Lilly expects orforglipron obesity results in third quarter
(Reuters) -Eli Lilly said on Saturday its experimental pill orforglipron helped diabetics lose weight and lower their blood sugar, and the company aims to announce in the third quarter trial results for the drug in overweight and obese people without diabetes.
Lilly expects to submit the non-diabetes Phase 3 data to global regulatory agencies by the end of the year, said Ken Custer, head of cardiometabolic health at the company. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration typically makes new drug approval decisions 10 months after a manufacturer's submission.
Lilly said it plans to file for regulatory approvals for orforglipron as a diabetes treatment in 2026.
Full results of the diabetes trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in Chicago.
The Phase 3 study showed that type 2 diabetes patients taking the highest dose of daily orforglipron lost nearly 8% of their body weight over 40 weeks. That compares favorably with Novo Nordisk's injected drug Ozempic, for which trials showed that diabetic patients on the highest dose lost roughly 6% of their body weight.
Lilly's pill, which can be taken without food or water, lowered blood sugar levels by an average of 1.3% to 1.6% across doses.
The company said the most frequently reported side effects were gastrointestinal and similar to other GLP-1 drugs, including diarrhea and vomiting.
Custer said Lilly's goal in its non-diabetes trials is to achieve weight loss consistent with GLP-1 drugs that are currently available. Ozempic was shown in trials to lead to weight loss of 15% for people without diabetes over 68 weeks.
He said orforglipron, which has a simpler production process than injected GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic or Lilly's Zepbound and does not require cold storage, could mean wider global access to weight-loss drugs.
"This is the type of molecule that is going to allow us to reach the broader globe," Custer said.
The executive declined to comment on pricing plans for orforglipron.
(Reporting By Deena BeasleyEditing by Rod Nickel)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Got $200? 2 Biotech Stocks to Buy and Hold Forever
Good news for investors: You don't have to start out with tons of cash to grow wealth. Biotech stocks offer you a great opportunity to get in on innovators that may produce major growth down the road. 10 stocks we like better than Viking Therapeutics › Some potential investors hesitate to get started on building an investment portfolio because they think they need thousands of dollars to grow wealth. But I've got good news for them and for you: You don't have to start out with a huge pile of cash to invest in stocks that may significantly add value to your portfolio over time. In fact, with just $200, you can get in on players that could help you along the path to wealth. The industry of biotech is a great place to look for such stocks since so many of these companies are developing cutting-edge technologies that may lead to high-growth products, and revenue, down the road. Let's consider two that you might buy today -- a few shares of each for a total of $200 -- and hold forever to benefit from lasting growth stories. Viking Therapeutics (NASDAQ: VKTX) aims to make its mark in one of today's (and tomorrow's) biggest healthcare growth areas: weight loss drugs. The biotech company is developing a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, known as VK2735, and has progressed into late-stage clinical trials. The candidate, in injectable form, just launched its phase 3 program and aims to enroll more than 4,000 participants with obesity and more than 1,000 volunteers with obesity and type 2 diabetes. VK2735 works by interacting with hormonal pathways involved in the control of appetite and blood sugar levels, much like the already commercialized Mounjaro and Zepbound, sold by Eli Lilly, and Ozempic and Wegovy, sold by Novo Nordisk. But the fact that similar drugs have reached the market first doesn't mean Viking can't succeed here. Demand for these sorts of products has been so high that it exceeded supply, until Lilly and Novo Nordisk increased manufacturing capacity. So there's plenty of room for a young company like Viking to succeed here too if all continues to go well in clinical trials. Viking also is testing VK2735 in oral form in a phase 2 trial, an important point since oral formulation could make these drugs easier to take, and it involves faster and cheaper manufacturing processes for the company. Data from that trial is expected later this year. Viking stock is known to soar on positive results. It surged more than 120% last year in just one trading session after reporting positive phase 2 data for VK2735. It's since given up the gains, offering investors a solid entry point, but any good news and a possible regulatory nod could prompt the stock to skyrocket. Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA) used to be a favorite of investors during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic -- but since, it's had trouble bringing investors back into its potential growth story. The stock has lost more than 90% since its peak back in 2021, and the company has reported decreasing sales because of the drop in demand for its coronavirus vaccine and lower-than-expected sales of its more recently launched respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine. After Moderna's billions of dollars in revenue and profit just a couple of years ago and recent earnings declines, investors may find it difficult to get excited about Moderna again. But it's important to remember two things: First, it's unfair to compare revenue potential during ordinary times to revenue linked to a pandemic-related product. Those were exceptional times that don't occur often. Second, the approval of Moderna's coronavirus and RSV vaccines show that its technology -- the technology driving the rest of its pipeline -- works. The company now has many late-stage products in the works and aims to launch as many as 10 over the next few years. If Moderna even makes it partially to that goal, its revenue picture a few years from now may look very different from the picture today -- and set the company up for long-term growth. It's too early to predict when the market will recognize this and flock to Moderna shares. But at today's level, the stock offers investors a buying opportunity, making it a great place to park part of your $200 and hold on for the long-term as this growth story develops. Before you buy stock in Viking Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Viking Therapeutics wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $713,547!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $966,931!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,062% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 177% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 30, 2025 Adria Cimino has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Viking Therapeutics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Got $200? 2 Biotech Stocks to Buy and Hold Forever was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
How an empty North Carolina rural hospital explains a GOP senator's vote against Trump's tax bill
WASHINGTON — Though patients don't rush through the doors of this emergency room anymore, an empty hospital in Williamston, North Carolina, offers an evocative illustration of why Republican Sen. Thom Tillis would buck his party leaders to vote down President Donald Trump's signature domestic policy package. Martin General is one of a dozen hospitals that have closed in North Carolina over the last two decades. This is a problem that hospital systems and health experts warn may only worsen if the legislation passes with its $1 trillion cuts to the Medicaid program and new restrictions on enrollment in the coverage.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
MAHA's Focus On Improving Nutrition Is At Odds With Trump Policies
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 22: U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert ... More F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event introducing a new Make America Healthy Again Commission report in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The commission, which is tasked with studying the potential causes for the "childhood chronic disease crisis," recommends reassessing the nation's childhood vaccine schedule, scrutinizing ultra-processed foods and studying pesticides used in commercial farming. At the same time, the Trump administration has proposed a FY2026 budget of $94 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services — a reduction of about 26-percent from the 2025 level — cutting programs and staff at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Photo by) In introducing the first Make America Healthy Again Commission report, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the focus is childhood chronic disease prevention, with a particular emphasis on nutrition. But several key Trump administration policies appear to be inconsistent with this goal. And the report does not include several notably absent topics that are known to cause certain chronic diseases. The first MAHA Commission report released in May identifies multifarious drivers of childhood chronic disease, including poor diet and specifically the shift over time to ultra-processed foods, overuse of pesticides in agriculture, food dyes in products for sale in grocery stores and a cumulative overload of chemicals in the environment. The document offers a potpourri of high-level policy recommendations to counter these trends. In a tweet, Kennedy touted on June 19th that 'artificial dyes and additives are being removed from America's food supply.' Thus far, however, only Red Dye No. 3 has been banned and this occurred under the Biden administration. Manufacturers have until Jan. 2027 to remove this specific dye from their products. The HHS budget for 2026 proposes $14 billion in discretionary funding for programs that aim to reverse what Secretary Kennedy calls the 'chronic disease epidemic,' as it consolidates entities housed under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into the Administration for a Healthy America, namely the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. AHA is being called the 'primary federal agency committed to transforming the health of all Americans by addressing the root causes of chronic disease, promoting preventive care, advancing mental health and substance use services, and increasing access to a healthy environment and foods.' But only $2 million is being allocated to nutrition, an amount experts suggest is inadequate. They believe the figure should be doubled to at least $4 billion to achieve the objectives laid out by Secretary Kennedy. And despite the MAHA report raising concerns about American agricultural products, other Trump cabinet officials insist that the nation's food supply is safe. Differences in views on glyphosate, a commonly used chemical sprayed on crops, illustrate the disconnect. Glyphosate is cited in the report as a major contributor in the rise of chronic disease. It is a substance that may cause serious health problems, including cancer. But the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, doesn't want to further regulate glyphosate. On food safety generally, Kennedy appears to be at odds with director Zeldin's decisions to deregulate pesticides. The MAHA report makes dozens of references to dietary guidelines and food standards in Europe that prohibit the use of certain pesticides in agriculture. However, Zeldin has promised no more regulations, arguing that European-style mandates would stifle economic growth. Furthermore, Congress and the Trump administration back cuts to assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that would seem to undermine efforts to improve people's access to food, whether of high or low quality. Food and diet researchers are also criticizing the direction the National Institutes of Health are going in possibly stifling debate regarding the merits and demerits of different foods. According to STAT News, more than 70 top U.S. nutrition scientists signed a letter last month demanding that NIH director Jay Bhattacharya address alleged censorship at the agency, writing that their colleagues 'need the freedom to present their findings in scientific meetings without political oversight, and to author and co-author freely in the scientific literature.' The letter is in part a response to censorship allegations from former top NIH nutrition scientist Kevin Hall, whose research on ultra-processed foods was cut short when he resigned in April, complaining of interference from his superiors. The MAHA Commission report attributes adverse health effects to nutrient depletion owing to 'ultra-processed grains, sugars, and fats,' as well as intake of more calories and inclusion of food additives. There is empirical support for this. For example, a 2024 review of the evidence, which included dozens of analyses, linked 'higher consumption of ultra-processed foods to poor cardiometabolic health, increasing the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease.' At the same time, the scientific evidence for how ultra-processed foods affect our health isn't unequivocal. In fact, according to a story by the New Scientist covering a recent meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, scientists don't agree that simply opting for less processed foods guarantees a healthy diet. Additionally, former Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations from 2015 to 2023, Susan Mayne, says the report omits other well-accepted drivers of chronic disease, such as high intake of sodium and saturated fat. Instead, it criticizes the current set of U.S. dietary guidelines for 'problematic reductionist recommendations' in reference to advice to 'reduce saturated fat' or 'limit sodium.' But in the case of sodium, this seems to ignore decades of research showing that sodium is over-consumed in the U.S., contributing to chronic disease. There are other conspicuous apparent oversights regarding HHS policy. For instance, STAT News notes that the MAHA Commission report includes no mentions of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa or binge-eating. Such eating disorders have been on the rise for decades, especially among young women and girls. Evidently, research on these eating disorders is being disproportionately affected by ongoing federal grant terminations, according to experts in the field. Also, Reuters reports that despite rising levels of alcoholism, which is conducive to a myriad of chronic diseases, revisions to the U.S. dietary guidelines under RFK Jr. may loosen federal guidance on alcohol consumption that currently advises no more than one to two daily drinks.
