Pharma giants eye obesity trial boom — but are they ready for what comes next?
ICON survey reveals pharma’s enthusiasm for multi-indication obesity trials is outpacing trial design readiness
Interest in obesity trials has exploded, but new research suggests the industry’s eagerness to tap into the market’s full potential may be outpacing its readiness to handle the complexity.
A new survey from ICON, which questioned 155 biotech and pharmaceutical professionals across the US and Europe, found that a strong majority of sponsors (83%) are actively pursuing clinical trials designed to test obesity drugs across multiple related conditions. These so-called multi-indication trials are increasingly seen as a way to maximize return on investment, particularly as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro continue to dominate headlines and market projections.
But while the commercial appetite is clear, the study also revealed gaps in execution. Most companies are sticking with conventional trial formats despite growing interest in more efficient, adaptive designs. Nine out of ten sponsors said they aren’t using master protocols — a trial framework that can allow researchers to test a drug across several conditions in one study. These designs offer a promising route to reduce timelines and costs, especially when trial populations overlap.
“In the last few years, obesity-related drugs such as GLP-1s have surged in popularity, as has interest in their applicability for other health conditions and related commercial prospects,” said Dr Simon Bruce, vice president of drug development solutions in Internal Medicine at ICON.
“This survey has shown us that respondents realize that trial design is of paramount importance in devising a multi-indication approach, but don’t necessarily know the best way to go about it.”
Another concern is the underuse of real-world evidence and long-term data. Just 14% of those surveyed are using longitudinal data to identify new indications, and fewer than one in five follow trial patients for more than three years. This short-term approach could be limiting insights into how these powerful weight loss drugs work across chronic conditions.
“The considerable logistical and statistical expertise needed to collect longitudinal data and generate real-world evidence may help explain why sponsors report lower rates of adopting such tactics,” said Rose Kidd, President of Global Operations Delivery at ICON. “We have experience working with sponsors on deploying tokenisation and real-world data tools to enable post-market follow-up, an important part of efficient multiple indication development.”
Still, optimism remains high. Most respondents agreed that expanding obesity drug development into related conditions could help bring down healthcare costs and improve patient outcomes — provided that smarter clinical strategies are adopted.
In tandem with the survey, ICON has launched a new Centre for Obesity, which will serve as a hub for market intelligence and trial infrastructure. The company says it has more than 100 ready-to-deploy sites and is building a database of 10,000 pre-screened patients with a wide range of obesity-related comorbidities. The aim is to help sponsors accelerate trial launches while accessing specialist support in imaging, cardiac safety, outcomes data and tokenization tools for tracking long-term patient outcomes.
With blockbuster obesity drugs reshaping the industry’s priorities, all eyes are now on who can turn ambition into execution — and bring the next generation of multi-use therapies to market.