GLP-1 prescribing in eight- to eleven-year-olds: steep growth, small numbers, unequal reach

Design

retrospective cross-sectional study of repeated annual cohorts from the Epic Cosmos dataset, January 2019 to June 2026

Population

3,520,531 children aged 8 to 11 with obesity and without diabetes

Primary outcome

proportion prescribed a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, semaglutide or tirzepatide), and change over time

Effect

0.6% overall; prevalent prescribing 0.03% (2019) to 9.3% (2026), a 310-fold rise (P < 0.001); comorbidity 188.9 vs low vulnerability 76.1 vs high vulnerability 49.2 per 10,000

Guidelines allow consideration of GLP-1 receptor agonists for children aged 8 to 11 with obesity, and this study asked what has actually happened. Using repeated annual cohorts from the Epic Cosmos dataset, it examined 3,520,531 children aged 8 to 11 with obesity and without diabetes between January 2019 and June 2026. Overall, 0.6% had received a prescription for liraglutide, semaglutide or tirzepatide.

The trend and the distribution tell different stories. Prevalent prescribing rose from 0.03% in 2019 to 9.3% in 2026 — a 310-fold increase (P < 0.001) — yet the cumulative figure of 0.6% shows this remains an uncommon treatment in this age band. Who receives it looks broadly rational: 11-year-olds more than 8-year-olds (79.5 vs 41.5 per 10,000), and children with obesity-related comorbidity far more than those without (188.9 per 10,000). Clinicians appear to be reserving the drugs for the highest cardiometabolic risk.

One gradient is not rational. Children with low social vulnerability were prescribed more often than those with high social vulnerability (76.1 vs 49.2 per 10,000) — the reverse of where paediatric obesity and its complications concentrate. This is a description of US prescribing, not a recommendation, and a cross-sectional design cannot say whether the difference reflects access, insurance, referral patterns or family preference. But it is the finding worth carrying: if your own service is starting to use these drugs, the equity question needs asking at the outset rather than after the pattern has set.

• Record obesity-related comorbidity explicitly — it is the strongest legitimate driver of who is treated
• Audit which families in your service are being offered these drugs, not only how many
• Keep expectations calibrated: even after a 310-fold rise, 0.6% of eligible children had a prescription
• This is US dispensing data; Indian availability, licensing for this age group and out-of-pocket cost are quite different and should be checked
• Lifestyle, family and school-based management remains the base of care in this age group, not an alternative that these drugs replace

The statistics, in plain English

A 310-fold increase sounds enormous and describes growth from a very low base — 0.03% to 9.3% of children in a given year — so the multiplier tells you about the trajectory, not the scale. The cumulative 0.6% is the figure that describes how common the treatment actually is. Rates per 10,000 allow comparison between groups but do not adjust for one another, so the age, sex and vulnerability differences are unadjusted associations that may partly explain each other. A repeated cross-sectional design captures prescriptions written, not drugs taken, and says nothing about outcomes.

Read the rest in the app

You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.

Get Daily Doctor — free

Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.