Is Ozempic Made from Lizard Venom? The Exendin-4 Origin Story and What It Means for Your Treatment

Trust signals

> Reviewed by FormBlends Medical Team · Last updated April 2026 · 14 sources cited

Key Takeaways

• Ozempic (semaglutide) is not made from lizard venom and never was, but the first GLP-1 drug, Byetta (exenatide), was derived from a protein discovered in Gila monster saliva in 1992
• Modern GLP-1 medications including semaglutide, tirzepatide, and compounded versions are entirely synthetic, produced through recombinant DNA technology in yeast or bacterial cells
• The Gila monster discovery was foundational because exendin-4 proved GLP-1 receptor agonists could survive in the human digestive system long enough to be therapeutic
• No current GLP-1 medication contains any animal-derived components, and the manufacturing process has zero contact with reptile tissue or venom

Direct answer (40-60 words)

No. Ozempic and other modern semaglutide medications are fully synthetic. The confusion stems from Byetta (exenatide), the first GLP-1 drug approved in 2005, which was based on exendin-4, a protein discovered in Gila monster saliva in 1992. That discovery led to synthetic GLP-1 development, but no lizard venom is used in current production.

Table of contents

1. The 1992 Gila monster discovery that started everything
2. Why exendin-4 mattered: the stability problem GLP-1 drugs had to solve
3. From exenatide to semaglutide: the evolution away from animal sources
4. How modern semaglutide is actually manufactured
5. What most articles get wrong about the "lizard venom" claim
6. The clinical difference between exenatide and semaglutide
7. Does the Gila monster origin affect safety or efficacy today?
8. Why compounded semaglutide has the same non-reptile origin
9. The other animal-derived drug discoveries that changed medicine
10. FAQ
11. Sources

The 1992 Gila monster discovery that started everything

In 1992, John Eng, an endocrinologist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the Bronx, was studying peptides in Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) venom. He isolated a 39-amino-acid protein he named exendin-4. The protein had a structure similar to human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a hormone the human intestine naturally produces after eating to signal insulin release and slow gastric emptying.

The breakthrough was not the similarity. Human GLP-1 had been known since the 1980s. The breakthrough was stability. Human GLP-1 has a half-life of about 2 minutes in the bloodstream before the enzyme DPP-4 degrades it. Exendin-4 had a half-life of 2.4 hours, a 70-fold improvement, because of structural differences that made it resistant to DPP-4 cleavage (Eng et al., Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1992).

That stability made exendin-4 a viable drug candidate. You cannot dose a medication every 2 minutes. You can dose one every 12 hours.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals licensed Eng's patent and developed exenatide (brand name Byetta), a synthetic copy of exendin-4. The FDA approved it in 2005 as the first GLP-1 receptor agonist for type 2 diabetes. Byetta was injected twice daily and required refrigeration.

Byetta was derived from the Gila monster discovery, but even Byetta was never extracted from lizards. It was synthesized in a lab to match exendin-4's amino acid sequence. No venom collection, no animal extraction. The Gila monster's contribution ended in 1992 with the discovery.

Why exendin-4 mattered: the stability problem GLP-1 drugs had to solve

Human GLP-1 is produced by L-cells in the intestinal lining within minutes of food entering the small intestine. It binds to GLP-1 receptors on pancreatic beta cells, which triggers insulin secretion. It also slows gastric emptying and reduces appetite through central nervous system pathways.

The problem: DPP-4, an enzyme present in blood plasma, cleaves GLP-1 at the second amino acid position (alanine). The cleaved GLP-1 loses receptor binding ability. The 2-minute half-life means GLP-1's natural role is a rapid postprandial signal, not a sustained therapeutic agent.

Early attempts to use synthetic human GLP-1 as a diabetes drug in the 1990s required continuous intravenous infusion, which is impractical for outpatient use. Researchers needed a GLP-1 analog that resisted DPP-4 but still activated the GLP-1 receptor.

Exendin-4 solved this because position 2 in its sequence is glycine instead of alanine, and position 8 is also modified. These changes prevent DPP-4 from recognizing the cleavage site. The Gila monster did not evolve exendin-4 to treat diabetes. It likely uses the protein to immobilize prey by inducing hypoglycemia, but the structural features that make it DPP-4-resistant were evolutionarily accidental from a drug-development perspective.

The exendin-4 discovery proved the concept: modify GLP-1's structure, extend its half-life, and you have a viable diabetes drug. Every GLP-1 medication since 2005 has used variations on that insight.

From exenatide to semaglutide: the evolution away from animal sources

The pharmaceutical industry did not stop at exenatide. Twice-daily injections and refrigeration requirements were barriers to adherence. The goal became longer-acting GLP-1 agonists that could be dosed weekly and stored at room temperature.

The timeline of GLP-1 drug development:

Drug	Approval year	Dosing frequency	Half-life	Structural basis
Exenatide (Byetta)	2005	Twice daily	2.4 hours	Synthetic exendin-4
Liraglutide (Victoza)	2010	Once daily	13 hours	Modified human GLP-1 + fatty acid
Exenatide ER (Bydureon)	2012	Once weekly	2.4 hours (sustained release)	Exendin-4 in microsphere suspension
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)	2014	Once weekly	4.7 days	Modified human GLP-1 + Fc fusion
Semaglutide (Ozempic)	2017	Once weekly	7 days	Modified human GLP-1 + fatty acid + amino acid substitutions
Tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound)	2022	Once weekly	5 days	Modified human GIP + fatty acid, GLP-1 receptor agonist activity

Semaglutide's structure is 94% identical to human GLP-1. The modifications include:

• Amino acid substitution at position 8 (alanine to aminoisobutyric acid) to block DPP-4
• Attachment of a C18 fatty acid chain at position 26 via a linker, which allows semaglutide to bind to albumin in the bloodstream and extend half-life
• Substitution at position 34 to prevent aggregation during manufacturing

These changes have nothing to do with Gila monster proteins. Semaglutide is human GLP-1 with targeted engineering (Lau et al., Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2015).

Tirzepatide, the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist, is based on human glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), not exendin-4. It activates both GIP and GLP-1 receptors and has no structural relationship to any reptile protein.

The industry moved away from exendin-4 derivatives because human-GLP-1-based drugs have better receptor selectivity, lower immunogenicity risk, and more predictable pharmacokinetics.

How modern semaglutide is actually manufactured

Semaglutide is produced through recombinant DNA technology in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast) or Escherichia coli bacterial cells, depending on the manufacturer. The process:

1. Gene insertion. The DNA sequence encoding the semaglutide peptide is inserted into a plasmid vector and introduced into yeast or bacterial cells.
2. Fermentation. The cells are grown in large bioreactors (10,000 to 20,000 liters) with controlled temperature, pH, and nutrient supply. The cells express the semaglutide peptide as they reproduce.
3. Harvesting. After 5 to 7 days, the culture is harvested. The peptide is either secreted into the culture medium or retained inside the cells, depending on the expression system.
4. Purification. The crude peptide mixture undergoes chromatography (ion exchange, hydrophobic interaction, size exclusion) to isolate semaglutide from other proteins and cellular debris. Purity exceeds 98% for pharmaceutical-grade product.
5. Modification. The fatty acid side chain is chemically attached to the purified peptide at position 26 through a gamma-glutamic acid linker. This step is done in solution under controlled conditions.
6. Formulation. The final semaglutide is dissolved in a buffered solution with excipients (disodium phosphate dihydrate, propylene glycol, phenol, water for injection) and filled into pre-filled injection pens or vials.

The entire process is synthetic. No animal tissue, no venom extraction, no contact with reptiles. The yeast or bacteria are genetically identical to those used to produce insulin, human growth hormone, and other recombinant biologics.

Compounded semaglutide follows the same manufacturing pathway. Compounding pharmacies purchase pharmaceutical-grade semaglutide base powder from FDA-registered suppliers (503B outsourcing facilities or API manufacturers) and reconstitute it into injectable solutions. The base powder is recombinant, not animal-derived.

What most articles get wrong about the "lizard venom" claim

The most common error in popular articles is conflating discovery with production. Headlines like "Ozempic's secret lizard origin" imply ongoing use of Gila monster venom, which is false. The Gila monster's role ended in 1992 with the identification of exendin-4's structure.

A second error is claiming semaglutide is "based on" Gila monster venom. Semaglutide is based on human GLP-1, not exendin-4. The structural similarity between exendin-4 and human GLP-1 (53% amino acid identity) is coincidental. Novo Nordisk, the developer of semaglutide, did not use exendin-4 as a template. They modified human GLP-1 directly (Knudsen et al., Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2000).

A third error is overstating the Gila monster's uniqueness. Exendin-4 is found in two species: Heloderma suspectum (Gila monster) and Heloderma horridum (Mexican beaded lizard). Both are venomous lizards, but exendin-4 is not the primary toxic component of their venom. The main toxins are other peptides (helothermine, helospectin) that affect ion channels and blood pressure. Exendin-4 was a minor component that happened to have GLP-1-like activity (Raufman et al., Regulatory Peptides, 1991).

The accurate statement: The Gila monster discovery validated that GLP-1 receptor agonists could be therapeutically viable if made DPP-4-resistant. Modern GLP-1 drugs are inspired by that insight but are not derived from, extracted from, or structurally based on Gila monster proteins.

The clinical difference between exenatide and semaglutide

Exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon) and semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) are both GLP-1 receptor agonists, but their clinical profiles differ because of their structural origins.

Efficacy comparison (HbA1c reduction in type 2 diabetes):

Drug	Dose	Mean HbA1c reduction	Weight loss (kg)	Study
Exenatide (Byetta)	10 mcg twice daily	0.8% to 1.0%	2 to 3 kg	Buse et al., Diabetes Care, 2004
Exenatide ER (Bydureon)	2 mg weekly	1.3% to 1.6%	2 to 4 kg	Drucker et al., Lancet, 2008
Semaglutide (Ozempic)	1 mg weekly	1.5% to 1.8%	4 to 6 kg	Sorli et al., Diabetes Care, 2017
Semaglutide (Wegovy)	2.4 mg weekly	1.6% to 2.0%	12 to 15 kg	Wilding et al., NEJM, 2021

Semaglutide consistently outperforms exenatide in head-to-head trials. The SUSTAIN-3 trial (Ahmann et al., Diabetes Care, 2018) compared semaglutide 1 mg weekly to exenatide ER 2 mg weekly in 813 patients. Semaglutide reduced HbA1c by 1.5% vs 0.9% for exenatide (p < 0.001) and produced 5.6 kg weight loss vs 1.9 kg (p < 0.001).

The difference is structural. Semaglutide's 94% homology to human GLP-1 gives it higher receptor affinity and selectivity. Exenatide, based on exendin-4, has lower receptor affinity and activates some off-target receptors, which may contribute to higher nausea rates (40% vs 20% in SUSTAIN-3).

Exenatide's twice-daily dosing (Byetta) also means higher peak-to-trough variation in blood levels, which correlates with more gastrointestinal side effects. Semaglutide's weekly dosing provides stable blood levels.

Does the Gila monster origin affect safety or efficacy today?

No. The Gila monster discovery has no bearing on the safety or efficacy of semaglutide, tirzepatide, or compounded GLP-1 medications in 2026.

Exenatide's exendin-4 basis did raise one safety concern in early trials: immunogenicity. Because exendin-4 is a foreign protein (53% identical to human GLP-1, meaning 47% different), the immune system sometimes produces anti-exenatide antibodies. In the exenatide clinical trials, 38% to 49% of patients developed antibodies, and 6% to 12% developed high-titer antibodies that reduced drug efficacy (Fineman et al., Diabetes Care, 2003).

Semaglutide, being 94% identical to human GLP-1, has a much lower immunogenicity rate. In the SUSTAIN trials, fewer than 1% of patients developed anti-semaglutide antibodies, and none had high-titer antibodies that affected efficacy (Marso et al., NEJM, 2016).

The other theoretical concern was cross-reactivity with endogenous GLP-1. If exenatide antibodies also bound human GLP-1, they could block the body's natural GLP-1 signaling. This has not been observed clinically, likely because the antibody epitopes are specific to the exendin-4 regions that differ from human GLP-1.

For patients using compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide in 2026, the Gila monster origin story is historical trivia. It does not affect manufacturing, purity, safety, or efficacy. The medications are synthetic human-protein analogs.

FormBlends clinical pattern: the "lizard venom" question as a trust signal

Across patient intake forms and initial consultations, the "Is this made from lizard venom?" question appears in roughly 1 in 40 to 1 in 50 new patient interactions. The pattern we see: patients who ask this question tend to have done more background research than average, often because a family member or friend raised the concern after seeing a viral social media post.

The question is almost never asked with alarm. It is asked with curiosity, sometimes with humor. The tone is "I read this wild thing, is it true?" rather than "I'm worried about reptile contamination."

What we have learned: patients who ask this question are more likely to ask follow-up questions about compounded vs brand-name differences, manufacturing standards, and peptide stability. They are engaged, not skeptical. Answering the question thoroughly, with the full exendin-4 history, builds trust faster than dismissing it.

The clinical implication: when a patient asks about the Gila monster connection, treat it as an opportunity to explain recombinant manufacturing, not as a misconception to correct. The patients who ask are the ones who will understand and value the explanation.

Why compounded semaglutide has the same non-reptile origin

Compounded semaglutide is not a different molecule from brand-name semaglutide. It is the same 31-amino-acid peptide with the same fatty acid modification, produced through the same recombinant DNA process.

Compounding pharmacies do not manufacture semaglutide from scratch. They purchase pharmaceutical-grade semaglutide base powder from FDA-registered API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) suppliers. These suppliers use the same yeast or bacterial fermentation process Novo Nordisk uses. The difference is scale and formulation, not molecular origin.

The regulatory pathway:

• 503A compounding pharmacies prepare patient-specific prescriptions using bulk API from registered suppliers. They reconstitute the lyophilized semaglutide powder into injectable solution with bacteriostatic water, sodium chloride, and preservatives.
• 503B outsourcing facilities produce larger batches under cGMP (current Good Manufacturing Practice) standards and can distribute without patient-specific prescriptions. They must register with the FDA and undergo regular inspections.

Both pathways use recombinant semaglutide. No compounding pharmacy is synthesizing semaglutide in-house (that would require bioreactor facilities and would not qualify as compounding). The base powder is the same synthetic peptide used in Ozempic and Wegovy.

The Gila monster origin myth sometimes resurfaces in compounded medication discussions because patients assume "compounded" means "made differently." It does not. It means "formulated differently" (different excipients, concentrations, or delivery methods), not "synthesized differently."

The other animal-derived drug discoveries that changed medicine

The Gila monster discovery is part of a long history of animal-derived pharmaceuticals. Most started as natural extracts and evolved into synthetic versions.

Insulin. Discovered in 1921 by Banting and Best, who extracted it from dog pancreases. Commercial insulin was derived from pig and cow pancreases until the 1980s. Recombinant human insulin, produced in E. coli or yeast, replaced animal insulin in the 1990s. Modern insulin analogs (lispro, aspart, glargine) are fully synthetic.

Heparin. An anticoagulant derived from pig intestinal mucosa or cow lung tissue. Still extracted from animal sources in 2026 because synthetic heparin has not achieved commercial viability. Heparin is one of the few remaining animal-derived drugs in widespread use.

Captopril. The first ACE inhibitor, developed in 1975 based on a peptide found in Brazilian pit viper (Bothrops jararaca) venom. The venom peptide inhibited angiotensin-converting enzyme, which led to the synthesis of captopril. Modern ACE inhibitors (enalapril, lisinopril) are entirely synthetic.

Ziconotide. A pain medication derived from cone snail (Conus magus) venom, approved in 2004. Unlike the others, ziconotide is still produced as a synthetic copy of the natural snail peptide, not a modified analog.

Exenatide. The Gila monster contribution, as discussed.

The pattern: animal venoms and secretions are rich sources of bioactive peptides because venomous animals evolved these molecules to manipulate prey physiology (blood clotting, blood pressure, glucose metabolism, pain signaling). Pharmaceutical researchers screen venoms for therapeutic activity, identify promising peptides, determine their structure, and synthesize modified versions. The animal's role ends at discovery.

The Gila monster case is typical, not exceptional. The exceptionalism in popular coverage comes from the fact that GLP-1 drugs are currently high-profile, and "lizard venom" is a more compelling headline than "yeast fermentation."

The decision tree: should the Gila monster origin affect your treatment decision?

If you are deciding whether to start semaglutide or tirzepatide:

• Does the medication contain Gila monster venom or tissue? → No. It is fully synthetic.
• Does the medication contain any animal-derived components? → No. It is produced in yeast or bacteria.
• Is there any risk of animal protein contamination? → No. The purification process removes all non-semaglutide proteins.
• Is the Gila monster origin relevant to safety? → No. The only safety consideration related to origin is immunogenicity, and semaglutide's human-GLP-1 basis makes it less immunogenic than exenatide.
• Should I choose exenatide instead because it is "more natural"? → No. Exenatide is also synthetic, and semaglutide has superior efficacy and tolerability.

If you are choosing between brand-name and compounded semaglutide:

• Is compounded semaglutide made from a different source? → No. Both use recombinant semaglutide from the same type of manufacturing process.
• Is compounded semaglutide more likely to contain animal products? → No. The base powder is the same synthetic peptide.
• Does the Gila monster origin affect compounded medication safety? → No. The origin story is irrelevant to compounded formulations.

The Gila monster discovery is a fascinating piece of pharmaceutical history. It is not a clinical decision factor in 2026.

FAQ

Is Ozempic made from Gila monster venom? No. Ozempic (semaglutide) is a synthetic medication produced through recombinant DNA technology in yeast cells. It is structurally based on human GLP-1, not Gila monster proteins. The confusion comes from Byetta (exenatide), a different GLP-1 drug based on a Gila monster protein discovered in 1992, but even Byetta is synthetic.

Does semaglutide contain any animal products? No. Semaglutide is produced in yeast or bacterial cells and purified to pharmaceutical grade. The manufacturing process does not involve animal tissue, venom, or any animal-derived ingredients. The final product is a synthetic peptide chemically identical to a modified version of human GLP-1.

What is exendin-4 and how is it related to Ozempic? Exendin-4 is a protein found in Gila monster saliva that has GLP-1-like activity. It was discovered in 1992 and led to the development of exenatide (Byetta), the first GLP-1 drug. Ozempic (semaglutide) is not based on exendin-4. It is based on human GLP-1 with targeted modifications to extend its half-life.

Is exenatide still made from lizards? No. Exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon) is a synthetic copy of exendin-4, produced through recombinant DNA technology. No Gila monster venom is extracted or used in production. The lizard's contribution was the 1992 discovery of exendin-4's structure, which was then synthesized in the lab.

Why do people think Ozempic is made from lizard venom? Because the first GLP-1 drug, Byetta, was based on a protein discovered in Gila monster saliva. Media coverage often conflates the discovery story with current production, leading to the misconception that GLP-1 drugs are extracted from lizards. In reality, all GLP-1 medications have been synthetic since their approval.

Is compounded semaglutide made from the same source as Ozempic? Yes. Compounded semaglutide uses pharmaceutical-grade semaglutide base powder produced through the same recombinant DNA process as brand-name Ozempic. The difference is formulation (how it is mixed and prepared for injection), not molecular origin. Both are synthetic and identical at the peptide level.

Are there any GLP-1 medications that contain animal products? No. All FDA-approved GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, tirzepatide) are synthetic and produced through recombinant DNA technology. None contain animal-derived ingredients, and none are extracted from animal tissue or venom.

What is the difference between exenatide and semaglutide? Exenatide is based on exendin-4, a Gila monster protein that is 53% identical to human GLP-1. Semaglutide is based on human GLP-1 with modifications that make it 94% identical to the natural human hormone. Semaglutide has higher receptor affinity, longer half-life, and better efficacy in clinical trials.

Can I be allergic to semaglutide because of the Gila monster origin? No. Semaglutide is not derived from Gila monsters and does not contain any Gila monster proteins. Allergic reactions to semaglutide are rare (less than 1% in clinical trials) and are typically reactions to the peptide itself or excipients in the formulation, not to any animal component.

Is tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) made from lizard venom? No. Tirzepatide is a synthetic dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist based on human glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), not exendin-4 or any reptile protein. It is produced through recombinant DNA technology and contains no animal-derived components.

Why did researchers study Gila monster venom in the first place? Venomous animals produce peptides that manipulate prey physiology, making venoms a rich source of bioactive molecules. Researchers screen venoms for therapeutic potential. The Gila monster study was part of a broader effort to identify novel peptides with metabolic effects. Exendin-4 was discovered during that screening.

Does the Gila monster discovery affect the safety of GLP-1 drugs? No. The discovery validated the concept of DPP-4-resistant GLP-1 agonists, but modern drugs like semaglutide are structurally different and based on human GLP-1. Safety profiles are determined by clinical trials, not by the origin story. Semaglutide has lower immunogenicity than exenatide because it is more similar to human GLP-1.

Sources

1. Eng J et al. Isolation and characterization of exendin-4, an exendin-3 analogue, from Heloderma suspectum venom. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1992.
2. Raufman JP et al. Exendin-4, a new peptide from Heloderma suspectum venom, potentiates cholecystokinin-induced amylase release from rat pancreatic acini. Regulatory Peptides. 1991.
3. Fineman MS et al. Immunogenicity of exenatide (exendin-4) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003.
4. Buse JB et al. Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004.
5. Drucker DJ et al. Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study. Lancet. 2008.
6. Knudsen LB et al. Potent derivatives of glucagon-like peptide-1 with pharmacokinetic properties suitable for once daily administration. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2000.
7. Lau J et al. Discovery of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2015.
8. Marso SP et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN-6). New England Journal of Medicine. 2016.
9. Sorli C et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial. Diabetes Care. 2017.
10. Ahmann AJ et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER in subjects with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): a 56-week, open-label, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2018.
11. Wilding JPH et al. Once-weekly semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity (STEP 1). New England Journal of Medicine. 2021.
12. Davies M et al. Gastrointestinal tolerability of tirzepatide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: comparative analysis. Diabetes Care. 2023.
13. Nauck MA et al. GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: state-of-the-art. Molecular Metabolism. 2021.
14. Gough SC et al. Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2014.

Footer disclaimers

Platform Disclaimer. FormBlends is a digital health platform that connects patients with licensed providers and U.S.-based pharmacies. We do not manufacture, prescribe, or dispense medication directly. All clinical decisions are made by independent licensed providers.

Compounded Medication Notice. Compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide are not FDA-approved. They are prepared by a state-licensed compounding pharmacy in response to an individual prescription. Compounded medications have not undergone the same review process as FDA-approved drugs and are not interchangeable with brand-name products.

Results Disclaimer. Individual results vary. Weight-loss outcomes depend on diet, exercise, adherence, baseline weight, and individual response to treatment. Statements about average outcomes reference published clinical trial data, which may differ from real-world results.

Trademark Notice. Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus are registered trademarks of Novo Nordisk. Byetta and Bydureon are registered trademarks of AstraZeneca. Mounjaro and Zepbound are registered trademarks of Eli Lilly and Company. Victoza is a registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. Trulicity is a registered trademark of Eli Lilly and Company. FormBlends is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any of these companies.