The NSW floods have already been linked to climate change. Scientists are debating if that's too quick
Another major player is World Weather Attribution, which so far has conducted eight attribution studies this year, including for the Los Angeles fires in January, South Korean bushfires in February, and a Central Asia heatwave in March.
Loading
Other organisations, including Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, are also actively researching how to attribute individual events to climate change.
The attribution studies can be rapid because the methodology is peer-reviewed in advance, and the figures are plugged in for specific events. However, King says it works better for extreme heat than rainfall.
When asked about studies released within days, King says: 'In terms of making general statements around the role of climate change, it is possible to do it fairly quickly. In terms of having such precise numbers, it's a bit ambitious.'
He says the reason is that some methodologies can be used during or immediately after an event, while others require a lag to collect the right data. The most robust studies use multiple methodologies, which is why World Weather Attribution's studies come out weeks – rather than days – after an event.
Faranda says ClimaMeter uses a well-established method of comparing recent weather events with similar atmospheric configurations over the past four decades, distinguishing between those that occurred between 1950 and 1986, and those in the more recent era from 1987 to the present. The scientists are transparent about uncertainties and always publish confidence intervals, he says.
Faranda agrees that the most robust attribution studies combine different methodologies. 'ClimaMeter is one piece of the puzzle – a fast and scalable one – and we view it as a stepping stone toward more detailed studies when necessary,' he says.
In their recent study on the NSW floods, Faranda and co-author Tommaso Alberti found that meteorological conditions similar to those observed during the NSW floods were up to 15 per cent wetter (an additional 3 to 4 millimetres of rain per day) and up to 0.75 degrees warmer, compared with the past.
The study concludes that the extreme rainfall that caused the flooding was mainly intensified by human-induced climate change, with natural variability playing a secondary role, and that adaptation was necessary.
University of Melbourne Professor Emeritus David Karoly, an international climate expert affiliated with the Climate Council, has some concerns about the methodology.
'This was done too quickly, in some sense, to be careful about what was relevant,' says Karoly. 'It was probably a too-rapid attribution analysis.'
Karoly, who has contributed to IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports, has sat on the Climate Change Authority and headed up science research for CSIRO, says he wrote to the ClimaMeter scientists earlier in the year to outline his concerns about the Cyclone Alfred attribution study, but did not receive a reply.
In that case, his criticism was that it was impossible to find similar events in the window from 1987 to today since there had not been a tropical cyclone (or ex-tropical cyclone) as far south as Brisbane in that time.
Loading
Last week's attribution study for the NSW floods looked at events with similar surface pressure patterns – the arrangement of high- and low-pressure areas depicted as isobars on weather maps. With the Southern Annular Mode positive, as reported by this masthead, those pressure systems are bringing onshore flows of moist air from the ocean.
However, Karoly says the primary driver of Taree's extreme rainfall last week was thunderstorms and upper-level disturbance in the atmosphere.
Faranda acknowledges that localised processes such as thunderstorms can add complexity that is not fully captured by ClimaMeter's methods, and says the team's goal is to be transparent about its limitations. He says he did not receive Karoly's earlier email and would be happy to speak to the professor.
Despite his quibbles, Karoly said the conclusion of the ClimaMeter study is sound because it matches the warning from the IPCC that extreme rainfall events are intensifying with global warming, as well as the regional observational data in the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO's 2024 State of the Climate report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- The Advertiser
Australia's environment is in decline and so is the tool needed to protect it
Australia is changing - we know this from decades of careful, detailed observation. However, the systems that provide this environmental intelligence are now under severe strain. Satellites, weather and water stations, and field surveys are the window to our environment, but these systems are under threat just when we need them most. The latest Australia's Environment special report on 25 years of change makes this clear. Since 2000, our population has grown by 44 per cent, adding immense pressure on land, water and biodiversity. Over the same period, Australia's average land temperature has increased by 0.81 degrees Celsius, with 16 more days above 35 degrees each year. Ocean temperatures have also warmed, by around 0.43 degrees, fuelling more marine heatwaves and mass coral bleaching events of the Great Barrier Reef. The number of listed threatened species has risen by 741, from 1397 to 2138, a 53 per cent increase. Counts of birds, mammals, frogs and plants show dramatic declines, by more than 60 per cent in some cases. Their decline reflects habitat destruction, invasive species, climate stress and ecosystem disruption. There are a few hopeful signs. In parts of eastern and northern Australia, vegetation condition has improved, with increased leaf area, woody growth, and plant cover, likely driven by shifting rainfall patterns, reduced clearing and CO2 fertilisation. River flows and wetland inundation have also recovered in some regions. The hole in the ozone layer has started to close in response to global action. All of these insights come from long-term environmental monitoring. Our report draws on data from the Bureau of Meteorology, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), national and state agencies, volunteer networks, and global satellite partnerships, including NASA's MODIS satellite program, now in operation for 25 years. The consistency and breadth of these records allow us to detect trends, understand drivers and make informed decisions. Australia does not operate its own Earth observation satellites. It relies entirely on other countries, particularly the United States, for critical data. Agencies like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supply the satellite imagery and climate records that underpin almost all aspects of environmental monitoring in Australia, tracking weather, water, fires, vegetation and greenhouse gases. Now that access is becoming uncertain. The Trump administration's 2026 budget blueprint proposes dramatic cuts to environmental science: NASA's Earthscience funding could be halved, while NOAA's climate and weather programs face deep reductions. These agencies have already begun scaling back services. NOAA has closed labs, cut staff and announced the decommissioning of public data portals, while forecasting and satellite operations are under pressure. Australia has no backup. If these data streams are disrupted or discontinued, no domestic system can replace them. At the same time, our own on-ground monitoring infrastructure is ageing and underfunded. Weather stations and stream gauges are being decommissioned or left unrepaired. Groundwater and soil-moisture networks are patchy, and many regional areas are data deserts. Field-based surveys of plants and animals are even more fragile. Many threatened species receive no dedicated monitoring. Long-term ecological studies are rare and often rely on individual researchers or one-off grants. Volunteer groups and citizen scientists remain a vital source of knowledge, but formal participation is declining and long-term support is thin. This slow erosion of Australia's environmental intelligence may go unnoticed until it's too late. Gaps in monitoring make it harder to detect emerging threats or assess the impact of policies and interventions. As long-term records are interrupted, their value diminishes, and when international access is uncertain, we may end up flying blind. A future national agency, Environment Protection Australia (EPA), currently in the works, must play a broader role than just regulation. It should become a champion for environmental data, recognising that protecting nature requires knowing what's happening, where, and why. That means investing in the infrastructure of environmental observation, from satellites to sensors to surveys. It means forging durable partnerships with international agencies but also building more sovereign capability. It also means valuing the contributions of community groups and researchers, and providing sustained support for the data they collect. The Australia's Environment: 25-Year Trends report shows what's possible when we invest in data: we gain a clearer picture of what's changing, what's improving, what still needs attention. But it also shows how easily that picture can blur or disappear altogether. You can't protect what you can't measure and right now, our ability to measure itself needs to be protected. Australia is changing - we know this from decades of careful, detailed observation. However, the systems that provide this environmental intelligence are now under severe strain. Satellites, weather and water stations, and field surveys are the window to our environment, but these systems are under threat just when we need them most. The latest Australia's Environment special report on 25 years of change makes this clear. Since 2000, our population has grown by 44 per cent, adding immense pressure on land, water and biodiversity. Over the same period, Australia's average land temperature has increased by 0.81 degrees Celsius, with 16 more days above 35 degrees each year. Ocean temperatures have also warmed, by around 0.43 degrees, fuelling more marine heatwaves and mass coral bleaching events of the Great Barrier Reef. The number of listed threatened species has risen by 741, from 1397 to 2138, a 53 per cent increase. Counts of birds, mammals, frogs and plants show dramatic declines, by more than 60 per cent in some cases. Their decline reflects habitat destruction, invasive species, climate stress and ecosystem disruption. There are a few hopeful signs. In parts of eastern and northern Australia, vegetation condition has improved, with increased leaf area, woody growth, and plant cover, likely driven by shifting rainfall patterns, reduced clearing and CO2 fertilisation. River flows and wetland inundation have also recovered in some regions. The hole in the ozone layer has started to close in response to global action. All of these insights come from long-term environmental monitoring. Our report draws on data from the Bureau of Meteorology, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), national and state agencies, volunteer networks, and global satellite partnerships, including NASA's MODIS satellite program, now in operation for 25 years. The consistency and breadth of these records allow us to detect trends, understand drivers and make informed decisions. Australia does not operate its own Earth observation satellites. It relies entirely on other countries, particularly the United States, for critical data. Agencies like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supply the satellite imagery and climate records that underpin almost all aspects of environmental monitoring in Australia, tracking weather, water, fires, vegetation and greenhouse gases. Now that access is becoming uncertain. The Trump administration's 2026 budget blueprint proposes dramatic cuts to environmental science: NASA's Earthscience funding could be halved, while NOAA's climate and weather programs face deep reductions. These agencies have already begun scaling back services. NOAA has closed labs, cut staff and announced the decommissioning of public data portals, while forecasting and satellite operations are under pressure. Australia has no backup. If these data streams are disrupted or discontinued, no domestic system can replace them. At the same time, our own on-ground monitoring infrastructure is ageing and underfunded. Weather stations and stream gauges are being decommissioned or left unrepaired. Groundwater and soil-moisture networks are patchy, and many regional areas are data deserts. Field-based surveys of plants and animals are even more fragile. Many threatened species receive no dedicated monitoring. Long-term ecological studies are rare and often rely on individual researchers or one-off grants. Volunteer groups and citizen scientists remain a vital source of knowledge, but formal participation is declining and long-term support is thin. This slow erosion of Australia's environmental intelligence may go unnoticed until it's too late. Gaps in monitoring make it harder to detect emerging threats or assess the impact of policies and interventions. As long-term records are interrupted, their value diminishes, and when international access is uncertain, we may end up flying blind. A future national agency, Environment Protection Australia (EPA), currently in the works, must play a broader role than just regulation. It should become a champion for environmental data, recognising that protecting nature requires knowing what's happening, where, and why. That means investing in the infrastructure of environmental observation, from satellites to sensors to surveys. It means forging durable partnerships with international agencies but also building more sovereign capability. It also means valuing the contributions of community groups and researchers, and providing sustained support for the data they collect. The Australia's Environment: 25-Year Trends report shows what's possible when we invest in data: we gain a clearer picture of what's changing, what's improving, what still needs attention. But it also shows how easily that picture can blur or disappear altogether. You can't protect what you can't measure and right now, our ability to measure itself needs to be protected. Australia is changing - we know this from decades of careful, detailed observation. However, the systems that provide this environmental intelligence are now under severe strain. Satellites, weather and water stations, and field surveys are the window to our environment, but these systems are under threat just when we need them most. The latest Australia's Environment special report on 25 years of change makes this clear. Since 2000, our population has grown by 44 per cent, adding immense pressure on land, water and biodiversity. Over the same period, Australia's average land temperature has increased by 0.81 degrees Celsius, with 16 more days above 35 degrees each year. Ocean temperatures have also warmed, by around 0.43 degrees, fuelling more marine heatwaves and mass coral bleaching events of the Great Barrier Reef. The number of listed threatened species has risen by 741, from 1397 to 2138, a 53 per cent increase. Counts of birds, mammals, frogs and plants show dramatic declines, by more than 60 per cent in some cases. Their decline reflects habitat destruction, invasive species, climate stress and ecosystem disruption. There are a few hopeful signs. In parts of eastern and northern Australia, vegetation condition has improved, with increased leaf area, woody growth, and plant cover, likely driven by shifting rainfall patterns, reduced clearing and CO2 fertilisation. River flows and wetland inundation have also recovered in some regions. The hole in the ozone layer has started to close in response to global action. All of these insights come from long-term environmental monitoring. Our report draws on data from the Bureau of Meteorology, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), national and state agencies, volunteer networks, and global satellite partnerships, including NASA's MODIS satellite program, now in operation for 25 years. The consistency and breadth of these records allow us to detect trends, understand drivers and make informed decisions. Australia does not operate its own Earth observation satellites. It relies entirely on other countries, particularly the United States, for critical data. Agencies like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supply the satellite imagery and climate records that underpin almost all aspects of environmental monitoring in Australia, tracking weather, water, fires, vegetation and greenhouse gases. Now that access is becoming uncertain. The Trump administration's 2026 budget blueprint proposes dramatic cuts to environmental science: NASA's Earthscience funding could be halved, while NOAA's climate and weather programs face deep reductions. These agencies have already begun scaling back services. NOAA has closed labs, cut staff and announced the decommissioning of public data portals, while forecasting and satellite operations are under pressure. Australia has no backup. If these data streams are disrupted or discontinued, no domestic system can replace them. At the same time, our own on-ground monitoring infrastructure is ageing and underfunded. Weather stations and stream gauges are being decommissioned or left unrepaired. Groundwater and soil-moisture networks are patchy, and many regional areas are data deserts. Field-based surveys of plants and animals are even more fragile. Many threatened species receive no dedicated monitoring. Long-term ecological studies are rare and often rely on individual researchers or one-off grants. Volunteer groups and citizen scientists remain a vital source of knowledge, but formal participation is declining and long-term support is thin. This slow erosion of Australia's environmental intelligence may go unnoticed until it's too late. Gaps in monitoring make it harder to detect emerging threats or assess the impact of policies and interventions. As long-term records are interrupted, their value diminishes, and when international access is uncertain, we may end up flying blind. A future national agency, Environment Protection Australia (EPA), currently in the works, must play a broader role than just regulation. It should become a champion for environmental data, recognising that protecting nature requires knowing what's happening, where, and why. That means investing in the infrastructure of environmental observation, from satellites to sensors to surveys. It means forging durable partnerships with international agencies but also building more sovereign capability. It also means valuing the contributions of community groups and researchers, and providing sustained support for the data they collect. The Australia's Environment: 25-Year Trends report shows what's possible when we invest in data: we gain a clearer picture of what's changing, what's improving, what still needs attention. But it also shows how easily that picture can blur or disappear altogether. You can't protect what you can't measure and right now, our ability to measure itself needs to be protected. Australia is changing - we know this from decades of careful, detailed observation. However, the systems that provide this environmental intelligence are now under severe strain. Satellites, weather and water stations, and field surveys are the window to our environment, but these systems are under threat just when we need them most. The latest Australia's Environment special report on 25 years of change makes this clear. Since 2000, our population has grown by 44 per cent, adding immense pressure on land, water and biodiversity. Over the same period, Australia's average land temperature has increased by 0.81 degrees Celsius, with 16 more days above 35 degrees each year. Ocean temperatures have also warmed, by around 0.43 degrees, fuelling more marine heatwaves and mass coral bleaching events of the Great Barrier Reef. The number of listed threatened species has risen by 741, from 1397 to 2138, a 53 per cent increase. Counts of birds, mammals, frogs and plants show dramatic declines, by more than 60 per cent in some cases. Their decline reflects habitat destruction, invasive species, climate stress and ecosystem disruption. There are a few hopeful signs. In parts of eastern and northern Australia, vegetation condition has improved, with increased leaf area, woody growth, and plant cover, likely driven by shifting rainfall patterns, reduced clearing and CO2 fertilisation. River flows and wetland inundation have also recovered in some regions. The hole in the ozone layer has started to close in response to global action. All of these insights come from long-term environmental monitoring. Our report draws on data from the Bureau of Meteorology, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), national and state agencies, volunteer networks, and global satellite partnerships, including NASA's MODIS satellite program, now in operation for 25 years. The consistency and breadth of these records allow us to detect trends, understand drivers and make informed decisions. Australia does not operate its own Earth observation satellites. It relies entirely on other countries, particularly the United States, for critical data. Agencies like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supply the satellite imagery and climate records that underpin almost all aspects of environmental monitoring in Australia, tracking weather, water, fires, vegetation and greenhouse gases. Now that access is becoming uncertain. The Trump administration's 2026 budget blueprint proposes dramatic cuts to environmental science: NASA's Earthscience funding could be halved, while NOAA's climate and weather programs face deep reductions. These agencies have already begun scaling back services. NOAA has closed labs, cut staff and announced the decommissioning of public data portals, while forecasting and satellite operations are under pressure. Australia has no backup. If these data streams are disrupted or discontinued, no domestic system can replace them. At the same time, our own on-ground monitoring infrastructure is ageing and underfunded. Weather stations and stream gauges are being decommissioned or left unrepaired. Groundwater and soil-moisture networks are patchy, and many regional areas are data deserts. Field-based surveys of plants and animals are even more fragile. Many threatened species receive no dedicated monitoring. Long-term ecological studies are rare and often rely on individual researchers or one-off grants. Volunteer groups and citizen scientists remain a vital source of knowledge, but formal participation is declining and long-term support is thin. This slow erosion of Australia's environmental intelligence may go unnoticed until it's too late. Gaps in monitoring make it harder to detect emerging threats or assess the impact of policies and interventions. As long-term records are interrupted, their value diminishes, and when international access is uncertain, we may end up flying blind. A future national agency, Environment Protection Australia (EPA), currently in the works, must play a broader role than just regulation. It should become a champion for environmental data, recognising that protecting nature requires knowing what's happening, where, and why. That means investing in the infrastructure of environmental observation, from satellites to sensors to surveys. It means forging durable partnerships with international agencies but also building more sovereign capability. It also means valuing the contributions of community groups and researchers, and providing sustained support for the data they collect. The Australia's Environment: 25-Year Trends report shows what's possible when we invest in data: we gain a clearer picture of what's changing, what's improving, what still needs attention. But it also shows how easily that picture can blur or disappear altogether. You can't protect what you can't measure and right now, our ability to measure itself needs to be protected.
The Age
28-06-2025
- The Age
Ozempic in a pill? The next generation of weight-loss drugs emerges
'The development of GLP-1 and incretin-based drugs has revolutionised the space. It has carved out the biggest class of drugs ever. And it has the power to truly revolutionise our health-span,' said Associate Professor Garron Dodd, head of the Metabolic Neuroscience Research Laboratory at the University of Melbourne and founder of Gallant Bio, which is developing its own obesity drugs. 'It's a glorious dawn, but it's just the start.' Weight loss in a pill Much as our eyes and ears sense the world and send data to our brains, our digestive tracts need ways of sending back data on what they are eating, and how much. They do this, in part, by secreting various chemical signals – hormones. Glucagon-like peptide-1 is secreted by the intestines and triggers the pancreas to produce insulin. The first GLP-1 drugs took advantage of this to become powerful treatments for diabetes. But GLP-1 has much wider effects beyond blood-sugar control. Receptors for the hormone spread throughout the body, even in the brain, where they trigger a feeling of fullness and decrease appetite. A once-weekly dose of semaglutide, plus lifestyle changes, led volunteers in a phase 3 trial to lose 14.9 per cent of their body weight over 15 months. GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy essentially copy that human hormone. That makes them fragile. They need to be kept refrigerated, and injected subcutaneously rather than taken by mouth – as the stomach's acid would quickly break them down. An oral version of semaglutide has been developed, but only 1 per cent of the drug actually makes its way to the target receptors, and it appears less effective than the injectable version for weight loss. Loading Researchers at Japan's Chugai Pharmaceutical Co figured out a way around this problem. They designed a small molecule that can bind to the same receptor as GLP-1 and trigger it. It mimics the effect without mimicking the structure. 'It's a development I never would have thought feasible,' said Professor Michael Horowitz, a University of Adelaide researcher who authored a commentary on the drug in the Lancet. Chugai licensed the molecule to US-based Eli Lilly in 2018. Last week, the company reported participants on the highest dose in a clinical trial lost 7.9 per cent of their body weight over 40 weeks. The full details of the trial have not yet been reported, and whether the weight loss is maintained over the longer term is unclear. More than a quarter of patients reported diarrhoea, 16 per cent nausea and 14 per cent vomiting. The preliminary results are 'close enough to broadly call it similar' to semaglutide, said Professor Jonathan Shaw, who led the Australian arm of Lilly's trial at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne. 'I don't think we can confidently say it's better or worse. It's definitely in the same ballpark.' It's also not known if the drug will offer the range of other benefits that GLP-1 inhibitors provide in addition to weight loss, like reductions in cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's risk (and maybe even addictive behaviours). Horowitz said the efficacy data was promising, but he wanted to see more information about adverse effects, which he said were understated generally across semaglutide trials because they relied on patients to report their own side effects. 'It hasn't served the interests of pharma to quantify how well this is tolerated.' Pfizer was developing a similar once-daily GLP-1 pill but cancelled the program in April after a patient in a clinical trial suffered liver damage. A pill should, theoretically, be cheaper and easier to make than an injector – Novo Nordisk, maker of Wegovy and its diabetes drug antecedent Ozempic, has struggled to keep up with demand for semaglutide – and dramatically easier to transport. At present, the drug must be kept refrigerated right from European factories to a patient's home. 'That all adds to the cost,' said Shaw. There could also be cost benefits from increased competition as more drugs are approved – possibly pushing the price down far enough for governments to consider subsidising it. Lilly expects to apply for regulatory approval for the drug later this year. While orforglipron has attracted the most excitement – Eli Lilly's shares have surged since they announced the trial results – it is just one of several new drugs in late-stage development. These drugs might be of particular value to 15 per cent or so of people whose bodies do not seem to respond to semaglutide. And people don't seem to stay on the injectable drugs – less than half are still using them a year later, per a study 2024 study – despite the fact weight rebound is likely if you stop using them. 'Is it the injection? Is it the cost? Or is it due to adverse effects? We don't know,' said Horowitz. The new drugs might also offer weight-loss benefits. Mounjaro, for example, mimics both GLP-1 and the gastric inhibitory polypeptide, which increases metabolism and appears to lead to better weight-loss results. The new drugs, like Lilly's retatrutide, target even more receptors, with the hope of even greater effects. It's all good news for Rochelle McDonald. She does not mind taking a weekly injection – 'the stabby-stab' – now she's found ways of coping with the side effects. But paying $240 a month for her current dose of the medicine is 'a commitment in itself'. 'I think a daily pill would be good,' she said. 'If it comes in at a good price point.'
Sydney Morning Herald
28-06-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Ozempic in a pill? The next generation of weight-loss drugs emerges
'The development of GLP-1 and incretin-based drugs has revolutionised the space. It has carved out the biggest class of drugs ever. And it has the power to truly revolutionise our health-span,' said Associate Professor Garron Dodd, head of the Metabolic Neuroscience Research Laboratory at the University of Melbourne and founder of Gallant Bio, which is developing its own obesity drugs. 'It's a glorious dawn, but it's just the start.' Weight loss in a pill Much as our eyes and ears sense the world and send data to our brains, our digestive tracts need ways of sending back data on what they are eating, and how much. They do this, in part, by secreting various chemical signals – hormones. Glucagon-like peptide-1 is secreted by the intestines and triggers the pancreas to produce insulin. The first GLP-1 drugs took advantage of this to become powerful treatments for diabetes. But GLP-1 has much wider effects beyond blood-sugar control. Receptors for the hormone spread throughout the body, even in the brain, where they trigger a feeling of fullness and decrease appetite. A once-weekly dose of semaglutide, plus lifestyle changes, led volunteers in a phase 3 trial to lose 14.9 per cent of their body weight over 15 months. GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy essentially copy that human hormone. That makes them fragile. They need to be kept refrigerated, and injected subcutaneously rather than taken by mouth – as the stomach's acid would quickly break them down. An oral version of semaglutide has been developed, but only 1 per cent of the drug actually makes its way to the target receptors, and it appears less effective than the injectable version for weight loss. Loading Researchers at Japan's Chugai Pharmaceutical Co figured out a way around this problem. They designed a small molecule that can bind to the same receptor as GLP-1 and trigger it. It mimics the effect without mimicking the structure. 'It's a development I never would have thought feasible,' said Professor Michael Horowitz, a University of Adelaide researcher who authored a commentary on the drug in the Lancet. Chugai licensed the molecule to US-based Eli Lilly in 2018. Last week, the company reported participants on the highest dose in a clinical trial lost 7.9 per cent of their body weight over 40 weeks. The full details of the trial have not yet been reported, and whether the weight loss is maintained over the longer term is unclear. More than a quarter of patients reported diarrhoea, 16 per cent nausea and 14 per cent vomiting. The preliminary results are 'close enough to broadly call it similar' to semaglutide, said Professor Jonathan Shaw, who led the Australian arm of Lilly's trial at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne. 'I don't think we can confidently say it's better or worse. It's definitely in the same ballpark.' It's also not known if the drug will offer the range of other benefits that GLP-1 inhibitors provide in addition to weight loss, like reductions in cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's risk (and maybe even addictive behaviours). Horowitz said the efficacy data was promising, but he wanted to see more information about adverse effects, which he said were understated generally across semaglutide trials because they relied on patients to report their own side effects. 'It hasn't served the interests of pharma to quantify how well this is tolerated.' Pfizer was developing a similar once-daily GLP-1 pill but cancelled the program in April after a patient in a clinical trial suffered liver damage. A pill should, theoretically, be cheaper and easier to make than an injector – Novo Nordisk, maker of Wegovy and its diabetes drug antecedent Ozempic, has struggled to keep up with demand for semaglutide – and dramatically easier to transport. At present, the drug must be kept refrigerated right from European factories to a patient's home. 'That all adds to the cost,' said Shaw. There could also be cost benefits from increased competition as more drugs are approved – possibly pushing the price down far enough for governments to consider subsidising it. Lilly expects to apply for regulatory approval for the drug later this year. While orforglipron has attracted the most excitement – Eli Lilly's shares have surged since they announced the trial results – it is just one of several new drugs in late-stage development. These drugs might be of particular value to 15 per cent or so of people whose bodies do not seem to respond to semaglutide. And people don't seem to stay on the injectable drugs – less than half are still using them a year later, per a study 2024 study – despite the fact weight rebound is likely if you stop using them. 'Is it the injection? Is it the cost? Or is it due to adverse effects? We don't know,' said Horowitz. The new drugs might also offer weight-loss benefits. Mounjaro, for example, mimics both GLP-1 and the gastric inhibitory polypeptide, which increases metabolism and appears to lead to better weight-loss results. The new drugs, like Lilly's retatrutide, target even more receptors, with the hope of even greater effects. It's all good news for Rochelle McDonald. She does not mind taking a weekly injection – 'the stabby-stab' – now she's found ways of coping with the side effects. But paying $240 a month for her current dose of the medicine is 'a commitment in itself'. 'I think a daily pill would be good,' she said. 'If it comes in at a good price point.'
