Beyond Ozempic: Retatrutide, Brenipatide and the Future of GLP-1 Drugs
The Ozempic era is not ending because semaglutide has stopped working. It is entering a new phase in which more potent weight-loss medicines, oral alternatives, and experimental drugs targeting conditions beyond obesity are expanding what incretin-based medicine might become.
Two investigational drugs illustrate how different the next chapter could look. Retatrutide, Eli Lilly's triple hormone receptor agonist, has reported substantial weight loss across several Phase 3 trials. Brenipatide, a longer-acting dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist, is being investigated in psychiatric and addiction-related conditions, including alcohol use disorder.
Their stories are not equivalent. Retatrutide has generated substantial human efficacy data, including recent Phase 3 results. Brenipatide represents a broader but still unanswered clinical hypothesis: might incretin biology eventually contribute to treatment for certain psychiatric or substance-use disorders?
Meanwhile, oral GLP-1 treatment is no longer simply a future possibility in the United States. The US Food and Drug Administration approved Foundayo (orforglipron) for chronic weight management on April 1, 2026.
Taken together, these developments point toward a more diversified treatment landscape. But a promising trial result is not the same as an approved medicine, a registered study is not proof of efficacy, and a mechanistic hypothesis is not a clinical recommendation.
The key takeaways
- Semaglutide remains an important treatment. The emergence of newer drugs does not erase its established efficacy or approved indications.
- Retatrutide has raised the efficacy ceiling. Phase 3 results reported by Lilly include average weight reductions exceeding 25% in a trial of adults with obesity without diabetes, using the company's efficacy estimand.
- Brenipatide tests a different proposition. Its clinical program extends incretin research into psychiatric and addiction-related indications, but publicly available trial registrations do not demonstrate that it works for these conditions.
- Oral treatment is already part of the landscape. Foundayo is FDA-approved in the United States for chronic weight management.
- The next frontier is treatment matching. Efficacy, safety, tolerability, comorbidities, treatment burden, access, and patient priorities matter more than declaring one molecule the universal winner.
- Is the Ozempic era really ending?
- The current incretin landscape
- Retatrutide: the next weight-loss frontier
- Brenipatide: beyond metabolic disease?
- What the addiction evidence actually shows
- BRP and the search for more selective treatments
- The shift toward more personalized treatment
- Risks, limitations, and practical implications
- What comes after Ozempic?
- Frequently asked questions
1. Is the Ozempic Era Really Ending?
The phrase "the end of Ozempic" makes a compelling headline, but it needs a more precise interpretation.
Semaglutide changed obesity treatment by demonstrating that substantial, sustained weight reduction could be achieved pharmacologically in many people. It also helped establish obesity as a chronic disease with biological drivers rather than a simple failure of willpower.
.png "Best Weight Loss Peptides")
In the landmark STEP 1 trial, semaglutide 2.4 mg produced a mean weight reduction of approximately 14.9% after 68 weeks in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes. The trial helped establish the effectiveness of high-dose semaglutide for chronic weight management.
Source: Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity, NEJM. 2021.
The limitations of treatment are also becoming clearer. Not everyone achieves the same response. Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be difficult to tolerate. Long-term treatment raises questions about affordability, adherence, access, and maintenance. Weight regain after discontinuation is common, although the amount and timing vary among individuals.
Body composition deserves particular attention. Weight reduction can involve both fat mass and fat-free mass. Fat-free mass, however, is not identical to skeletal muscle, and the percentage attributable to each compartment varies by study, population, and measurement method.
These limitations do not invalidate semaglutide's benefits. They explain why researchers are pursuing more effective treatments, different dosing formats, new mechanisms, and potentially more selective approaches.
2. The Current Incretin Landscape
Modern incretin therapy is no longer a contest between one injectable drug and lifestyle advice. Several treatment approaches now occupy different positions in the market or development pipeline.
Semaglutide: GLP-1 receptor agonism
Semaglutide activates the GLP-1 receptor. Depending on the product, dose, and jurisdiction, it is used for type 2 diabetes, chronic weight management, and certain additional approved risk-reduction indications.
Its advantages include a substantial clinical evidence base and established experience with safety monitoring. Its limitations include gastrointestinal adverse effects, variable response, injection burden for injectable formulations, cost, and the potential for weight regain after stopping.
Tirzepatide: dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonism
Tirzepatide activates both GIP and GLP-1 receptors. In SURMOUNT-1, adults with obesity or overweight without diabetes lost an average of approximately 20.9% of body weight at the highest studied dose after 72 weeks.
This was an important demonstration that multi-receptor agonism could achieve greater average weight reduction than earlier incretin approaches. Cross-trial comparisons must still be interpreted carefully because trial populations, durations, dosing, and statistical methods differ.
Source: Tirzepatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Obesity, NEJM.
Orforglipron: oral GLP-1 receptor agonism
Orforglipron, marketed as Foundayo in the United States, is an orally administered, non-peptide small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist. The FDA approved it on April 1, 2026, for adults with obesity or overweight with at least one weight-related comorbidity, alongside a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.
Its importance is practical as well as pharmacological: patients now have an approved oral option that does not require the specific food and water timing restrictions associated with some other oral incretin formulations.
Approval and availability differ by country. Foundayo's US approval should not be interpreted as automatic authorization in Malaysia or other jurisdictions.
Sources: US FDA approval announcement and Foundayo prescribing information.
Retatrutide: triple GIP/GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonism
Retatrutide activates GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors in a single molecule. Its Phase 3 results suggest that the potential efficacy of pharmacological weight management can extend beyond the average reductions achieved with earlier treatments.
However, retatrutide is not an approved commercial medicine as of October 29, 2026. Its efficacy and safety continue to be evaluated in clinical trials.
Brenipatide: a broader incretin hypothesis
Brenipatide, also identified as LY3537031, is being investigated as a longer-acting dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist. Its development program includes studies involving alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder.
Unlike retatrutide, whose principal clinical story concerns weight reduction and related metabolic outcomes, brenipatide raises a broader research question: can incretin-based pharmacology produce clinically useful effects in certain psychiatric or substance-use conditions?
3. Retatrutide: The Next Weight-Loss Frontier
Retatrutide is among the most closely watched investigational obesity medicines because it combines three receptor targets involved in appetite regulation and energy metabolism.
What the Phase 2 evidence established
In a Phase 2 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, retatrutide produced dose-dependent weight reduction. Participants assigned to the 12 mg dose experienced a mean reduction of approximately 24.2% of baseline body weight at 48 weeks.
That result was impressive, but a Phase 2 trial is not sufficient by itself to establish a medicine's long-term safety, effectiveness across populations, or regulatory readiness.
Source: Triple-Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity: A Phase 2 Trial, NEJM.
What the Phase 3 results added
In a May 21, 2026, announcement about TRIUMPH-1, Eli Lilly reported that participants receiving retatrutide 12 mg achieved an average 28.3% reduction in body weight at 80 weeks. The study enrolled adults with obesity or overweight and at least one weight-related comorbidity, excluding diabetes.
Lilly also reported substantial weight reduction at lower doses and continued weight loss during an extension among selected participants who continued treatment and met the extension criteria.
These are sponsor-reported results. Estimates depend partly on the statistical approach used. In TRIUMPH-1, Lilly reported a 28.3% reduction under its efficacy estimand and a 25.0% reduction under its treatment-regimen estimand at the highest dose at 80 weeks. Neither number should be treated as a guaranteed outcome for an individual patient.
Source: Lilly's TRIUMPH-1 Phase 3 announcement, May 2026.
The October 28, 2026, head-to-head update
The latest important development is Lilly's announcement of positive topline results from TRANSCEND-T2D-2, a Phase 3 trial comparing retatrutide with injectable semaglutide (Ozempic) 2 mg in adults with type 2 diabetes.
TRANSCEND-T2D-2: selected topline findings at 80 weeks
Population: Adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, with or without an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Mean percentage change in body weight:
- Retatrutide 9 mg: approximately 19.5% reduction.
- Retatrutide 12 mg: approximately 20.9% reduction.
- Ozempic 2 mg: approximately 9.4% reduction.
Mean HbA1c reduction: Approximately 2.2 percentage points with either retatrutide dose, versus 1.8 percentage points with Ozempic 2 mg.
These figures are company-reported topline results announced on October 28, 2026. Detailed results had not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal as of this article's update date. The findings apply to this particular trial population and treatment comparison.
Source: Lilly's TRANSCEND-T2D-2 announcement, October 28, 2026.
This head-to-head comparison is more informative than comparing the headline weight-loss percentages of separate trials. Nevertheless, it compared retatrutide with Ozempic 2 mg in adults with type 2 diabetes, not with every available semaglutide regimen or every weight-management treatment.
What about adverse effects?
Greater efficacy does not automatically mean a better overall treatment for every individual. In the October 2026 topline announcement, Lilly reported gastrointestinal adverse effects—including diarrhea, nausea, constipation, vomiting, and dyspepsia—with retatrutide.
Discontinuation because of adverse events was reported in 4.8% of participants receiving 9 mg and 7.9% receiving 12 mg, compared with 2.7% in the Ozempic 2 mg group. Lilly also reported dysesthesia, an abnormal sensation such as tingling or burning, at higher frequencies in the retatrutide groups than in the comparator group.
These observations require further scrutiny as detailed results are published, reviewed, and considered by regulators. A high average weight-loss result is only one component of the clinical risk-benefit assessment.
When could retatrutide be available?
Lilly announced plans to submit a Biologics License Application to the US FDA in the first quarter of 2027. That is a company target, not a confirmed approval date. Regulatory review may require additional time, and an application does not guarantee approval.
As of October 29, 2026, retatrutide remains investigational. It is not an approved substitute for semaglutide, tirzepatide, or other prescribed obesity treatments.
For the current development status, see Lilly's retatrutide information page.
4. Brenipatide: Beyond Metabolic Disease?
Brenipatide is interesting for a different reason. Rather than being defined principally by a new weight-loss record, its development program is testing whether a long-acting incretin-based medicine might also have therapeutic value in selected psychiatric and substance-use conditions.
Brenipatide is associated with development code LY3537031. It has been described as a dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist with a longer dosing interval than weekly tirzepatide.
The proposed implications are potentially important. If incretin receptor signalling influences aspects of reward processing, appetite, motivation, or other relevant brain pathways, there may be opportunities to investigate these mechanisms outside conventional metabolic indications.
But this hypothesis must be separated from the evidence for the specific molecule.
What do the public trial records show?
Alcohol use disorder
ClinicalTrials.gov lists RENEW-ALC-1, a Phase 3 study evaluating brenipatide against placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe alcohol use disorder. The listed study started on October 15, 2025, and had an estimated primary completion date of April 2028 in the registry record last updated on June 23, 2026.
The study is designed to assess whether the medicine improves drinking-related outcomes and to evaluate its safety. Registration and recruitment do not establish that the drug is effective.
Major depressive disorder
A separate brenipatide study, RENEW-MDD-2, is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT07775300. The registry record showed recruiting status following an update posted on October 1, 2026.
This is evidence that the development program is extending into another major clinical area. It is not evidence that brenipatide treats depression successfully, and it does not establish whether the medicine will ultimately be approved for that indication.
Other psychiatric, substance-use, and non-metabolic indications have appeared in public descriptions of the wider development program. The exact phase and recruitment status should be verified against the individual trial registry before being reported, because pipeline listings and study statuses can change.
Why the longer dosing interval matters
Longer-acting treatment may be attractive in conditions in which taking medication consistently can be difficult. A less frequent injection could reduce treatment burden and may improve adherence for some patients.
That is a plausible development rationale, not a demonstrated clinical benefit. A monthly injection does not guarantee better adherence, and the dosing schedule alone cannot establish efficacy or suitability for a particular psychiatric condition.
Researchers must still establish whether brenipatide produces meaningful benefits, whether those benefits persist, which patients might respond, what adverse effects occur, and whether the risks are acceptable relative to existing treatment options.
Is brenipatide the next Prozac?
That is a provocative prediction, not a conclusion supported by the current evidence. Prozac became an established treatment after extensive testing demonstrated its role in specific indications. Brenipatide has not yet established comparable clinical benefits in psychiatric or addiction medicine.
A pharmaceutical company expanding a trial program indicates that it considers a hypothesis worth investigating. It does not prove that the hypothesis is correct or that the molecule will become a successful treatment.
5. What the Addiction Evidence Actually Shows
Brenipatide's psychiatric and addiction program did not emerge from nowhere. Researchers have been investigating whether GLP-1 receptor agonists influence reward pathways and behaviours associated with alcohol, nicotine, and other substances.
However, evidence supporting the broader drug class must not be mistaken for evidence establishing the efficacy of brenipatide itself.
Exenatide: an important cautionary example
In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 127 people with alcohol use disorder, weekly exenatide was studied over 26 weeks alongside standard cognitive behavioural therapy.
The trial did not find a significant reduction in the primary outcome—heavy drinking days—in the overall study population compared with placebo. Investigators observed changes in alcohol-cue-related brain activity, and exploratory analyses suggested potentially different effects in some subgroups.
This result is important precisely because it is not an uncomplicated success. Biological activity and encouraging subgroup findings can justify further research, but they cannot replace a positive primary clinical endpoint.
Semaglutide: more encouraging early findings
A randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry examined once-weekly semaglutide in adults with alcohol use disorder. The investigators reported reductions in some drinking-related measures and alcohol craving, together with reduced alcohol consumption during a laboratory self-administration procedure.
The trial was relatively small and short. Its findings support further investigation, rather than proving that semaglutide is an established treatment for alcohol use disorder.
What conclusions are justified?
The available evidence supports the following interpretation:
- Incretin signalling is a legitimate subject of investigation in reward processing and substance-use disorders.
- Early clinical studies have shown signals that justify additional, adequately powered trials.
- Results vary by study, drug, endpoint, and population; not every trial has met its primary endpoint.
- There is not yet sufficient evidence to treat brenipatide as a proven therapy for addiction or psychiatric illness.
The key scientific question is no longer merely whether incretin receptors have any relevance to the brain. It is whether a particular medicine, at a studied dose and schedule, can produce a clinically meaningful benefit that outweighs its risks in a clearly defined patient population.
6. BRP and the Search for More Selective Treatments
The next generation of metabolic treatments may not rely exclusively on stronger activation of established incretin receptors. Researchers are also exploring different biological pathways that might reduce appetite or body weight with a different pattern of effects.
One example is BRP, or BRINP2-related peptide, identified through computational discovery research by a team involving Stanford Medicine investigators.
A study published in Nature in March 2025 reported that BRP reduced food intake and produced anti-obesity effects in mice and pigs without the nausea or aversion observed in some experimental comparisons. The findings suggest that alternative pathways involved in appetite regulation may be worth investigating.
Source: Prohormone Cleavage Prediction Uncovers a Non-Incretin Anti-Obesity Peptide, Nature.
The limitation is decisive: these are preclinical findings. Results in animals do not establish that BRP is safe or effective in people, and they do not guarantee that a viable therapeutic formulation can be developed.
BRP should therefore be viewed as an example of the expanding research landscape, not as an available alternative to semaglutide or tirzepatide. Claims that it reliably prevents gastrointestinal adverse effects or preserves muscle in humans would go beyond the evidence.
More broadly, precision pharmacology may involve identifying molecules with different receptor profiles, tissue distributions, signalling characteristics, or dosing requirements. Those approaches could eventually create more choices for patients whose needs are not adequately addressed by existing medicines.
The promising direction is clear. The eventual clinical winner, if there is one, remains uncertain.
7. The Shift Toward More Personalized Treatment
The most consequential change may be a shift away from ranking treatments by a single number, such as average percentage of body weight lost.
An individual treatment decision involves several dimensions that can conflict with one another.
The treatment-matching framework
1. Clinical objective
Is the priority weight reduction, glycaemic control, cardiovascular risk management, or another approved treatment goal?
2. Safety profile
What are the patient's comorbidities, contraindications, concurrent medicines, and relevant adverse-effect risks?
3. Body composition and function
Does the patient need particular attention to strength, physical function, nutritional status, or preservation of lean tissue during weight reduction?
4. Treatment burden
Would a daily oral medicine, weekly injection, or another dosing schedule be manageable and acceptable?
5. Access and continuity
Can the patient obtain the medicine reliably and afford to continue an appropriate long-term treatment plan?
6. Actual individual response
Does the medicine produce a meaningful clinical benefit at a tolerable dose, and can the patient maintain treatment safely?
This framework is more clinically useful than an unqualified claim that one drug is best for everyone.
Will genetics determine which GLP-1 drug is best?
Genetic variation may eventually contribute to treatment selection, but the predictive value of any specific genetic test must be established through clinical research. As of this article's update date, routine genetic testing is not a validated way to reliably choose among semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, and brenipatide.
Treatment response is influenced by much more than genetic variants. Clinical history, dose, tolerability, drug interactions, adherence, nutritional status, comorbidities, and patient preferences all matter.
Personalized medicine should not become a marketing label for an unvalidated commercial test. The standard remains evidence that a proposed selection method improves clinical decisions or outcomes.
Does greater weight loss always mean a better drug?
No. Greater mean weight reduction can be valuable, but efficacy is only one part of the risk-benefit equation.
A medicine that produces greater weight reduction but causes unacceptable adverse effects for a particular patient may be a poor fit. Conversely, a patient who tolerates an established treatment, achieves clinically meaningful goals, and maintains functional health may have no reason to change simply because a newer molecule produces a larger average result in a clinical trial.
The goal should be the best achievable overall health outcome, not the largest number on a trial graph.
8. Risks, Limitations, and Practical Implications
Do not confuse research compounds with approved medicines
Neither retatrutide nor brenipatide should be treated as a routine, approved medication outside the conditions authorized by the relevant regulator. Retatrutide remains investigational, and brenipatide is being studied for its potential efficacy and safety.
Products marketed online as research peptides are not equivalent to a regulated clinical-trial medicine. Product identity, purity, concentration, sterility, storage, and manufacturing controls may be uncertain. A seller's claim that a compound is identical to a research product does not establish quality or suitability for human use.
Muscle health and nutritional quality matter
People using effective weight-loss medicines should not focus exclusively on the scale. Maintaining adequate nutrition, protecting physical function, and incorporating appropriate resistance exercise can be important parts of treatment.
Specific protein targets and exercise plans should account for the person's age, kidney function, comorbidities, nutritional status, and clinical circumstances. An investigational medicine should not be assumed to preserve muscle simply because its proposed mechanism differs from that of semaglutide.
Do not stop effective treatment because of a headline
People currently taking prescribed semaglutide or tirzepatide should not stop, change doses, combine medicines, or switch to an investigational compound based on this article.
A treatment review should consider the reason the medicine was prescribed, the response achieved, adverse effects, other available treatments, and the individual's preferences. Any change should be discussed with the prescribing clinician.
Longevity claims require separate evidence
Incretin therapies are being studied for effects extending beyond body weight, including several cardiometabolic outcomes. Some research has also raised questions about possible effects on broader ageing-related biology.
However, improvements in weight, glucose regulation, cardiovascular risk factors, or molecular biomarkers do not automatically demonstrate that a treatment extends human lifespan. A claim of proven longevity benefit requires appropriate evidence for that specific outcome.
The same standard applies to retatrutide, brenipatide, and other next-generation peptides: a promising biological mechanism is a reason to investigate a treatment, not a substitute for clinical outcomes.
9. What Comes After Ozempic?
The next chapter of incretin medicine will probably not be defined by one drug replacing every other drug.
Semaglutide established a major advance in obesity pharmacotherapy. Tirzepatide demonstrated the potential of dual incretin agonism. Orforglipron has added an FDA-approved oral option for weight management in the United States. Retatrutide's Phase 3 results suggest that even greater average weight reduction may be achievable, while its safety, long-term outcomes, and eventual regulatory decisions continue to be assessed.
Brenipatide raises a different question. Its psychiatric and addiction-related trials could help determine whether the reach of incretin-based therapies extends meaningfully beyond conventional metabolic indications. At present, that remains an active research proposition rather than an established treatment success.
BRP and other experimental approaches further illustrate how researchers are looking for ways to influence appetite and metabolism through different biological mechanisms. Their ultimate clinical value cannot yet be assumed.
The deeper shift is from the pursuit of a universal winner toward a more differentiated therapeutic landscape. More treatments may become available, and the best choice may increasingly depend on a patient's condition, desired outcomes, adverse-effect profile, treatment burden, and response over time.
That is a more defensible interpretation of the post-Ozempic era than declaring that one drug is finished or another is destined to win.
The next frontier is not simply more weight loss. It is better evidence, safer treatment choices, and more appropriate matching of medicines to the people who need them.
Editorial note: This article combines and updates the themes of the two original Peptide List essays. It distinguishes published trial findings, company-reported topline data, registered clinical investigations, and preclinical research. The article does not constitute medical advice and does not endorse the use of investigational or unregulated peptides.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is the Ozempic era really ending?
Not in the sense that semaglutide has become obsolete. The more defensible view is that the treatment landscape is expanding to include medicines with different mechanisms, efficacy profiles, and dosing formats. Semaglutide remains an important treatment with an established evidence base.
2. Is retatrutide more effective than Ozempic?
Lilly reported that retatrutide produced greater average weight reduction than Ozempic 2 mg in the Phase 3 TRANSCEND-T2D-2 trial involving adults with type 2 diabetes. At 80 weeks, the reported reductions were 19.5% with retatrutide 9 mg, 20.9% with retatrutide 12 mg, and 9.4% with Ozempic 2 mg. These were sponsor-reported topline results as of October 28, 2026, and detailed peer-reviewed publication was still pending.
3. Is retatrutide approved?
No. As of October 29, 2026, retatrutide remains an investigational medicine. Lilly has announced plans to submit a US Biologics License Application in the first quarter of 2027, but a planned submission is not an approval.
4. What is brenipatide?
Brenipatide, also known as LY3537031, is an investigational dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist being studied in clinical programs that extend beyond obesity. Registered studies include research into alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder. Its clinical effectiveness for these conditions has not yet been established by the trial records cited here.
5. Can brenipatide treat alcohol addiction or depression?
That is being investigated, not proven. Clinical-trial registrations establish that researchers are testing the medicine; they do not establish a beneficial treatment effect. Brenipatide is not an approved treatment for alcohol use disorder or major depressive disorder as of October 29, 2026.
6. Why are scientists investigating GLP-1 drugs for addiction?
GLP-1 signalling may influence aspects of reward processing and substance-related behaviour. Earlier human studies have generated some encouraging findings, but results are not uniformly positive. A randomized exenatide trial did not significantly reduce heavy drinking days in the full study population, while a smaller semaglutide trial reported reductions in some drinking-related measures. Further research is needed.
7. Is Foundayo the first oral GLP-1 weight-loss treatment?
Foundayo (orforglipron) is an FDA-approved oral GLP-1 receptor agonist for chronic weight management in the United States. It was approved on April 1, 2026. Other oral formulations and their indications differ, so claims about being the first or only oral option should be checked against the specific country, indication, and date.
8. Is BRP a new alternative to Ozempic?
Not yet. BRP is an experimental peptide reported to reduce food intake and body weight in mice and pigs. These findings are preclinical and do not establish safety or efficacy in humans. BRP should not be treated as an available or validated alternative to approved obesity medicines.
9. Will genetic testing reveal which GLP-1 drug is best for me?
Not reliably at present. Genetics may eventually contribute to treatment selection, but no routine genetic test has been established as a reliable way to select among semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, and brenipatide. Treatment decisions should continue to be based on clinical evidence, individual medical circumstances, tolerability, and patient preferences.
10. Should I stop Ozempic or Mounjaro to wait for newer treatments?
No. Do not stop, switch, or combine medicines based on predictions about investigational drugs. Review treatment goals, response, adverse effects, and available alternatives with the prescribing clinician.
Selected References and Further Reading
The following sources support the principal clinical and regulatory claims discussed in this article. Company releases are identified as such and should not be mistaken for independent peer-reviewed publications.
- Semaglutide: Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity, NEJM.
- Tirzepatide: Tirzepatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Obesity, NEJM.
- Retatrutide Phase 2: Triple-Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity, NEJM.
- Retatrutide Phase 3, October 2026: TRANSCEND-T2D-2 topline results, Eli Lilly, October 28, 2026.
- Retatrutide Phase 3, obesity: TRIUMPH-1 results, Eli Lilly, May 21, 2026.
- Foundayo: FDA approval announcement, April 1, 2026.
- Brenipatide and alcohol use disorder: RENEW-ALC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov.
- Brenipatide and major depressive disorder: RENEW-MDD-2, ClinicalTrials.gov.
- Incretin therapies and alcohol use disorder: Exenatide Once Weekly for Alcohol Use Disorder, JCI Insight.
- Semaglutide and alcohol use disorder: Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults With Alcohol Use Disorder, JAMA Psychiatry.
- BRP preclinical research: Prohormone Cleavage Prediction Uncovers a Non-Incretin Anti-Obesity Peptide, Nature.
- Obesity pharmacotherapy review: The Evolving Landscape of Obesity Pharmacotherapy, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, May 2026.
- The Peptide List: The Ozempic Era Is Ending. Here’s What Replaces It. 2026.
- The Peptide List: Retatrutide Isn’t the Endgame. Brenipatide Is. 2026.
- One Day MD: GLP-1 2.0 and Pipeline: The Next Generation of Obesity Drugs. 2026.
Medical disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice. Treatment decisions should be made with a qualified healthcare professional. Investigational drugs should be used only through appropriately authorized clinical research. Regulatory approval and availability vary by jurisdiction.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Comments