
Why GLP-1s could become the "everything drug"
The big picture: Blockbuster treatments like Ozempic have been found to lower the risk of everything from Alzheimer's and addiction, to sleep apnea, seizures and bacterial infections. More potential uses keep surfacing.
While it may be tempting to think of them as wonder drugs, there's a lot that's still unknown. It's still not clear whether they're a cure-all, or whether the benefits come from the fact that obesity and diabetes give rise to so many other health problems.
At over $1,000 a month, GLP-1s are also driving up costs in the health system, and their benefits can go away if patients discontinue the medications.
State of play: The injectable drugs' potential beyond weight loss was driven home early this year by a study of almost 2 million Veterans Health Administration patient records that found GLP-1s lowered the likelihood of dozens of health conditions.
Researchers found the benefits were modest — about a 10% to 20% reduction in most cases — but noted that could be meaningful, especially for conditions like dementia that have few effective treatments.
"Given the drugs' newness and skyrocketing popularity, it is important to systematically examine their effects on all body systems — leaving no stone unturned — to understand what they do and what they don't do," Ziyad Al-Aly, the study's senior author said.
Friction point: The Food and Drug Administration has only approved GLP-1s for obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart risk and, under certain circumstances, sleep apnea. That means using them for any other condition is "off label" and at a physician's discretion.
The designation can affect whether insurers pay for the treatments. That's no small matter when the monthly cost of brand-name options like Wegovy and Zepbound range from $1,000 to $1,350 without coverage.
The hype around the drugs has sent many Americans to telemedicine companies that sell brand-name or knockoff GLP-1s. One recent study found that nearly 40% of GLP-1s approved by the FDA for diabetes are being prescribed off-label.
Meanwhile, drug supply shortages and patchwork health plan coverage policies have made GLP-1s less available to patients most in need, including those in marginalized communities.
Dozens of lawmakers in Congress last week pressed the FDA to take action against illegal, counterfeit versions of the active ingredients in Ozempic and Wegovy.
Reality check: While the drugs have enormous promise, they come with significant side effects, including increased risk for gastrointestinal disorders, low blood pressure, kidney stones and pancreatitis.
Surprisingly for weight-loss treatments, there can be a higher risk for arthritis, possibly due to loss of muscle and bone mass.
More than 36% of patients who start GLP-1s for either obesity or diabetes treatment stop taking the drugs within a year, according to one study. The cost and adverse effects are often cited as reasons.
And although GLP-1s could lower future health costs by preventing more health problems, expanding Medicare coverage of the drugs could drive up federal spending by $48 billion over the next decade.
The pricey drugs are already contributing to increasing premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance.
The intrigue: The action of GLP-1s could tell us more about how the brain works, by the way they appear to tamp down inflammation and protect nerve cells.
They also control cravings and feelings of satisfaction — qualities that could make them important tools for treating substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and even schizophrenia.
So, should we all be taking them? The consensus among many clinicians and researchers is "no," or at least not until more is known about how they work.
"While I'm excited about the future of these drugs' development, the side effect profile isn't worth the risk for otherwise healthy patients," author-journalist Derek Thompson wrote recently in a Substack review of recent developments and interviews with researchers.
What we're watching: Drug companies are moving to develop GLP-1s in pill form, which would make them easier to take and potentially keep people from cycling on and off as much.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Eli Lilly Stock Was Looking Sickly Today
Key Points Investors were spooked by a peer's notable reduction in sales and profitability guidance. This peer was Novo Nordisk, which like Eli Lilly sells a popular drug approved specifically for obesity. 10 stocks we like better than Eli Lilly › One of the more popular stocks in the pharmaceutical sector of late got the cold shoulder from investors on Tuesday. Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) closed today's trading session down by almost 6% in value, which was notably worse than the 0.3% drop of the bellwether S&P 500 index. That decline wasn't necessarily Eli Lilly's fault, though. Reducing weight, reducing guidance Eli Lilly's recent popularity is due in no small measure to its plunge into the highly lucrative weight-loss drug market. In late 2023, its Zepbound -- essentially the same treatment as its diabetes drug Mounjaro -- was approved to treat obesity, and the company was off to the races. On Tuesday, though, the standard-bearer for the segment took quite a tumble. That was Novo Nordisk, which this morning lowered its guidance for both full-year sales and operating profit. The growth forecast for the former was reduced to 8% to 14% over the 2024 tally (previous guidance range: 13% to 21%). Ditto for operating profit, which is now expected to rise in a range of 10% to 16%. That would be encouraging, if it weren't for the fact that management's preceding prediction was 16% to 24%. Novo Nordisk is known for developing and selling Wegovy, the first GLP-1 drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifically for weight loss. The company has flown to renown and admiration on the wings of that drug, which remains a key product. Investors probably fear that Eli Lilly's Zepbound will also perform worse than expected. Not an emergency I don't think anyone should push the panic button on Eli Lilly due to this (or Novo Nordisk, while I'm at it). Demand for obesity drugs remains strong and nearly unlimited, so both Zepbound and Wegovy -- which still benefit from a lack of competitors, at least for now -- should continue to be growth drivers. Also, in the case of Eli Lilly, the sprawling pharmaceutical company has a vast portfolio and a very wide development pipeline, so it's hardly dependent on one drug -- no matter how currently popular that drug might be. Should you buy stock in Eli Lilly right now? Before you buy stock in Eli Lilly, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Eli Lilly 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 $633,452!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,083,392!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,046% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Eli Lilly Stock Was Looking Sickly Today was originally published by The Motley Fool


Medscape
4 hours ago
- Medscape
Me-Too Cancer Drugs Not Often Compared to Original
TOPLINE: In an analysis of all FDA approvals for anticancer drugs from 2009 to 2020, only about 29% of next-in-class drugs were evaluated in head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) against their first-in-class counterparts. And in these head-to-head RCTs, only 22% of the 'me-too' agents showed a survival benefit compared to the originals. METHODOLOGY: Next-in-class, or 'me-too,' oncology drugs may theoretically offer improved efficacy, safety, or broader indications, yet little is known about how often RCTs directly compare these me-too agents with first-in-class drugs, leaving their true therapeutic value uncertain. Researchers looked at all 332 FDA approvals for anticancer drugs between 2009 and 2020. After excluding supportive care treatments, biosimilars, and drugs with novel routes of administration, 94 RCTs for me-too agents that received FDA approvals were included. The researchers then identified which next-in-class drugs had RCTs comparing them with their first-in-class counterparts, both at and after approval. Among RCTs with head-to-head comparison, primary endpoints varied across trials, with 63% using progression-free survival, 11% using overall survival, and 11% using response rate as their primary endpoint; 77.8% of trials were designed as superiority trials. TAKEAWAY: Only 27 RCTs that led to FDA approvals for me-too drugs — just under 29% — directly compared the new agent to the first-in-class drug (23 regular approvals and four accelerated approvals). Of these 27 RCTs, 12 trials were published at the time of FDA approval and 15 were published after approval. The median time to publication of post-approval trials was 2.8 years for regular approvals and 3.3 years for accelerated approvals. Overall, only six of the 27 trials (22.2%) demonstrated survival benefits, 14 trials (51.9%) met nonsurvival primary endpoints, and six trials (22.2%) failed to meet their primary endpoints. One trial is still ongoing. Among regular approvals designed as superiority trials, only 11 of 17 (64.7%) met their endpoints. Among accelerated approvals designed as superiority trials, three of four achieved their primary endpoints. The remaining six trials were not designed as superiority trials but met their primary endpoints. IN PRACTICE: 'These results suggest a need for regulatory bodies to incentivize within-class RCTs,' the authors wrote, adding that 'in cases where head-to-head RCTs were lacking, it is difficult to assess the true therapeutic value of next-in-class drugs.' SOURCE: This study, led by Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. LIMITATIONS: Drug development often occurred in parallel, limiting the feasibility of head-to-head comparisons. Some comparative trials published after the analysis period may not have been captured. DISCLOSURES: This project received funding from Arnold Ventures through a grant to the University of California San Francisco. One author reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from John Hopkins University Press, MedPage, The Free Press, UnitedHealthcare, and other sources, outside the submitted work. Another author disclosed receiving honoraria from MashupMD and Medscape and research funding for his institution from Janssen, outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Washington Post
5 hours ago
- Washington Post
High Noon recalls vodka seltzers mislabeled as Celsius energy drinks
Popular alcohol brand High Noon issued a voluntary recall of a batch of its variety 12-packs after discovering that some of them contained vodka seltzer mislabeled as Celsius energy drinks. The Food and Drug Administration issued a recall notice Wednesday, warning that the sparkling blue razz flavor of the Astro Vibe energy drink may contain vodka and cause 'unintentional alcohol ingestion.' No illnesses or deaths have resulted so far from the mishap, it said.