New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

GLP-1 Pill Fails to Slow Alzheimer’s Progression in Clinical Trial

Top-line results from two large clinical trials by Novo Nordisk, the company behind Ozempic and Wegovy, found oral semaglutide failed to slow down Alzheimer's progression

Series of coloured CT scans of an axial section through the head. Brain shrinkage is visible.

Brain CT scans of Alzheimer’s disease.

ZEPHYR/Science Source

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The pill version of Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster weight-loss medication, semaglutide, failed to slow down Alzheimer’s progression in an initial analysis of two clinical phase 3 trials. The company behind the weekly injectable diabetes medication Ozempic and weight-loss drug Wegovy, which are also known as GLP-1 drugs, announced the top-line results today.

Endocrinologist Daniel Drucker says that the trials were well-done but the results are “a setback for the field.” Novo Nordisk confirmed in a statement to Scientific American that the company is ending its semaglutide trials on Alzheimer’s, including tests involving the injectable version of the drug.

“GLP-1 [drugs] have given us so many wonderful results, but tackling these very challenging brain disorders has been disappointing,” says Drucker, who has consulted for Novo Nordisk in the past but does not currently. “No one expected that it was going to shut down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, but there was a hope that we would see some benefit, and we didn’t.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Animal models and reviews of real-world data have previously suggested that GLP-1 drugs might reduce the risk or slow development of Alzheimer’s. The reason why remains elusive, although researchers including Drucker suggest that these drugs might reduce inflammation associated with certain neurological conditions.

“GLP-1 does reduce inflammation in many parts of the body, and inflammation does drive part of the pathology of Alzheimer’s,” he says.

Novo Nordisk’s trials, called evoke and evoke+, involved 3,808 people aged 55 to 85 who had early-stage Alzheimer’s, classified as having mild cognitive impairment as a result of the disease. During most of the 156-week trial, the researchers gave half the participants 14 milligrams of oral semaglutide once a day, while the other half received a placebo.

Participants who took the drug did show some improvements in Alzheimer’s biomarkers, but treatment didn’t delay disease progression, according to the company.

Drucker says there are many potential explanations why oral semaglutide didn’t work as hoped. The fatty-acid structure surrounding semaglutide might have prevented it from being able to penetrate certain brain regions, such as the hippocampus, which controls memory and cognitive function. Past studies evaluating the connection between GLP-1 treatment and Alzheimer’s risk or development have mostly drawn from data on the injectables, raising questions on whether changing how people take the drug or the dosage could elicit a different outcome, Drucker says, though he adds that giving higher doses to some older adults may also come with additional risks.

“These are not wonder drugs that will fix everything that is wrong with us, and that’s why we have to do the clinical trials, and we need rigorous evidence,” Drucker says, adding that Novo Nordisk deserves credit for doing the trials despite the low odds of success.

Novo Nordisk plans to present the findings at the Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference next week and the full datasets at the AD/PD Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases Conference in March 2026.

“We will continue to analyze the data and may not have the answer to the ‘why’ next week when we share the results at CTAD,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told Scientific American.

Lauren J. Young is a science journalist and multimedia producer based in New York City. She was formerly associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American and has edited and written stories that tackle a wide range of subjects, including the COVID pandemic, emerging diseases, evolutionary biology and health inequities. Young has nearly a decade of newsroom and science journalism experience. Before joining Scientific American in 2023, she was an associate editor at Popular Science and a digital producer at public radio’s Science Friday. She has appeared as a guest on radio shows, podcasts and stage events. Young has also spoken on panels for the Asian American Journalists Association, American Library Association, NOVA Science Studio and the New York Botanical Garden. Her work has appeared in Scholastic MATH, School Library Journal, IEEE Spectrum, Atlas Obscura and Smithsonian Magazine. Young studied biology at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, before pursuing a master’s at New York University’s Science, Health & Environmental Reporting Program.

More by Lauren J. Young

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe