025-11-14
Dostęp
2026-06-13
Weryfikacja
Cytat niezależnie pobrany ponownie i potwierdzony słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem podczas naszego audytu ugruntowania.
Obliczenie
PROXY (no direct regret survey). The status-quo choice is staying on the drug long-term; the regret driver is cost, side-effects, and open-ended dependence. Person-level attitudinal proxy: 56% of GLP-1 users say the drug was difficult to afford. regret_rate = 0.56 taken as the share of long-term users bearing a burden they report as hard to sustain. This proxies the cost/dependence burden of staying, not direct regret. Cost is reported as the top reason users give for stopping, which corroborates the burden is real but is treated as supporting context, not double-booked into the rate.
Niezależność
Attitudinal survey; independent in source and mechanism from the trial/cohort regain data on the action side.
[2]Obesity (Gasoyan et al.) — Reasons for Discontinuation of Obesity Pharmacotherapy With Semaglutide or Tirzepatide in Clinical Practice
Zweryfikowane
Recenzowane naukowo
54.9% of patients discontinued within the first year; among discontinuers, 47.6% cited cost/insurance and 14.6% cited inability to tolerate side effects (n=288 reason-coded; broader cohort 8,184).
Cytat
“137 patients (47.6%) discontinued their medication due to cost or insurance‐related issues”
Dane źródłowe z
2025-10-02
Dostęp
2026-06-13
Weryfikacja
Cytat niezależnie pobrany ponownie i potwierdzony słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem podczas naszego audytu ugruntowania.
Obliczenie
SUPPORTING CONTEXT for the inaction-side burden, NOT the headline rate. Documents WHY staying long-term is hard: cost/insurance (47.6%) and side-effect intolerance (14.6%) are the leading reasons people leave, and 54.9% discontinue within a year. Deliberately NOT used as the inaction regret_rate, because discontinuers have effectively taken the action (stopping); counting them as 'regret of staying' would double-book them. Used only to establish that the cost/side-effect/dependence burden is severe enough to drive a majority off within a year.
Niezależność
Same Gasoyan/Cleveland Clinic research program as the action-side cohort source; complementary (reasons vs. weight outcomes), not an independent confirmation.
Zastrzeżenia
proxy_only: neither side has a direct regret-framed survey, so both rates are derived. ACTION side (stopping): regret_rate 0.55 is an outcome proxy = the share of real-world obesity-group stoppers who gained weight within a year (Cleveland Clinic/Gasoyan cohort, n=7,938, published Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism Mar 2026). The trial-extension figures (STEP-1 two-thirds regained; eClinicalMedicine 2026 60% at 1yr, ~75% plateau) describe REGAIN MAGNITUDE, not the fraction of people who regret, and are used only as supporting mechanism context. INACTION side (staying): regret_rate 0.56 is an attitudinal proxy = the share of GLP-1 users who say the drug is difficult to afford (KFF, n=1,350, Oct-Nov 2025); it proxies the cost/dependence burden of indefinite use, not stated regret. Discontinuation rates (54.9% within a year; 47.6% cost-driven) are deliberately NOT used as the inaction rate to avoid double-booking people who, by quitting, took the action path. DEPENDENCE: STEP-1 is very likely one of the six RCTs in the 2026 eClinicalMedicine meta-regression, so those two regain figures are not independent. The near-tie (delta -0.01) is sensitive to proxy choice; a magnitude framing or an actual regret survey could shift it materially. Both sides reflect obesity-indication adult users; type-2-diabetes users showed a lower regain share (44%) and are excluded from the action-side population.
