GLP-1 medications for persisting symptoms after concussion? One woman’s experiment.
This article was initially published in the 4/16/26 edition of our Concussion Update newsletter; please consider subscribing.
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times recently published articles about how GLP-1 medications (GLP-1s), approved for diabetes and weight loss, have a wider range of benefits for the body than previously thought, including potential benefits to the brain. There are downsides to the “Great American GLP-1 Experiment,” including serious side effects reported, the proliferation of GLP-1 prescribing by online telemedicine with “barriers to entry that are too low,” and the potential rebounding of health issues once the medication is stopped. However, along with these risks come some anecdotal stories of unusual benefits that warrant research. For example, The New York Times guest essay, by Julia Belluz, starts with an evocative story of a woman’s day-to-day experience with severe post-concussion syndrome, which had lasted ten years after she was hit by a car while on her bicycle. In 2025, Laurel Schmidt found a study on the neuroprotective effects of GLP-1s in cell and mouse models of mild traumatic brain injury (2016) and a review article on the therapeutic potential of GLP-1s in traumatic brain injury (2024). She contacted researchers, including chemist Richard DiMarchi at Indiana University, who suggested she ask her doctor if she could try GLP-1 “off-label” for her post-concussion syndrome. Schmidt started Zepbound and found her symptoms improved so significantly that she used the term “miraculous,” with her symptoms falling to a 6 out of 132 on the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale.
Dr. DiMarchi suspects that in Laurel Schmidt’s case, “the GLP-1 may have reduced damaging inflammation in her brain from her post-concussion syndrome,” and he thinks there should be clinical trials on GLP-1s for concussions. However, pharmaceutical companies may be reluctant to do clinical trials in areas such as traumatic brain injury, which are “difficult trials to run.” Public institutions such as the National Institutes of Health could play a role by funding research.
Note: While post-concussion syndrome (PCS) is the term many people still use, the new term used by researchers and clinicians is persisting symptoms after concussion (PSaC). The reason for the change is that each person who sustains a concussion will have a different combination of symptoms. In contrast, “syndrome” means a group of symptoms that always occur together.
The evidence is mixed regarding the neurological effects of GLP-1s. The Washington Post does not mention traumatic brain injury in its article that categorizes health conditions that are improved by GLP-s by level of evidence; Alzheimer’s and dementia are included in the “some evidence” category. Authors Ariana Eunjung Cha and Aaron Steckelberg refer to a Department of Veterans Affairs study, based on the data of 2.5 million patients, that found that “people prescribed GLP-1 drugs had a lower relative risk of developing dementia compared with those who took other drugs for diabetes.” Another study based on the medical records of over 100 million patients found that “Ozempic was linked to a lower risk of cognitive problems.” A study of liraglutide, an older GLP-1, found patients had slower cognitive decline than those not on the drug, and liraglutide “appeared to reduce shrinkage in key parts of the brain.” However, Novo Nordisk recently announced that its two clinical trials of semaglutide for dementia or mild cognitive impairment showed no cognitive benefits. The New York Times article stresses the urgent need for regulators and the medical establishment to keep pace with the experimentation that is happening with GLP-1s outside of research and clinical trials, and even outside the health system.
