🍪 The GLP Chatroom uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
Forums›Public Square›Novo Nordisk vs Eli Lilly — the GLP-1 market landscape in 2026 › Page 2

Novo Nordisk vs Eli Lilly — the GLP-1 market landscape in 2026

anders_CPH Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 1:00 PM 22 replies 1,194 viewsPage 2 of 5
InsuranceTom
Senior Member
1,345
7,890
Mar 2024
Connecticut
Mar 20, 2026 at 1:07 AM#6
Dr.AddMedPHL said:
Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.

28 23lisa_labSD, adam_van, Dr.SurgeonPGH and 25 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PeptideChemSF
Senior Member
1,890
9,012
Jan 2024
San Francisco, CA
Mar 20, 2026 at 5:54 AM#7
I keep finding that the number in the press summary and the number in the paper are not the same number, and the difference is always in the same…
...regarding the trial evidence...

I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:

A recent meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n=18,900) found that the trial evidence was associated with a consistent effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 20, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2026 at 9:54 AM
27 22dave_SLC, FDA_TrackerJim, ricardo_MIA and 24 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
NurseLeah_Nash
Member
278
1,234
Sep 2024
Nashville, TN
Mar 20, 2026 at 10:41 AM#8
I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.

A recent PSM study of 25,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced MI incidence (HR 0.78) over 5 years of follow-up[1].

These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.

References:
[1] Registry-based cohort study, pre-print 2024.
26 21PeptideSynthNJ, Dr.KarenChen, Dr.NateNeph and 23 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
lucas_SP_BR
Member
456
1,890
Jun 2024
São Paulo, BR
Mar 20, 2026 at 3:28 PM#9

One thing that is still open after MounjBrad’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

25 20KarenAZ_mom, zoe_NC, Dr.ObesityLA and 22 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
anders_CPH
OPSenior Member
1,567
7,234
Feb 2024
Copenhagen, DK
Mar 21, 2026 at 2:27 PM#10

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.

3 1ChrisMacros, KetoKyle, CanadaChris
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

SELECT trial 4-year follow-up data released — sustained MACE reduction16 replies
GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid C-cell concerns — evidence review19 replies
Is there a ceiling effect for GLP-1-mediated weight loss?20 replies
Comparative pharmacokinetics: semaglutide vs tirzepatide vs retatrutide6 replies
My 18-month semaglutide journey — comprehensive data log20 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register
Threads · Members · Forums
semaglutidetirzepatideretatrutidecompoundingbloodworkside effects