Keywords: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist (GLP-1 RA), Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1), Type 2 Diabetes, Obesity, Tirzepatide, Retatrutide, Incretin, Cardiovascular Outcomes
Introduction
Few drug classes have reshaped clinical medicine as quickly as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). In barely two decades, what began as a niche injectable for type 2 diabetes (T2D) has become a multi-indication therapeutic platform with effects on glycaemia, body weight, cardiovascular events, kidney disease, and more recently, conditions as varied as obstructive sleep apnoea and knee osteoarthritis. The pace of development has been such that successive agents are now routinely described in “generational” terms, although as this review will argue, the generational framework is partly a retrospective construction and should not be mistaken for a strictly pharmacological taxonomy.
This paper traces that evolution across four generations, beginning with a brief account of the underlying physiology, before moving through the successive generations, summarising their key differences in tabular form, reviewing the principal benefits and adverse effects of the class, and finally examining the limitations of the evidence and of the generational schema itself.
The Biology of GLP-1 and the Mechanism of Action of GLP-1 RAs
What GLP-1 Is
Glucagon-like peptide-1 is a 30 or 31 amino acid peptide hormone derived from the post-translational processing of the proglucagon gene product. It is secreted principally by enteroendocrine L cells located in the distal small intestine and the colon, with smaller contributions from neurons in the brainstem [1, 2]. Two biologically active forms circulate, GLP-1 (7-37) and GLP-1 (7-36) amide, the latter being the predominant form in humans.
GLP-1 release is triggered by the presence of nutrients in the gut, particularly carbohydrates and lipids. Once secreted into the circulation, however, it has a remarkably short biological life. The enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), expressed on endothelial surfaces and in plasma, cleaves the two N-terminal amino acids of GLP-1 within roughly one to two minutes of secretion, producing an inactive metabolite [3]. This rapid degradation is the central pharmacological problem that the entire GLP-1 RA class was designed to solve.
The Incretin Effect
The physiological importance of GLP-1 was first inferred from the so-called incretin effect, the long-standing clinical observation that oral glucose produces a substantially larger insulin response than an intravenous glucose load delivering the same plasma glucose excursion. The difference, accounting for as much as 50 – 70 % of post-meal insulin secretion in healthy individuals, is attributable to two gut-derived hormones, GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), collectively known as incretins [1, 2]. In T2D, the incretin effect is markedly blunted, partly because of reduced GLP-1 secretion and partly because of impaired GIP receptor responsiveness. Restoring incretin action therefore offered a rational therapeutic strategy.
How GLP-1 RAs Work
GLP-1 RAs are molecules engineered to bind and activate the GLP-1 receptor, a class B G protein-coupled receptor expressed on pancreatic beta cells, alpha cells, neurons in the hypothalamus and brainstem, gastric smooth muscle, cardiomyocytes, and several other tissues [3]. Activation of the receptor triggers a cascade of physiological effects that, taken together, account for the therapeutic profile of the class.
The principal mechanisms are as follows:
Glucose-dependent insulin secretion. GLP-1 receptor activation on pancreatic beta cells potentiates insulin release in response to elevated plasma glucose. Critically, the effect is glucose-dependent, meaning that insulin secretion is amplified only when glucose levels are raised. This is why GLP-1 RAs carry a low intrinsic risk of hypoglycaemia, in contrast to insulin or sulfonylureas [1].
Suppression of glucagon. Activation of GLP-1 receptors on pancreatic alpha cells suppresses inappropriate glucagon secretion through a direct inhibitory action on the alpha cell [4]. This reduces hepatic gluconeogenesis and contributes to lower fasting glucose levels [4].
Slowed gastric emptying. GLP-1 RAs decelerate the rate at which the stomach delivers nutrients to the small intestine. This blunts post-prandial glucose excursions and prolongs satiety. It is also the mechanism behind the gastrointestinal side effects characteristic of the class, particularly nausea, which tend to be most pronounced during dose escalation [5].
Central effects on appetite. GLP-1 receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus, the area postrema, and the nucleus tractus solitarius mediate reductions in food intake and meal size. This central action accounts for most of the weight loss produced by GLP-1 RAs, with peripheral effects on gastric emptying contributing a smaller share [2, 3].
Cardiovascular and renal effects. GLP-1 receptors are also expressed on cardiomyocytes, vascular endothelium, and renal tubular cells. The mechanisms underlying the cardiovascular and renal benefits observed in clinical trials are not fully resolved, but include modest reductions in blood pressure, improvements in lipid profile, anti-inflammatory effects on the vasculature, and reductions in albuminuria [1].
In short, a GLP-1 RA does not act through a single mechanism. It engages a distributed network of receptors across the pancreas, gut, brain, and cardiovascular system, and its therapeutic effects emerge from the sum of these actions.
First Generation: Short-Acting Mono-Agonists
The first generation comprises exenatide (Byetta) and lixisenatide (Adlyxin). Exenatide originated, famously, in the saliva of the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), where John Eng identified exendin-4 in 1992 [6]. The molecule was attractive precisely because the alanine residue at position 2 of native GLP-1, the residue cleaved by DPP-4, is replaced by glycine, conferring enzymatic resistance and a half-life of around 2.4 hours rather than minutes [6].
The AMIGO clinical programme established the agent’s efficacy, with HbA1c reductions of roughly 0.8 – 1.0 % points and modest weight loss in the order of 2 – 3 kg [6, 7]. First-generation agents achieved less than 10 % weight loss on average [8], which by the standards of obesity medicine at the time was a meaningful result, though it appears modest in retrospect. The FDA approved exenatide in 2005, and lixisenatide followed in other regions, although lixisenatide never achieved comparable market penetration.
The principal limitation of the first generation was practical rather than mechanistic. Twice-daily injection is a substantial demand on patients with a chronic disease, and persistence on therapy was correspondingly poor. Exenatide is now rarely used [8], having been largely overtaken by once weekly and oral alternatives. The development of exenatide LAR (Bydureon), a microsphere-based extended-release formulation, attempted to address this problem but came to market alongside structurally superior alternatives that ultimately defined the next generation.
Second Generation: Long-Acting Mono-Agonists
Two structural strategies extended GLP-1 RA half-life into the range required for once-daily or once-weekly dosing. Liraglutide and semaglutide use fatty-acid conjugation to enable reversible albumin binding, while dulaglutide is fused to an IgG4-Fc fragment [3]. The pharmacokinetic gain is substantial. Liraglutide is dosed once daily, while dulaglutide and semaglutide are dosed once weekly. Regulatory approvals followed in 2010, 2014, and 2017 respectively [9].
The clinical advances here are easier to appreciate when grouped by domain rather than chronologically.
Glycaemia and weight. HbA1c reductions of around 1.5 – 1.8 % points became achievable with semaglutide at maximal doses, a glycaemic benefit also borne out in real-world use [10], while the dedicated obesity trials produced weight reductions in the region of 10 – 17 % [3]. This was a clear step beyond the first generation, though still well short of bariatric surgery outcomes.
Cardiovascular outcomes. This is the domain in which the second generation arguably did its most important work, although the picture is more nuanced than the textbook summary suggests. The LEADER trial demonstrated that liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality in patients with T2D at high cardiovascular risk [11]. SUSTAIN-6 showed similar MACE benefit with subcutaneous semaglutide, although the result drove regulatory caution because semaglutide also produced an unexpected increase in retinopathy complications [12]. REWIND extended the cardiovascular evidence base for dulaglutide, importantly enrolling a broader population that included patients without established cardiovascular disease [13]. PIONEER 6 confirmed the cardiovascular safety of oral semaglutide, though its event-driven design rendered it underpowered for a superiority claim [14].
A point worth dwelling on is that these trials were enriched for high-risk patients and used composite MACE endpoints in which the individual components often did not reach statistical significance. Generalising the findings to lower-risk populations or to specific outcomes such as stroke versus myocardial infarction requires more caution than is sometimes acknowledged in the secondary literature [13].
Oral formulation. Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus), approved in 2019, used the absorption enhancer SNAC to overcome the bioavailability problem that had previously kept peptide drugs injectable. The oral route has practical importance but has not displaced injectable formulations to the degree initially anticipated, partly because dosing constraints such as empty stomach and water restrictions introduce their own adherence burden [15].
By the late 2010s, the second generation had transformed clinical practice. Semaglutide became the first GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to decrease the risk of heart attacks and strokes among people who don’t have diabetes, a finding from the SELECT trial that helped justify its broader use in obesity [16].
Third Generation: Dual GIP/GLP-1 Co-Agonists
Tirzepatide is, at the time of writing, the only approved member of this generation. It is a 39-amino acid peptide engineered to activate both the GLP-1 receptor and the GIP receptor, and was approved for T2D in 2022 and for obesity under the brand Zepbound in 2023 [9].
The rationale for dual agonism deserves some scrutiny. GIP was for many years dismissed as therapeutically uninteresting because GIP receptor function appears partially defective in T2D, and isolated GIP agonism produces little glucose lowering. The combination with GLP-1 nonetheless produces clearly superior outcomes, although the mechanism is still debated. One hypothesis is that GIP receptor signalling in the central nervous system enhances appetite suppression through pathways that are not fully redundant with GLP-1 signalling. Another is that GIP acts on adipose tissue to improve lipid handling. The honest answer is that the synergy is empirical, and the mechanistic story is still being assembled [17].
What is not in dispute is the efficacy. The SURPASS programme showed HbA1c reductions of 1.9 – 2.6 % points and weight reductions of 6.6 – 13.9 % across the range of trial designs [18]. SURPASS-2, the head-to-head trial against once-weekly semaglutide, demonstrated tirzepatide’s superiority on both glycaemic and weight endpoints [19]. In obesity, SURMOUNT-1 produced weight reductions of 16 – 22.5 % at the 5, 10, and 15 mg doses respectively [20]. These figures, for the first time, brought a pharmacological agent into a range previously occupied only by bariatric surgery.
The cardiovascular outcomes story for tirzepatide is still maturing. SURPASS-CVOT, a head-to-head trial against dulaglutide rather than placebo, found tirzepatide non-inferior to dulaglutide for major adverse cardiovascular events, meeting the threshold for non-inferiority but not for superiority [9]. Because the comparator is itself an agent with established cardiovascular benefit, the active-comparator design means the result confirms cardiovascular safety rather than demonstrating a placebo-relative benefit. Whether tirzepatide produces cardiovascular benefit beyond what would be predicted from its weight and glycaemic effects remains an open question.
Fourth Generation: Triple Hormone Receptor Agonists
The fourth generation is, for the moment, prospective rather than approved. Retatrutide (LY3437943) is the most advanced candidate, a single peptide that activates GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon receptors, with relative potencies of approximately 0.4, 8.9, and 0.3 respectively compared with the endogenous ligands [21]. The deliberate down-tuning of glucagon receptor activation is important. Glucagon agonism, although counter-intuitive in a metabolic drug, contributes to weight loss by raising basal energy expenditure and stimulating hepatic lipid oxidation. The trick is to capture that benefit without producing the hyperglycaemia that unopposed glucagon would cause [21].
The Phase 2 obesity trial published by Jastreboff and colleagues in 2023 reported mean weight reductions of 17.5 % at 24 weeks and 24.2 % at 48 weeks in the 12 mg dose group [22]. Phase 3 evidence began emerging in late 2025, when Eli Lilly announced topline results from TRIUMPH-4, a trial in patients with obesity and knee osteoarthritis [23]. These data have not yet appeared in peer-reviewed form, and the figures circulated in press releases should be treated with appropriate provisionality until full publication. Tolerability has been a recurring concern across retatrutide trials, with gastrointestinal adverse events leading to meaningful discontinuation rates at higher doses.
Several other agents are at various stages of development, including survodutide and mazdutide, both GLP-1/glucagon dual agonists, and efocipegtrutide, a GLP-1/GIP/glucagon triple agonist. The diversity of receptor combinations under investigation suggests that the field has not yet converged on a single optimal pharmacology.
Generational Comparison
The principal features distinguishing the four generations are summarised in Table 1. The table is intended as a working reference rather than a strict taxonomy, for reasons developed in the discussion that follows.
Table 1. Comparative features of the first to fourth generations of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
| Feature | First Generation | Second Generation | Third Generation | Fourth Generation |
| Representative agents | Exenatide, lixisenatide | Liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide (subcutaneous and oral) | Tirzepatide | Retatrutide (investigational), survodutide, mazdutide, efocipegtrutide |
| Receptor target(s) | GLP-1 receptor | GLP-1 receptor | GLP-1 receptor and GIP receptor | GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon receptors |
| Molecular strategy | Exendin-4-based peptide resistant to DPP-4 | Fatty-acid conjugation for albumin binding (liraglutide, semaglutide); IgG4-Fc fusion (dulaglutide) | Single peptide with dual receptor binding, fatty-acid conjugation | Single peptide with triple receptor binding, fatty-acid conjugation |
| Dosing frequency | Twice daily (exenatide); once daily (lixisenatide) | Once daily or once weekly subcutaneously; once daily oral (semaglutide) | Once weekly subcutaneously | Once weekly subcutaneously (under investigation) |
| Approximate HbA1c reduction | 0.8 – 1.0 % points | 1.0 – 1.8 % points | 1.9 – 2.6 % points | Comparable to or greater than third generation in early data |
| Approximate weight reduction | Less than 10 % | 10 – 17 % | 16 – 22.5 % | Up to 24 % in Phase 2 data |
| Regulatory status | Approved; largely superseded in practice | Approved and widely used | Approved for T2D (2022) and obesity (2023) | Investigational; Phase 3 ongoing |
| Cardiovascular outcomes evidence | Neutral to modest | Established (LEADER, SUSTAIN-6, REWIND, PIONEER 6, SELECT) | Maturing (SURPASS-CVOT, 2025) | Not yet available |
| Principal limitations | Twice-daily injection, modest efficacy, poor persistence | Gastrointestinal adverse effects, oral formulation dosing constraints, cost | Gastrointestinal adverse effects, cost, supply constraints | Tolerability at higher doses, peer-reviewed Phase 3 data still awaited |
Therapeutic Benefits and Adverse Effects of GLP-1 RAs
The evolution of the GLP-1 RA class has, as the preceding sections suggest, delivered an expanding profile of therapeutic benefits. It has also produced an expanding profile of adverse effects, some of which are inseparable from the very mechanisms that confer benefit. A balanced understanding of the class requires both halves of the ledger. In what follows, benefits and adverse effects are grouped into primary and secondary categories. The primary category in each case refers to effects that are central to the licensed indications and that have driven regulatory approval. The secondary category refers to effects that are clinically important but either incidental to the principal indications, supported by less definitive evidence, or relevant chiefly to particular subgroups.
Therapeutic Benefits
Primary Benefits
Glycaemic control without intrinsic hypoglycaemia risk. Because GLP-1 RAs amplify insulin secretion only in the presence of elevated plasma glucose, monotherapy carries a low risk of hypoglycaemia. This represents a meaningful safety advantage over insulin and sulfonylureas in patients with T2D, although the risk rises when GLP-1 RAs are combined with those agents [1].
Substantial and sustained weight reduction. Weight loss is now a primary therapeutic objective rather than a fortunate side effect. The newer agents in particular produce reductions that approach, and in some cases overlap with, the outcomes of bariatric surgery [20]. Importantly, the weight loss appears to be reasonably durable while treatment continues, although weight regain on discontinuation is well documented and likely reflects the chronic nature of the underlying neuroendocrine regulation [3].
Cardiovascular event reduction. Reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events have been demonstrated for liraglutide, semaglutide (subcutaneous and oral), and dulaglutide in patients with T2D at high cardiovascular risk [11–14]. The SELECT trial subsequently extended this benefit to patients with obesity but without diabetes, treated with semaglutide [8, 16]. Cardiovascular benefit is now a recognised class effect, though as noted earlier, the strength of evidence varies by agent and population.
Secondary Benefits
Renal protection. Several second-generation agents have demonstrated reductions in albuminuria and slower decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, effects that are partly but not entirely attributable to glycaemic and weight improvements [1, 13].
Hepatic effects. Reductions in hepatic steatosis, liver enzyme abnormalities, and biomarkers of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and steatohepatitis (MASH) have been reported with semaglutide [24], tirzepatide [25], and retatrutide [26]. These effects underpin the active investigation of GLP-1 RAs as treatments for MASH in particular.
Indications beyond metabolism. Semaglutide has been approved or is under investigation for obstructive sleep apnoea, and retatrutide is being studied in osteoarthritis-related disability [23]. Exploratory work continues in alcohol and substance use disorders, neurodegenerative disease, and chronic kidney disease in non-diabetic populations. Whether these signals will translate into approved indications is, at present, uncertain.
Convenience and adherence. The shift from twice-daily injection to once-weekly dosing, and the development of an oral formulation, have improved the practical experience of treatment, although the impact on real-world persistence has been more modest than the pharmacokinetic gains might suggest [9].
Adverse Effects
Primary Adverse Effects
Gastrointestinal adverse events. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, and abdominal discomfort are the most common adverse effects of the class. These are largely mechanism-based, attributable to delayed gastric emptying and central effects on appetite regulation. They are usually most pronounced during dose escalation and tend to attenuate over time, but they remain the leading cause of treatment discontinuation in both trial and real-world settings [3, 9].
Risk of pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis has been reported with GLP-1 RAs, and the class carries a labelled precaution. The absolute risk appears small, and pooled analyses of large cardiovascular outcome trials have not consistently shown a statistically significant increase, but caution is warranted in patients with a history of pancreatic disease [1].
Gallbladder and biliary disease. Cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, and biliary disease have been reported at higher rates in GLP-1 RA recipients than in placebo recipients, particularly with rapid or substantial weight loss [27]. The mechanism is not fully understood but probably reflects effects on gallbladder motility and biliary composition.
Secondary Adverse Effects
Thyroid C-cell tumours. Rodent studies have shown an increased incidence of medullary thyroid carcinoma with several GLP-1 RAs, and the class carries a boxed warning in the United States. The relevance to humans is contested, since human thyroid C cells express GLP-1 receptors at much lower density than those of rodents, and large clinical databases have not confirmed a clear signal [28]. Nonetheless, GLP-1 RAs are contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2.
Retinopathy. SUSTAIN-6 reported an unexpected increase in diabetic retinopathy complications with semaglutide [12]. The mechanism is thought to relate to the rapidity of glycaemic improvement rather than to a direct toxic effect, paralleling observations made decades earlier with intensified insulin therapy. The implication for clinical practice is that patients with poorly controlled T2D and pre-existing retinopathy warrant ophthalmological review before and during the initiation of high-potency GLP-1 RAs.
Sarcopenia and loss of lean mass. Body composition data from major obesity trials, particularly STEP 1 and SURMOUNT-1, initially raised concern that incretin-based therapies might produce disproportionate loss of lean body mass (LBM) and contribute to sarcopenia, with LBM accounting for around 40 % of weight loss in those trials compared with the approximately 25 % expected under the physiological “quarter fat-free mass rule” [29]. More recent and more direct evidence has substantially qualified this concern. Langer and colleagues, in a comprehensive series of pre-clinical experiments combined with a proof-of-concept clinical trial, demonstrated that the apparent LBM loss with GLP-1 RAs includes substantial reductions in liver mass and intra-tissue substrate content that cannot be distinguished from skeletal muscle by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) imaging [29]. Direct measurement of muscle mass and function in obese mice showed that absolute muscle mass decreased modestly with GLP-1 RA, GLP-1/GIP, and GLP-1/glucagon agonists, but relative muscle mass (muscle weight per body weight) was preserved or improved, and muscle function, including running performance, force-to-body-weight ratio, and fatigue resistance, was maintained or enhanced [29]. In the human pilot trial component of the same study, patients on semaglutide for 12 weeks showed a reduction in vastus lateralis cross-sectional area without significant change in maximum voluntary contraction of the knee extensors or in hand grip strength [29]. Most clinical trials beyond STEP 1 and SURMOUNT-1, including the recent REDEFINE 1 trial of cagrilintide and semaglutide, have reported LBM contributions to weight loss within the physiological range, and large trials in patients with knee osteoarthritis (STEP 9) and HIV with steatohepatitis (SLIM LIVER) have shown net improvements in mobility and physical function despite measured reductions in muscle volume [29]. The current weight of evidence therefore suggests that, in middle-aged adults with obesity, GLP-1 RA-associated changes in muscle mass do not translate into clinically meaningful muscle dysfunction. The picture remains less clear in older adults, patients with pre-existing sarcopenia or cachexia, those with heart failure, and patients undergoing repeated cycles of weight loss and regain, in whom further investigation is warranted. Exercise and adequate protein intake are commonly recommended as countermeasures during incretin-based weight loss therapy.
Mental health considerations. Concerns have been raised about possible associations with depression and suicidal ideation, prompting regulatory reviews. Pharmacovigilance signals and an FDA/EMA review prompted concern, and at least one large matched cohort reported elevated risk [30], but the largest nationwide active-comparator cohorts found no association [31].
Anaesthetic implications. The marked delay in gastric emptying produced by GLP-1 RAs has practical implications for sedation and general anaesthesia, with several professional bodies now recommending withholding of the medication for a defined interval before elective procedures because of the risk of pulmonary aspiration of retained gastric contents [5].
Cost, access, and discontinuation. Although not adverse effects in the pharmacological sense, the economic and supply-related barriers to sustained GLP-1 RA therapy are clinically consequential. A Danish study of more than 40,000 first-time users of GLP-1 RAs with T2D followed between 2007 and 2020 reported discontinuation rates of 14.1 % at 6 months and 21.2 % at 12 months [9]. Weight regain and recurrence of metabolic abnormalities after discontinuation are common, raising difficult questions about the long-term nature of treatment commitments.
The overall safety profile of GLP-1 RAs is generally considered favourable for a chronic metabolic therapy, but the assertion that these agents are “well tolerated” should be understood in context. They are well tolerated by most patients, most of the time, with a class of adverse effects that is predictable and largely manageable. They are not, however, without meaningful risks, and the rapid expansion of use into populations with lower baseline risk and more elective indications has shifted the risk-benefit calculus in ways that warrant continued vigilance.
Discussion: What the Generational Framework Captures and What it Obscures
The four-generation schema used here is useful as a narrative device but should be handled with some care. It is not strictly pharmacological. A pharmacologically rigorous taxonomy would distinguish, at minimum, between dosing frequency, receptor selectivity, and molecular architecture, and these axes do not cleanly align. Tirzepatide, classed here as third generation because of its dual receptor agonism, is in some respects an extension of the second-generation engineering strategy of a long-acting peptide with fatty acid conjugation rather than a radical departure. Alternative classifications group all mono-agonists as one generation and treat duals as the second, which is equally defensible.
What the generational story does capture well is the broad direction of travel. Three trends are clear. First, dosing has moved from twice-daily through once-weekly to oral, although the oral route remains constrained. Second, the receptor repertoire has expanded from one to three, with each additional target contributing a distinct metabolic lever. Third, average efficacy has roughly tripled across the period, from sub-10 % weight loss to the 20 – 25 % range with the newest agents.
Four caveats are worth flagging.
The first concerns real-world performance. Trial populations are highly selected, and discontinuation rates outside the trial setting are substantial. Whether the newer, more efficacious agents will fare better in routine practice remains to be demonstrated.
The second concerns the limits of the cardiovascular evidence. Most GLP-1 RA cardiovascular outcome trials were designed to establish non-inferiority for regulatory purposes, and superiority findings emerged secondarily. The trials enrolled predominantly high-risk patients, and the extent to which their findings generalise to primary prevention populations or to specific subgroups, such as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction or patients without diabetes, is the subject of ongoing investigation.
The third concerns a methodological problem that has shaped the entire literature on body composition with GLP-1 RAs. The clinical standard for body composition assessment, dual X-ray absorptiometry, cannot distinguish skeletal muscle from other lean tissues such as liver, nor can it distinguish soft lean tissue from intra-tissue substrate stores such as glycogen and triglycerides. Recent pre-clinical work has shown that liver mass changes much more dramatically than muscle mass during incretin-induced weight loss, and that intra-muscular and intra-hepatic substrate content also declines substantially [29]. The systematic conflation of lean body mass loss with muscle loss has therefore likely exaggerated concerns about sarcopenia in the clinical literature. This methodological lesson is broader than the sarcopenia question and is worth bearing in mind whenever body composition data are used to draw functional inferences.
The fourth concerns the gap between approval and access. The cost of these medications, particularly in the obesity indication, has created a two-tier reality in which the pharmacological revolution described here is meaningfully available only to a fraction of the population that might benefit. Whatever the fourth-generation data ultimately show, this distributional question is likely to be the more consequential one for population health.
Conclusion
The trajectory from exenatide to retatrutide illustrates how a single physiological insight, the incretin effect, has supported successive waves of pharmacological refinement, with each generation extending efficacy, convenience, or both. The fourth generation is not yet established, and the press-release pace of recent announcements should not be confused with the slower work of peer-reviewed validation. What seems clear is that the boundary between pharmacological and surgical management of obesity, once a firm line, is now porous, and the implications of that change, clinical, economic, and ethical, are still being worked out.
References
[1] Drucker DJ. Mechanisms of Action and Therapeutic Application of Glucagon-like Peptide-1. Cell Metab 2018; 27: 740–756.
[2] Drucker DJ, Holst JJ. The expanding incretin universe: from basic biology to clinical translation. Diabetologia 2023; 66: 1765–1779.
[3] Holst JJ. GLP-1 physiology in obesity and development of incretin-based drugs for chronic weight management. Nat Metab 2024; 6: 1866–1885.
[4] Ramracheya R, Chapman C, Chibalina M, et al. GLP-1 suppresses glucagon secretion in human pancreatic alpha-cells by inhibition of P/Q-type Ca2+ channels. Physiol Rep 2018; 6: e13852.
[5] Shankar A, Sharma A, Vinas A, et al. GLP-1 receptor agonists and delayed gastric emptying: implications for invasive cardiac interventions and surgery. Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab; 14. Epub ahead of print 4 December 2024. DOI: 10.1097/XCE.0000000000000321.
[6] Nielsen LL, Young AA, Parkes DG. Pharmacology of exenatide (synthetic exendin-4): a potential therapeutic for improved glycemic control of type 2 diabetes. Regul Pept 2004; 117: 77–88.
[7] Buse JB, Henry RR, Han J, et al. Effects of Exenatide (Exendin-4) on Glycemic Control Over 30 Weeks in Sulfonylurea-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 2628–2635.
[8] Yao H, Zhang A, Li D, et al. Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2024; 384: e076410.
[9] Bloomgarden Z. An Update on GLP‐1 Receptor Agonists. J Diabetes; 17. Epub ahead of print 22 August 2025. DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.70147.
[10] Gronroos NN, Swift C, Frazer MS, et al. Real-World HbA1c Changes Among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Initiating Treatment With a 1.0 Mg Weekly Dose of Semaglutide for Diabetes. J Health Econ Outcomes Res; 11. Epub ahead of print 4 November 2024. DOI: 10.36469/001c.124111.
[11] Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al. Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2016; 375: 311–322.
[12] Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al. Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2016; 375: 1834–1844.
[13] Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, et al. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 2019; 394: 121–130.
[14] Husain M, Birkenfeld AL, Donsmark M, et al. Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2019; 381: 841–851.
[15] Solis-Herrera C, Kane MP, Triplitt C. Current Understanding of Sodium N-(8-[2-Hydroxylbenzoyl] Amino) Caprylate (SNAC) as an Absorption Enhancer: The Oral Semaglutide Experience. Clinical Diabetes 2024; 42: 74–86.
[16] Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2023; 389: 2221–2232.
[17] Hammoud R, Drucker DJ. Beyond the pancreas: contrasting cardiometabolic actions of GIP and GLP1. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2023; 19: 201–216.
[18] Lingvay I, Mosenzon O, Brown K, et al. Systolic blood pressure reduction with tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes: insights from SURPASS clinical program. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2023; 22: 66.
[19] Frías JP, Davies MJ, Rosenstock J, et al. Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide Once Weekly in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2021; 385: 503–515.
[20] Jastreboff AM, Aronne LJ, Ahmad NN, et al. Tirzepatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Obesity. New England Journal of Medicine 2022; 387: 205–216.
[21] Coskun T, Urva S, Roell WC, et al. LY3437943, a novel triple glucagon, GIP, and GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control and weight loss: From discovery to clinical proof of concept. Cell Metab 2022; 34: 1234-1247.e9.
[22] Jastreboff AM, Kaplan LM, Frías JP, et al. Triple–Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity — A Phase 2 Trial. New England Journal of Medicine 2023; 389: 514–526.
[23] Giblin K, Kaplan LM, Somers VK, et al. Retatrutide for the treatment of obesity, obstructive sleep apnea and knee osteoarthritis: Rationale and design of the TRIUMPH registrational clinical trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 2026; 28: 83–93.
[24] Sanyal AJ, Newsome PN, Kliers I, et al. Phase 3 Trial of Semaglutide in Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Steatohepatitis. New England Journal of Medicine 2025; 392: 2089–2099.
[25] Loomba R, Hartman ML, Lawitz EJ, et al. Tirzepatide for Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Steatohepatitis with Liver Fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine 2024; 391: 299–310.
[26] Sanyal AJ, Kaplan LM, Frias JP, et al. Triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a randomized phase 2a trial. Nat Med 2024; 30: 2037–2048.
[27] He L, Wang J, Ping F, et al. Association of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use With Risk of Gallbladder and Biliary Diseases. JAMA Intern Med 2022; 182: 513.
[28] Lisco G, De Tullio A, Disoteo O, et al. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer: is it the time to be concerned? Endocr Connect; 12. Epub ahead of print 1 September 2023. DOI: 10.1530/EC-23-0257.
[29] Langer HT, Gilmore NK, Hayden CMT, et al. Weight loss with GLP-1 medicines does not result in a disproportionate loss of muscle mass or function in obese mice and humans. Cell Rep Med 2026; 7: 102665.
[30] Kornelius E, Huang J-Y, Lo S-C, et al. The risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior in patients with obesity on glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy. Sci Rep 2024; 14: 24433.
[31] Ueda P, Söderling J, Wintzell V, et al. GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Risk of Suicide Death. JAMA Intern Med 2024; 184: 1301.