Retrospective case-control study shows changes in facial landmarks for patients using GLP-1 agonists, indicating notable facial dimension alterations.
Purpose: To assess the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist on facial landmarks. Methods: A retrospective case–control study with age-, sex-, ethnicity-, and diagnosis-matching of patients in one institution under the care of one oculofacial plastic surgeon from 2022 to 2024. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years old with high-resolution frontal full-face photographs. Exclusion criteria were prior oculofacial aesthetic or reconstructive procedures, trauma, paresis, or thyroid eye disease. These facial landmarks were measured: total face, upper-facial, mid-facial and lower-facial heights, palpebral fissure width and height, upper eyelid height, nasal width and height, palpebral fissure slant, philtrum width and height, upper and lower lip heights, upper and lower vermillion heights, mouth width, and upper and lower vermillion angles. Results: Eighteen patients taking GLP-1 agonists and 18 matched patients not taking GLP-1 agonists (control) were identified. The average age was 68 ± 11 years for both groups. There were 8 males and 10 females in each group. Half had a diagnosis of bilateral upper eyelid blepharoptosis, and half had bilateral upper eyelid dermatochalasis. Average duration of GLP-1 agonist use was 324 days, with an average change in weight −3.4 kg and change in body mass index −1.5. There was no statistically significant difference in body mass index in the GLP-1 agonist group (29.6 ± 7.6) and the control group (28.2 ± 7.1) ( p = 0.57). Patients taking GLP-1 agonists had statistically significantly increased philtrum width, upper vermillion height, lower lip height, and mouth width ( p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: Patients taking GLP-1 agonists had statistically significant increases in orolabial measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: