Generic Wegovy, Ozempic compounds may become harder to get as FDA removes drug from shortage list
Bhanvi Satija, Puyaan Singh, Patrick Wingrove
Reuters
Hear this story
Feb 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Friday there was no longer a shortage of Novo Nordisk's NOVOb.CO popular weight-loss and diabetes drugs, Wegovy and Ozempic, a declaration that will curtail widespread sales of cheaper copies made by compounding pharmacies.
Shares of Hims & Hers Health HIMS.N, which advertised its compounded versions of weight-loss drugs during the Super Bowl this month, plunged 22% to $52, on a day it announced the purchase of a plant to make the class of drugs that includes Wegovy and Ozempic.
U.S. regulations allow compounding pharmacies to copy brand-name medicines that are in short supply. Wegovy and Ozempic, both known chemically as semaglutide, were in shortage in the U.S. for much of last year.
More on semaglutide compounds:Shortage of popular drugs Wegovy and Ozempic is over, FDA says.
Americans who cannot afford Wegovy or have struggled to find it have been turning to often cheaper versions sold by pharmacies and telehealth providers like Hims & Hers and WeightWatchers WW.O. Wegovy has been shown to help patients lose as much as 15% of their weight on average.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
WeightWatchers shares were up 5.2% at 77 cents.
Compounders have 60 to 90 days to stop sales
For Hims and other compounders, this development starts the clock on having unfettered market access to Novo's drugs, Leerink Partners analyst Michael Cherny said in a note.
The sale of compounded versions of Eli Lilly's LLY.N rival obesity and diabetes drugs, Zepbound and Mounjaro, was banned in December after the FDA found them to no longer be in short supply. The FDA said in a statement that compounding pharmacies would be given a grace period of 60 to 90 days, as was the case when Lilly's drugs were declared out of shortage.
Robert Califf, who was FDA commissioner under President Joe Biden, said he did not think the agency's declaration would necessarily end obesity drug compounding.
"There so much money to be made. There's just an endless number of tricks that compounders could use," he said in an interview. "So I don't think it's the end of it, but it certainly will bring us into a new era after the time period has passed and all the lawsuits are finished."
Pharmacies cry foul
Scott Brunner, CEO of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding, which represents compounding pharmacists and technicians, questioned whether the FDA took into account the number of patients who will need to transition from compounded drugs to FDA-approved versions before making its announcement.
The Alliance wrote to the FDA last year, saying more than 200,000 prescriptions for semaglutide drugs not manufactured by Novo Nordisk were being filled by U.S. patients each month, and the agency should consider their role in alleviating the obesity drug supply crunch before barring them.
Hims CEO Andrew Dudum said in a posting on X that the company was closely monitoring for potential future shortages of the drugs.
Novo said in a statement that the FDA's assessment confirmed that the U.S. supply of its drugs now meets or exceeds current and projected demand.
U.S. listed shares of the Danish drugmaker rose 6.2% to $88.93.
Novo and Lilly have invested billions to ramp up supply of their treatments, which lagged demand for most of last year.
All doses of Ozempic and Wegovy were listed as available on the FDA's website in October, but the treatments had not been taken off the official shortage list at the time.
The agency usually assesses if all back orders have been filled before deciding on whether a shortage has been resolved.
(Reporting by Bhanvi Satija and Puyaan Singh in Bengaluru, and Patrick Wingrove in New York; Additional reporting by Julie Steenhuysen in Chicago; Editing by Arun Koyyur and Bill Berkrot)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
43 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
WASHINGTON — In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months.' 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. 'We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be 'a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this,' she added. 'And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.' 'In recent years, Americans have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago,' spokesman Kush Desai said. 'The Trump administration is focused on restoring the Gold Standard of Science — not ideological activism — as the guiding principle of HHS, the NIH, and the CDC to finally address our chronic disease epidemic.' Woodward and Ellgren write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nano-Cap PolyPid's Lead Drug Candidate Cuts Surgical Infection Risk by 38% In Phase 3 Trial
PolyPid Ltd. (NASDAQ:PYPD) on Monday announced topline results from its pivotal SHIELD II Phase 3 trial of D-PLEX100 to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery with large incisions. The SHIELD II trial is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of D-PLEX100 administered concomitantly with the standard of care (SoC), which includes prophylactic systemic antibiotics, compared to the SoC alone arm in the prevention of post-abdominal-surgery incisional infection in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgeries with large incisions. The trial's primary endpoint is measured by the proportion of subjects with a surgical site infection or mortality for any reason within 30 days post-surgery. FDA Pushes Pause On Axsome Fibromyalgia Drug, New Trial Required Patient safety will be monitored for an additional 30 days. The trial will enroll patients in centers in the United States, Europe, and Israel. D-PLEX100, PolyPid's lead product candidate, is designed to provide local, prolonged, and controlled antibacterial activity directly at the surgical site to prevent SSIs. Following the administration of D-PLEX100 into the surgical site, the PLEX (Polymer-Lipid Encapsulation matriX) technology pairs with Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, enabling a prolonged and continuous release of the broad-spectrum antibiotic doxycycline, resulting in a high local concentration of the drug for 30 days for the prevention of SSIs, with additional potential to prevent SSIs caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria at the surgical site. The trial met the primary efficacy endpoint, with a significantly lower proportion of primary endpoint events among patients who received D-PLEX100 plus SoC (n=405; 10.9%), compared to SoC alone (n=393; 18.1%), representing a 38% reduction (p<0.005). SHIELD II included three key secondary endpoints: The first key secondary endpoint was met, with a 58% reduction in deep and superficial SSI rates among patients who received D-PLEX100 plus SoC (3.8%) compared to those who received SoC alone (9.5%) (p<0.005). The second key secondary endpoint showed statistical significance in favor of D-PLEX100 plus SoC over SoC alone (p<0.005). The third key secondary endpoint was met with a 62% reduction of patients with an ASEPSIS1 score >20 in the D-PLEX100 plus SoC arm compared to the SoC alone arm (p<0.05). The ASEPSIS score is a clinical tool used to assess surgical wound infections objectively. The independent Data Safety Monitoring Board raised no safety concerns in SHIELD II. The company expects to submit a New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in early 2026, with a Marketing Authorization Application in the E.U. to follow shortly thereafter. Price Action: PYPD stock is trading higher by 12% to $3.66 at last check Monday. Read Next:Photo by ittawit21 via Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Nano-Cap PolyPid's Lead Drug Candidate Cuts Surgical Infection Risk by 38% In Phase 3 Trial originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How many Americans would lose health care coverage under the Republicans' megabill?
There's some understandable confusion over just how many Americans would lose their health care coverage under the Republicans' domestic policy mega bill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' For example, Russell Vought, the far-right director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told CNN last week that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' That might've sounded encouraging to health care advocates, but there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A report from The Associated Press, for example, on the latest Congressional Budget Office score, said that 10.9 million Americans would lose their coverage if the GOP legislation became law. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, however, said 'nearly 14 million' would join the ranks of the uninsured. Meanwhile, a variety of prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have said the actual number would be 16 million. So, which is it? I reached out to the nice folks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to help sort this out, and they referred me to the CBPP's helpful breakdown of the data. Roughly 16 million people by 2034 would lose health coverage and become uninsured because of the Medicaid cuts, the bill's failure to extend enhanced premium tax credits for ACA marketplace coverage, and other harmful ACA marketplace changes, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This gets a little wonky, but according to the CBO's nonpartisan analysis, the Republicans' Medicaid cuts alone, if implemented, would strip coverage from 7.8 million people. The same analysis added, however, that 4 million people would become uninsured due to cuts to Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and an additional 4.2 million people would lose their coverage because the Republicans' package fails to extend the Biden-era subsidies (the premium tax credit enhancements) that made ACA plans far more affordable. And that is where the overall tally comes from: 7.8 million + 4 million + 4.2 million = 16 million. When Trump and his party tried to 'repeal and replace' the ACA eight years ago, the CBO determined that the Republicans' plan would take health coverage from 23 million people, which was enough to cause a couple of Senate Republicans — Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski — to balk. (The late Sen. John McCain also gave the bill a thumbs-down, objecting to the party's rushed and incoherent process.) Eight years later, there's a reason the new Republican plan is being derided as 'Obamacare-repeal lite': Scrapping coverage from 16 million is certainly within shouting distance of ending coverage for 23 million, especially given the fact that the GOP's reconciliation package isn't exclusively a health care bill. To date, no Congress has ever approved legislation that would force so many people to lose their health security. Watch this space. This article was originally published on
