Eli Lilly's newest breakthrough is a oral weight loss pill, having passed its initial late-stage test, it may revolutionize the way we think about health care, especially in the fight against obesity and diabetes.

In a development just announced that promises to change the future of managing chronic diseases, drugmaker Eli Lilly has said its oral weight-loss medicine, orforglipron, has attained its main objectives in the first of multiple late-stage clinical trials. The study, in patients with Type 2 diabetes, showed that the pill can reduce both blood sugar and body weight successfully without injections.

As demand picks up for GLP-1 medicines such as Novo Nordisk's Ozempic and Wegovy, Eli Lilly's orforglipron joins a high-risk competition to provide effective, easy-to-use alternatives to injectable drugs. The advantage of orforglipron over its rivals is that it is not a peptide-based medicine. What that implies is that it is simpler for the body to absorb and is not accompanied by dietary limitations common with oral GLP-1 medicines such as Novo's Rybelsus.

The medication works by simulating incretin hormones—naturally occurring gut hormones such as GLP-1 that control blood glucose and curb appetite. By making this available in pill form, Lilly is positioning orforglipron as a strongly scalable, easier-to-produce, and more patient-friendly alternative that doesn't need refrigeration or injection pens—a particularly significant transition for global health accessibility.

In its initial late-stage trial, orforglipron allowed Type 2 diabetes patients to lose a 7.9% decrease in body weight over 40 weeks, which averaged about 16 pounds. Notably, there was no weight loss plateau at the conclusion of the study, suggesting the possibility of even greater outcomes over time.

But while the weight-loss numbers were strong, the pill came up a little short of expectations in one key diabetes measure. Hemoglobin A1c—measure of blood sugar—fell by between 1.3% and 1.6% by dose, versus a 0.1% fall in the placebo group. While notable, this was below the 1.8% to 2.1% fall some analysts had expected, particularly in comparison with current injectables such as Novo's Ozempic.

However, Eli Lilly is still hopeful. "Our new incretin medicine has met our expectations for safety and tolerability, glucose control and weight loss," CEO David Ricks said. "We anticipate further data readouts later this year."

The side effect profile of orforglipron is most in line with the side effects of injectable GLP-1 medications. The most frequently reported side effects were nausea (16%), diarrhea (26%), and vomiting (14%), but all were mild to moderate. Approximately 8% of the highest-dose group dropped out of treatment due to side effects—within the range analysts predicted.

Notably, no liver safety issues were reported—an particularly comforting finding considering Pfizer's recent abandonment of its own oral GLP-1 candidate due to liver problems encountered during trials. The lack of severe adverse events has further reinforced confidence in the safety of orforglipron and encouraged hope for its prospects in regulatory consideration.

How Is Orforglipron Different?

What distinguishes orforglipron isn't merely its effectiveness—it's the convenience and adaptability it offers. In contrast to Rybelsus, which demands fasting prior to use and food restriction, orforglipron may be used without dietary restrictions. And although tirzepatide (Lilly's injectable drug called Mounjaro) has been slightly more effective, that orforglipron acts on only one hormone and still closely approaches results is significant.

This places orforglipron firmly in contention for those patients who want a less invasive, day-to-day solution to their weight and blood sugar management that doesn't sacrifice much in terms of performance.

Eli Lilly's five-year strategy is bold. With seven late-stage trials in progress—five for diabetes and two for obesity—the firm will file for obesity treatment FDA approval by the end of 2025 and for Type 2 diabetes in 2026.

Outside of diabetes and obesity, Lilly is investigating other disease uses. For hypertension and other diseases where patients want oral therapies, the pill is being studied, says Lilly's Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Dan Skovronsky. That opens up the potential for orforglipron to be used in preventative medicine, allowing patients to control risk factors such as high blood sugar or weight before chronic disease sets in.

The significance goes beyond the clinical—they're financial. Industry experts estimate the market for GLP-1 by the early 2030s at well over $150 billion, oral versions contributing perhaps around $50 billion. To Eli Lilly, with also newly winning FDA clearance of Alzheimer's candidate Kisunla and exploring gene therapy, orforglipron adds to its portfolio still another hoped-for blockbusted nominee.

If approved, orforglipron would be the first oral GLP-1 weight-loss drug, putting Lilly in a dominant position in a growingly competitive space.

Most appealing, perhaps, is orforglipron's potential to reshape society's view of weight management. Such drugs already have been associated with reduced risk for heart disease, sleep apnea, and even addiction and Alzheimer's, due to their metabolic and anti-inflammatory actions.

If used extensively, drugs such as orforglipron may bring about radical changes in consumer behavior, such as altered food demand. Already, some markets are showing decreases in the sale of high-calorie or sugary snacks, a development that may disrupt the diet and processed food industries.

Although orforglipron is still pending regulatory approval, preliminary data has caused warranted enthusiasm. By removing injections, having a robust safety profile, and providing quantifiable gains to Type 2 diabetes patients, this one-daily tablet may transform obesity therapy—and in the process, redefine world health outcomes.

How Does Weight Loss Pill Redefine Global Health?

Eli Lilly's development of orforglipron, an oral weight loss pill, has the potential to significantly reshape global healthcare, particularly in the realms of obesity management and diabetes care. Weight loss and diabetes treatments, especially the newer generation of GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonists like Ozempic and Wegovy, have already created waves by offering transformative results. These injectable medications have been hailed for their ability to reduce blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetes patients while also supporting significant weight loss, addressing two critical health issues simultaneously.

However, despite their efficacy, the need for injections has been a barrier for many patients, contributing to lower adherence rates and complicating long-term usage. This is where orforglipron changes the game. As an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist, orforglipron provides a more accessible, needle-free alternative that could potentially reach a much larger pool of patients worldwide. Its ease of use, requiring no injections or refrigeration, makes it a more convenient option, especially for people in regions where access to injectable medications may be limited or costly.

The impact on diabetes care is substantial, as the pill not only aids in controlling blood sugar but also promotes weight loss, an essential factor in managing type 2 diabetes. The combination of improved metabolic control and reduced weight could reduce the burden of diabetes-related complications, including heart disease, kidney issues, and even certain cancers. Furthermore, as orforglipron could be manufactured and distributed on a larger scale, it stands to offer a more cost-effective solution to obesity and diabetes, transforming health systems globally.

One moment, Dr Cornelius Sullivan was focused on a patient during surgery, and the next moment, he woke up in ambulance, headed to the emergency room.

According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Dr Sullivan had struck his head on a monitor that had been moved behind him in a surgery center. This serious accident had resulted in a two-night hospital stay and kept him away from work for weeks. However, this is not the first time he had suffered a work-related injury. This is, in fact, the third time this has happened, noted ASA.

"Boom Strikes"

These injuries are often called "boom strikes". These occur when anesthesiologists accidentally bump into operating room (OR) equipment that is mounted on fixed or moveable arms. These could be monitors, lights, or screens.

While any OR staff member could be hurt this way, anesthesiologists are particularly more vulnerable to such injuries. Their work requires them to operate in tight, also, often crowded spaces. It also requires them to move quickly during emergencies, which further increases the risk of collision with equipment.

Why The Problem Is Growing?

As per ASA, the risk of boom strikes have been on the rise. This is also because of an increase in sophisticated equipment being added to operating rooms and surgeries are also now performed in much smaller spaces.

As per a survey conducted by the organization, it was found that more than half of anesthesiologists reported experiencing at least one work-related injury, including head injuries. These numbers have highlighted the growing concern over physical safety in an already demanding and high-pressure environment.

Can New Guidelines Improve Safety?

In response to these alarming findings, the ASA has issued a new Statement on Anesthesiologist Head Injuries in Anesthetizing Locations.

The statement formally recognizes boom strikes as a serious occupational hazard and even a potential medical emergency — especially dangerous during outpatient procedures or in cases where no backup anesthesiologist is immediately available to take over patient care.

Dr. Mary Ann Vann, chair of ASA's Ad Hoc Committee on the Physical Demands of Anesthesiologists, also experienced a work-related head injury. Drawing from personal experience, Dr. Vann helped develop the new safety recommendations, aimed at preventing such incidents.

What Have Been The Key Recommendations?

The ASA outlined several measures to reduce the risk of head injuries among anesthesiologists, including:

Holding Regular Safety Meetings: OR teams should meet frequently to discuss safety concerns and review past incidents.

Creating Safety Teams: Special teams should be tasked with reviewing and tracking reports of boom strikes to identify patterns and solutions.

Involving Anesthesia Staff in Room Planning: Clinical anesthesia personnel should have a voice when designing or rearranging procedure rooms to ensure equipment placement considers movement and space needs.

Tracking Head Injuries: Systematic documentation of head injuries can help health systems better understand causes and outcomes, leading to more informed prevention strategies.

The ASA emphasized that head injuries in the OR are not just minor accidents but events that can have serious consequences for patient safety and anesthesiologists’ health.

By implementing the new guidelines and raising awareness, the ASA hopes to make operating rooms safer environments for all medical professionals — and ensure that anesthesiologists can continue their vital work without unnecessary risk.

As the United States battles its worst measles outbreak in decades, a disturbing controversy is brewing. Public health is being complicated not just by the virus's spread but also by the promotion of suspicious medical practices at the top levels of leadership. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., long-time critic of mandatory vaccinations and current Health Secretary, has openly endorsed a Texas physician who saw patients with children while actually infected with measles an action warned by health officials to potentially have devastating effects on public health.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported measles infections skyrocketed to 884 cases of confirmed infection in 29 states during 2025, with areas of concentration being Texas, New York, California, and other regions. Texas alone represents 646 cases, making it the center of the outbreak. Scarily, at least six states, Indiana and Ohio included, have shown outbreaks, a definition used when there are three or more linked cases. The increase has already killed at least three people, two of whom are young children.

The measles resurgence is a grim reminder of just how easily highly infectious measles can re-establish itself among populations, particularly if vaccination is below par. Deemed eradicated in the United States as far back as 2000, measles teeters on the cusp of endemically reintroducing itself today—a failure at public health for which increasing numbers of professionals presume vaccine hesitation lies at its center.

In recent interviews, Kennedy has doubled down on his views that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced protection. On Fox News, he wistfully remembered a day when "everybody got measles" and acquired lifelong immunity. It is true that measles infection normally provides lasting immunity, but the disease also poses serious risks, such as encephalitis, blindness, and death—risks that have been greatly diminished by vaccines.

Kennedy has posited that the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine is capable of producing adverse reactions and should always be a question of individual choice and not one of public health mandate. Nonetheless, public health officials emphasize that the risks entailed by the vaccine are phenomenally low relative to the threat posed by the disease itself.

Controversy mounted when a video appeared depicting Dr. Ben Edwards, a Texas doctor, seeing patients while obviously infected with measles. Filmed in a pop-up clinic established by anti-vaccine activists, the video depicts Edwards affirming he came down with symptoms--including a rash and low-grade fever--a day before the footage was taken.

Even though he knew he was contagious, Edwards kept seeing patients without proper protective equipment, such as an N95 mask. Experts say this action probably infected countless people particularly children and their families with a potentially deadly virus.

Rather than condemning Edwards' actions, Kennedy greeted him days later and publicly endorsed him on social media as an "extraordinary healer." Together with another doctor, Edwards was praised for advocating alternative care such as vitamins and cod liver oil—none of which are shown to prevent or cure measles.

Risk of Misinformation

Top health experts have been quick to denounce both Edwards' behavior and Kennedy's support. Measles is one of the most infectious diseases known to science, with the virus able to remain in the air for up to two hours after an infected individual has vacated the room. People are infectious for a number of days before and after the rash has erupted.

Dr. Saad Omer, Director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, has declared the move "an egregious violation of basic public health principles," warning that endorsement by officials could encourage others to disregard safety measures and fuel outbreaks even further.

Worryingly, Dr. Edwards himself disclosed in the video that he'd been given numerous doses of MMR vaccine and yet had got measles, insisting that vaccine-acquired immunity "wears off." Health officials explain that whereas immunity would inevitably wane fractionally over years, two shots of MMR vaccine are approximately 97% effective in avertting measles.

Why Measles May Become Endemic?

The stakes are high. Recent research from Stanford University shows that even slight declines in vaccination rates could make measles endemic in the United States within two decades. A 10-percentage-point drop could lead to millions of cases over 25 years, reversing decades of public health progress.

The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted childhood immunizations worldwide, but vaccine hesitancy had already been increasing prior to 2020, driven by misinformation campaigns and politicized rhetoric. In a time when skepticism of health authorities is on the rise, the implications of such distrust could be disastrous.

Public health experts are calling for action now to slow the current epidemic and avoid future ones. Getting more people vaccinated—even by 5%—would dramatically decrease the number of future cases of measles, keep vulnerable groups such as infants and immunocompromised patients safe, and save lives.

Measles Prevention

Parents should feel free to discuss vaccine safety and effectiveness openly with pediatricians. Policymakers need to re-emphasize school-entry vaccine mandates and continue working to push back against lethal disinformation.

The MMR shot is still the gold standard of protection. The CDC recommends that children should get two doses and that travelers should make sure to get vaccinated a minimum of two weeks prior to traveling internationally. As this current outbreak proves, complacency is not an option.

As measles cases increase and public trust in vaccines erodes, America is at a crossroads. Leaders can be the voice of reason and protect communities—or fan confusion that gives preventable illnesses an opportunity to flourish. RFK Jr.'s recent actions and endorsements speak to the urgent need for evidence-based, clear leadership on public health. The most vulnerable depend on it.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a deadly global health crisis despite being a curable disease. In 2023 alone, TB killed about 1.25 million people globally — more than any other infectious pathogen. While the ability of months- or years-long courses of antibiotics to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacteria that cause the disease, treatment success is not certain for all. In fact, in approximately 12% of patients, TB recurs even after treatment.

The major roadblock is that clinicians today lack a specific test to see if TB bacteria were completely removed from the body by treatment. Failing to have accurate monitoring mechanisms, doctors have to implement the same six-month treatment regimen in all patients and accept that some will be over-treated and some will be failures. However, all that may soon change, thanks of a breakthrough RNA-based TB detection test that Dr. Kayvan Zainabadi, assistant professor of molecular microbiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, and his India-based team are developing.

Modern TB treatment protocols are dependent on clinical experience and sputum-based diagnostic procedures that identify bacterial DNA. However, these procedures are fraught with limitations. Despite the successful treatment, residual bacterial DNA can continue to be present in the patient's system, resulting in false positives and making it difficult to clearly perceive the status of the disease.

This diagnostic imprecision compels physicians to remain with a "one-size-fits-all" six-month treatment regimen, even when evidence indicates that most patients might be cured earlier. Long-term exposure to highly effective antibiotics not only risks patients developing side effects but also places a heavy burden on healthcare systems, particularly in low-resource settings where TB is most prevalent.

Dr. Zainabadi’s research introduces a groundbreaking concept: using ribosomal RNA (rRNA) as a rapid, sensitive, and accurate marker of TB infection. Unlike DNA, RNA is inherently less stable and degrades quickly after bacterial death, minimizing the risk of false positives.

The innovation is aimed at the detection of the 16S rRNA of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which is a part essential to bacterial protein synthesis. Its prevalence in the cell makes it a prime target for detection even in small or difficult-to-access samples.

Significantly, this RNA-based method might overcome the sputum reliance that is sometimes tricky to obtain from high-risk populations such as children or HIV-infected individuals. Rather, less intrusive sample forms might be utilized, providing a more patient-centered, convenient, and scalable platform.

How Does It Work?

The RNA test operates by extracting 16S rRNA from patient samples and amplifying it using highly sensitive molecular methods. Since rRNA degrades quickly after bacterial cells die, detecting it gives real-time feedback regarding the presence of active TB infection — something DNA-based tests cannot consistently provide.

In practice, a sample would be taken from the patient (possibly from gastric fluid, blood, or other more readily accessible fluids) and run through the RNA detection system. If live bacteria are present, the 16S rRNA signature would show up in the test results, providing clinicians with an instant readout of disease activity.

The rapidity and precision of this methodology may significantly reduce diagnostic turnaround times from weeks or months to mere minutes or hours. This results in quicker clinical decisions, more targeted interventions, and substantial reductions in patient anxiety and healthcare expenditures.

Is It More Helpful Than Other Diagnostic Tests?

In comparison to conventional sputum microscopy and DNA-based molecular diagnostics, the RNA-based test has a number of revolutionary benefits.

First, its ability to target active infection — not just bacterial residue — prevents patients from being subjected to unnecessary or excessive treatment. This specificity is especially important in combating multidrug-resistant TB, where inappropriately using antibiotics exacerbates resistance problems.

Secondly, the fact that it can accept non-sputum samples makes it much more convenient. It is not possible for several children and immunocompromised individuals to produce sufficient sputum, and clinicians are left with the option of using invasive and less effective gastric lavage methods. An RNA-based test would equalize access to proper TB diagnosis among these high-risk populations.

Third, in the field of TB drug discovery, this test might be a game-changer. Rather than waiting two years to determine if a drug is effective, researchers would be able to monitor bacterial clearance in real-time, moving clinical trials forward more quickly and lowering costs.

Lastly, at a macro health systems level, a quick, precise, and less intrusive diagnostic device would be a game-changer for TB-endemic countries where resources are tightly constrained and the disease burden is highest.

The stakes are as high as they could possibly be. TB has continued to be a recalcitrant worldwide killer, too often fueled by diagnostic ambiguity and treatment inefficacy. An RNA-based diagnostic test such as the one Dr. Zainabadi and his colleagues are creating is not only an incremental step but a potential paradigm shift in how we combat the disease.

As the study continues, the expectation is that this new technology will not only revolutionize individual patient treatment but also redefine the public health sector in the global fight against tuberculosis.