Ozempic shows signs of being a great medical milestone

When any new drug seems to be too good to be true, there is a strong human instinct to assume that it is too good to be true, and that there must be a catch. So it is with semaglutide, sold under the brand names Ozempic and Wegovy, which was developed to treat diabetes and then found to be an effective weight-loss treatment.

The latest research reports that it has “far-reaching benefits beyond what we initially imagined”, according to Professor Harlan M Krumholz of the Yale School of Medicine. Trials by researchers at Yale and Harvard suggest that semaglutide can prevent heart failure, reduce previously untreatable high blood pressure, reverse kidney disease and cut the risk of dying from coronavirus by one-third. It has already been shown to cut deaths from strokes by one-fifth.

Doctors believe that the drug could also treat other illnesses linked to inflammation, including cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Such a remarkable range of benefits seems to have intensified some of the objections to Ozempic that were already common because of its use to treat obesity. Some people already thought it was bad because it was a “shortcut” to weight loss that somehow undermined personal responsibility. Or that it “medicalised” a natural problem. Or that it made profits for its manufacturers.

None of these objections is sustainable. They are essentially forms of irrational anti-science. Obesity is a complicated problem, and a risk factor for so many illnesses, that if a pharmaceutical solution is available it should be welcomed. Ozempic seems likely to be a better option than willpower versus stomach stapling, which was the previous choice. Few people suggest that diabetes or high blood pressure, for example, should not be “medicalised”.

As for profit, it is true that Novo Nordisk, the maker of semaglutide, had such an effect on the Danish economy that it alone prevented the country going into recession in the past two years. But if the drug benefits humanity, its makers need profit to encourage them to develop new treatments.

And it now seems beyond doubt that Ozempic will benefit people. Anything that allows people to enjoy a higher quality of life for longer ought to be celebrated. We can worry about the philosophical questions about eternal life later: for the moment we should welcome a drug that could alleviate suffering within a normal lifespan, and which might allow more people to enjoy a comfortable and mentally capable old age.

As Rebecca Thomas, our health correspondent, writes, it is too early to know what the cost-benefit equation might be for the NHS as a whole. The drug is expensive, at £200 for a month’s injections, but the cost of treating the many illnesses that it could alleviate or postpone is correspondingly vast, so it is likely that there will be many, many cases for which it represents value for money.

There is also, as for any drug, the inevitable information sheet listing the many possible side effects. It is not for everyone. Many people who have tried Ozempic as a weight-loss treatment, including Boris Johnson and Robert Jenrick, said that they gave it up because they found the side effects unpleasant.

However, it seems increasingly clear that many millions of people will gain a net benefit from semaglutide, which may be a medical breakthrough almost as significant as anaesthesia, vaccination and antibiotics. Like those great milestones of progress, Ozempic seems to be both good and true, and should be celebrated as such.