A return of hunger or a pause in weight loss does not, by itself, establish that a GLP-1 medicine has stopped working. Medication response is assessed over time, including weight change, side effects and the goals of treatment. Continued treatment may also help maintain a loss rather than produce a lower weight indefinitely.[1][2]

Appetite and weight are related, but different

Semaglutide and tirzepatide affect appetite and calorie intake. That helps explain why the experience of hunger may change during treatment.[3][4]

A 60-week semaglutide trial found that reduced laboratory food intake persisted even when some subjective appetite benefits were no longer significantly different from placebo. Feeling less appetite suppression therefore did not mean every measured treatment effect had disappeared.[5]

A useful description distinguishes stronger hunger from more frequent food thoughts, different portions, or a weight trend that has leveled off.

Look at the course of treatment

NIDDK describes medication choice and continuation as decisions based on benefits, side effects, other health issues and cost. Its guidance also notes that response varies among people.[1]

A review can consider the weight trend, the exact product, how it has been taken and whether side effects make regular eating or drinking difficult. The approved labels direct clinicians to consider treatment response and tolerability when selecting maintenance treatment.[3][4]

Maintenance can be an active result

In the SURMOUNT-4 trial, adults who had completed an initial tirzepatide treatment period were randomized either to continue it or switch to placebo. Continued treatment maintained and added to the initial weight reduction, while withdrawal led to substantial regain on average.[2]

The study supports maintenance as a meaningful treatment outcome. Treatment changes still depend on the person's response and tolerability.[1][2]

Bring the actual trend and the specific change in appetite to the review. The useful question is whether the current plan is still meeting its purpose, and what evidence would justify changing it.