Lilly's marketing approach and its pipeline of medications

[Grogu]

Eli Lilly Isn't Replacing Zepbound -- It's Building an Obesity Empire - AOL



And it's not too late to get in on the action.

www.aol.com

Instead of cutting into tirzepatide's sales, the company seems to be signaling to investors that retatrutide will target patients who are more obese and metabolically challenged, setting the product apart in the market. That ought to make for some interesting talks in doctors' offices.

Patient: Hey doc, I hear there's this amazing new drug out there and that I'll drop a lot of weight

Doc: Yeah, but you're not fat enough

Patient: Should I put on some weight

Doc: No, just take the less effective medication

Nine months later.....

Patient: Hey doc, I didn't lose enough, can I try that new drug?

Doc: Oh no, we have an adjunct called eloralintide that would be much better to add to the tirzepatide. Now you have to pay for two scripts.

 

[randompersonrandom]

So strange. I attempted to share that a reaction is needed for feeling worn down by capit alism, and that the sad reaction alone doesn't cut it, but I received a "your post contains prohibited content" message.

 

[Foggy-Hollow]

Grogu said:

View attachment 10604



Eli Lilly Isn't Replacing Zepbound -- It's Building an Obesity Empire - AOL



And it's not too late to get in on the action.

View attachment 10605


www.aol.com

Instead of cutting into tirzepatide's sales, the company seems to be signaling to investors that retatrutide will target patients who are more obese and metabolically challenged, setting the product apart in the market. That ought to make for some interesting talks in doctors' offices.

Patient: Hey doc, I hear there's this amazing new drug out there and that I'll drop a lot of weight

Doc: Yeah, but you're not fat enough

Patient: Should I put on some weight

Doc: No, just take the less effective medication

Nine months later.....

Patient: Hey doc, I didn't lose enough, can I try that new drug?

Doc: Oh no, we have an adjunct called eloralintide that would be much better to add to the tirzepatide. Now you have to pay for two scripts.

That is simply how our system operates. Its focus is on treatment rather than prevention.

In my view, they are attempting to draw far too fine a line.

 

[ambot88]

Honestly, that's ridiculous. If they had offered reta from the start, I definitely would have gotten a prescription for it, so discovering grey has been a huge relief. Why not just hand everyone the strongest option right away?

 

[5byfive]

From a medical standpoint, that strategy might genuinely be the soundest one. I realize plenty of folks won't agree, but Reta doesn't strike me as the ideal pick for the majority of users. The drive is always toward quicker, quicker, bigger, bigger — yet quicker doesn't automatically mean superior, and frequently it's considerably worse. When weight comes off rapidly, a larger share of what's lost is muscle. Losing weight more gradually isn't as rewarding mentally, but the physical outcomes tend to be better. The pace of weight loss seen in the Reta trials strikes me as quite worrying. A number of pipeline drugs could assist with muscle preservation, which would alter the calculation, but as things stand I simply can't see it as the top option for most people.

With smaller doses, stacking, and similar practices many here engage in, the picture changes. I won't call those things outright harmful; I don't believe they are. My view is just that most people ought to begin with Tirz and turn to Reta only when Tirz fails to work for them.

 

[Calm Logic]

5byfive said:

From a medical standpoint, that strategy might genuinely be the soundest one. I realize plenty of folks won't agree, but Reta doesn't strike me as the ideal pick for the majority of users. The drive is always toward quicker, quicker, bigger, bigger — yet quicker doesn't automatically mean superior, and frequently it's considerably worse. When weight comes off rapidly, a larger share of what's lost is muscle. Losing weight more gradually isn't as rewarding mentally, but the physical outcomes tend to be better. The pace of weight loss seen in the Reta trials strikes me as quite worrying. A number of pipeline drugs could assist with muscle preservation, which would alter the calculation, but as things stand I simply can't see it as the top option for most people.

With smaller doses, stacking, and similar practices many here engage in, the picture changes. I won't call those things outright harmful; I don't believe they are. My view is just that most people ought to begin with Tirz and turn to Reta only when Tirz fails to work for them.

Additionally, some individuals hold off on using reta until the final stage of their "weight loss journey," because at that point the weight loss tends to be far slower.

 

[Grogu]

5byfive said:

From a medical standpoint, that strategy might genuinely be the soundest one. I realize plenty of folks won't agree, but Reta doesn't strike me as the ideal pick for the majority of users. The drive is always toward quicker, quicker, bigger, bigger — yet quicker doesn't automatically mean superior, and frequently it's considerably worse. When weight comes off rapidly, a larger share of what's lost is muscle. Losing weight more gradually isn't as rewarding mentally, but the physical outcomes tend to be better. The pace of weight loss seen in the Reta trials strikes me as quite worrying. A number of pipeline drugs could assist with muscle preservation, which would alter the calculation, but as things stand I simply can't see it as the top option for most people.

With smaller doses, stacking, and similar practices many here engage in, the picture changes. I won't call those things outright harmful; I don't believe they are. My view is just that most people ought to begin with Tirz and turn to Reta only when Tirz fails to work for them.

Some solid points, though I'm not 100% sold on the idea that dropping weight faster means a larger share of it comes off as muscle. I haven't come across studies backing that up. Muscle loss with GLP-1 drugs looks much the same as when the same amount of weight comes off by other routes. Anyone shedding a lot of weight should be putting protein and resistance work first. Losing lean tissue alongside fat is a normal adaptation whenever the body gets lighter, whatever method got you there. Same logic as the hair shedding reported on GLP-1s — that's probably the weight loss talking, not the GLP-1 itself.

Your idea of using reta as a step-up option sounds sensible to me. That said, it isn't how the article describes management pitching the drug to investors. They frame it as a giant pie with room for one more slice. If a patient moves up from tirz, that's a tirz customer gone...

My real point: human nature being what it is, most people will want whatever performs best, and I'd bet that leads to plenty of awkward conversations in doctors' offices.

 

[Turbo-Farmer]

EL is running multiple phase 2 and phase 3 trials.

With additional long-term safety data, the drug should gain approval for a wider set of indications. The first two submissions will target obesity accompanied by knee osteoarthritis and type II diabetes.

Trials that come afterward — likely the next pair to be filed — center on obesity with obstructive sleep apnea, plus diabetes with fatty liver disease.

 

[5byfive]

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

From a medical standpoint, that strategy might genuinely be the soundest one. I realize plenty of folks won't agree, but Reta doesn't strike me as the ideal pick for the majority of users. The drive is always toward quicker, quicker, bigger, bigger — yet quicker doesn't automatically mean superior, and frequently it's considerably worse. When weight comes off rapidly, a larger share of what's lost is muscle. Losing weight more gradually isn't as rewarding mentally, but the physical outcomes tend to be better. The pace of weight loss seen in the Reta trials strikes me as quite worrying. A number of pipeline drugs could assist with muscle preservation, which would alter the calculation, but as things stand I simply can't see it as the top option for most people.

With smaller doses, stacking, and similar practices many here engage in, the picture changes. I won't call those things outright harmful; I don't believe they are. My view is just that most people ought to begin with Tirz and turn to Reta only when Tirz fails to work for them.

Some solid points, though I'm not 100% sold on the idea that dropping weight faster means a larger share of it comes off as muscle. I haven't come across studies backing that up. Muscle loss with GLP-1 drugs looks much the same as when the same amount of weight comes off by other routes. Anyone shedding a lot of weight should be putting protein and resistance work first. Losing lean tissue alongside fat is a normal adaptation whenever the body gets lighter, whatever method got you there. Same logic as the hair shedding reported on GLP-1s — that's probably the weight loss talking, not the GLP-1 itself.

Your idea of using reta as a step-up option sounds sensible to me. That said, it isn't how the article describes management pitching the drug to investors. They frame it as a giant pie with room for one more slice. If a patient moves up from tirz, that's a tirz customer gone...

My real point: human nature being what it is, most people will want whatever performs best, and I'd bet that leads to plenty of awkward conversations in doctors' offices.

I'm not sure this is actually a point of contention for anyone. Specific research on it might be lacking, yet the pattern appears to be present in the data. Here's a single example:

"But as data in the weight loss arena accrues, another challenge has been revealed. People dropping pounds on Ozempic are losing not only fat, but also muscle mass. This is a condition known as sarcopenia. As muscle mass diminishes, so do strength, stamina and resting metabolic rate. To be clear, sarcopenia is a risk in any rapid weight loss, and it is not unique to semaglutides."

Rapid weight loss can lead to loss of muscle mass



At 74, I have Type 2 diabetes. Ozempic was prescribed to me, and it brought my A1C down. I dropped 22 pounds as well, which makes me glad. Since I've read that muscle loss can happen with Ozempic too, it worries me. What steps can I take to prevent that?

www.uclahealth.org

 

[RubbaDubba1]

Grogu said:

View attachment 10604



Eli Lilly Isn't Replacing Zepbound -- It's Building an Obesity Empire - AOL



And it's not too late to get in on the action.

View attachment 10605


www.aol.com

Instead of cutting into tirzepatide's sales, the company seems to be signaling to investors that retatrutide will target patients who are more obese and metabolically challenged, setting the product apart in the market. That ought to make for some interesting talks in doctors' offices.

Patient: Hey doc, I hear there's this amazing new drug out there and that I'll drop a lot of weight

Doc: Yeah, but you're not fat enough

Patient: Should I put on some weight

Doc: No, just take the less effective medication

Nine months later.....

Patient: Hey doc, I didn't lose enough, can I try that new drug?

Doc: Oh no, we have an adjunct called eloralintide that would be much better to add to the tirzepatide. Now you have to pay for two scripts.

Something comparable happened to me: before I could undergo weight loss surgery, I needed to shed 30lbs. That requirement isn't rare—it helps reduce the size of the liver, which in turn makes the operation simpler and faster, among other things. Several years afterward, a relative of mine went to the very same Hospital for the same procedure. They were 27 days away from Surgery when fresh regulations were introduced, and what do you know? Now you're Too Fat! Because of insurance rules, their BMI was too high, so they had to drop an additional 65 lbs before qualifying. Eventually they ended up at a different Hospital a year later, which was a total mess, though everything turned out fine in the end.

Ozempic hadn't even hit the market back then, but yes, that would make for a fascinating discussion. I'd bet Lilly will produce a promotional video aimed at Doctors to inform them.

 

[Grogu]

RubbaDubba1 said:

Grogu said:

View attachment 10604



Eli Lilly Isn't Replacing Zepbound -- It's Building an Obesity Empire - AOL



And it's not too late to get in on the action.

View attachment 10605


www.aol.com

Instead of cutting into tirzepatide's sales, the company seems to be signaling to investors that retatrutide will target patients who are more obese and metabolically challenged, setting the product apart in the market. That ought to make for some interesting talks in doctors' offices.

Patient: Hey doc, I hear there's this amazing new drug out there and that I'll drop a lot of weight

Doc: Yeah, but you're not fat enough

Patient: Should I put on some weight

Doc: No, just take the less effective medication

Nine months later.....

Patient: Hey doc, I didn't lose enough, can I try that new drug?

Doc: Oh no, we have an adjunct called eloralintide that would be much better to add to the tirzepatide. Now you have to pay for two scripts.

Something comparable happened to me: before I could undergo weight loss surgery, I needed to shed 30lbs. That requirement isn't rare—it helps reduce the size of the liver, which in turn makes the operation simpler and faster, among other things. Several years afterward, a relative of mine went to the very same Hospital for the same procedure. They were 27 days away from Surgery when fresh regulations were introduced, and what do you know? Now you're Too Fat! Because of insurance rules, their BMI was too high, so they had to drop an additional 65 lbs before qualifying. Eventually they ended up at a different Hospital a year later, which was a total mess, though everything turned out fine in the end.

Ozempic hadn't even hit the market back then, but yes, that would make for a fascinating discussion. I'd bet Lilly will produce a promotional video aimed at Doctors to inform them.

This is precisely the kind of setting where a lot of the discussion is going to take place.

Fifteen months back I visited my pcp and brought up whether I could start Ozempic, since that was the brand I'd seen advertised on TV and Zepbound wasn't on my radar yet. Fortunately my doctor was reasonably current and told me Zepbound was the superior option, and that it was what he was giving his own patients. I'd never come across it before. That feeds into the problem as well. Why would you write a script for something you recognize to be worse when a better choice exists. Unless reta isn't better..... Lilly is in a tough spot.

 

[tendency]

From my own experience, and from what a handful of people who've used both have told me, I don't think Reta is actually the superior medication. For quite a few individuals, it appears to come with a greater number of side effects compared to Tirz.

 

[RubbaDubba1]

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

From a medical standpoint, that strategy might genuinely be the soundest one. I realize plenty of folks won't agree, but Reta doesn't strike me as the ideal pick for the majority of users. The drive is always toward quicker, quicker, bigger, bigger — yet quicker doesn't automatically mean superior, and frequently it's considerably worse. When weight comes off rapidly, a larger share of what's lost is muscle. Losing weight more gradually isn't as rewarding mentally, but the physical outcomes tend to be better. The pace of weight loss seen in the Reta trials strikes me as quite worrying. A number of pipeline drugs could assist with muscle preservation, which would alter the calculation, but as things stand I simply can't see it as the top option for most people.

With smaller doses, stacking, and similar practices many here engage in, the picture changes. I won't call those things outright harmful; I don't believe they are. My view is just that most people ought to begin with Tirz and turn to Reta only when Tirz fails to work for them.

Some solid points, though I'm not 100% sold on the idea that dropping weight faster means a larger share of it comes off as muscle. I haven't come across studies backing that up. Muscle loss with GLP-1 drugs looks much the same as when the same amount of weight comes off by other routes. Anyone shedding a lot of weight should be putting protein and resistance work first. Losing lean tissue alongside fat is a normal adaptation whenever the body gets lighter, whatever method got you there. Same logic as the hair shedding reported on GLP-1s — that's probably the weight loss talking, not the GLP-1 itself.

Your idea of using reta as a step-up option sounds sensible to me. That said, it isn't how the article describes management pitching the drug to investors. They frame it as a giant pie with room for one more slice. If a patient moves up from tirz, that's a tirz customer gone...

My real point: human nature being what it is, most people will want whatever performs best, and I'd bet that leads to plenty of awkward conversations in doctors' offices.

Over the course of 16 months, I dropped my final 150lbs using Tirz/Reta, and I put on 4lbs of lean mass. During that period I had 3 Dexa scans, and the outcomes caught just about everyone off guard. I never went to a gym at any point, though I did a lot of rehab then and managed (not great) with dieting. There are some muscle sparing effects with Tirz, but how much is anyone's guess? For me, it simply performs very well.

View: https://youtu.be/kWzf4i5XhEw?t=1720

 

[BNLFL]

Calm Logic said:

5byfive said:

From a medical standpoint, that strategy might genuinely be the soundest one. I realize plenty of folks won't agree, but Reta doesn't strike me as the ideal pick for the majority of users. The drive is always toward quicker, quicker, bigger, bigger — yet quicker doesn't automatically mean superior, and frequently it's considerably worse. When weight comes off rapidly, a larger share of what's lost is muscle. Losing weight more gradually isn't as rewarding mentally, but the physical outcomes tend to be better. The pace of weight loss seen in the Reta trials strikes me as quite worrying. A number of pipeline drugs could assist with muscle preservation, which would alter the calculation, but as things stand I simply can't see it as the top option for most people.

With smaller doses, stacking, and similar practices many here engage in, the picture changes. I won't call those things outright harmful; I don't believe they are. My view is just that most people ought to begin with Tirz and turn to Reta only when Tirz fails to work for them.

Additionally, some individuals hold off on using reta until the final stage of their "weight loss journey," because at that point the weight loss tends to be far slower.

If it weren't for my child, who keeps up with these things, I wouldn't have known Reta existed at all. Tirz was completely off my radar before I came to this community, even though my daughter-in-law had a prescription for it while I was looking into Reta.

 

[randompersonrandom]

Pay me no attention, I'm only running a test:

Capitalism?

Exhausted?

Edit: Alright, I'm done trying. Can someone point out where the prohibited content is here?

 

[5byfive]

randompersonrandom said:

Pay me no attention, I'm only running a test:

Capitalism?

Exhausted?

Edit: Alright, I'm done trying. Can someone point out where the prohibited content is here?

New posters go through 2 filters: spam and prohibited content. Even when it catches something that makes no sense, the prohibited content filter appears fairly consistent. The spam filter, though, seems to have a problem. Back when I was restricted and hit with the spam flag, resubmitting a few times would sometimes get it through. It's definitely not consistent.

 

[DragonOfTheSea]

tendency said:

From my own experience, and from what a handful of people who've used both have told me, I don't think Reta is actually the superior medication. For quite a few individuals, it appears to come with a greater number of side effects compared to Tirz.

The way I see it, saying "Reta is the best drug for everyone" isn't right — and neither is claiming that about Tirz.

Because each person's biology, body chemistry, and circumstances differ so much, no single option can be called better for all cases. Plenty of folks, I believe, have had a better experience on Reta than on Tirz or Sema; plenty of others, I'd say, do better on Tirz than on Reta or Sema; and I'm sure some people have had a better experience with Sema than with Tirz or Reta too.

 

[Rolltide61]

randompersonrandom said:

Pay me no attention, I'm only running a test:

Capitalism?

Exhausted?

Edit: Alright, I'm done trying. Can someone point out where the prohibited content is here?

Perhaps Zippy saw it as political. That's something he dislikes.

 

[ThatNextGril]

tendency said:

From my own experience, and from what a handful of people who've used both have told me, I don't think Reta is actually the superior medication. For quite a few individuals, it appears to come with a greater number of side effects compared to Tirz.

I'm with you on this one. At minimum, deciding what counts as "better" comes down to personal experience. Tirz has been my medication for roughly 1.5 years, and for me it's been a flawless fit. It handles my hunger and food noise exactly as advertised, and I've had no side effects whatsoever. Then I gave reta a try for around 7 weeks, and it was a miserable match in both directions: I dealt with GI problems, poor sleep, hunger, and food noise, which was basically the whole experience. Once I returned to tirz, everything settled back down within 2 weeks. (Also, just from personal observation, a friend of mine who had been using sema made the switch to tirz, disliked it, and is now back on sema and doing well!)

 

[GLP1Pharmacist]

Is the goal to raise the price?