Skip to content
Clinical Development

New FDA Guidance: Developing Drugs and Biological Products for Weight Reduction

  • January 29, 2025

Medpace medical, regulatory, and biostatistics experts identify key differences between the FDA’s 2007 and 2025 guidance documents on developing products for weight reduction.

Yulia Lurye, MD
Sr. Medical Director,
Medical Deprtment, Medpace

Trevor Walker, DPhil, MTOPRA
Senior Director,
Regulatory Affairs, Medpace

Mark Simmons, PhD
Associate Director,
Biostatistics, Medpace


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently issued updated guidance for industry on the development of drugs and biological products for weight reduction. This new draft guidance, which builds upon the document issued in February 2007, introduces more nuanced terminology and provides significantly more detailed recommendations. These updates reflect the lessons learned from recent clinical development programs, particularly those involving GLP-1 receptor agonists, which have reshaped the landscape of obesity treatment. However, the key principles underlying the FDA’s regulatory framework for weight management products remain unchanged.

1. Subtle but Important Changes in Terminology

The 2007 guidance used the following terminology to describe the primary indication: “weight loss or maintenance of lost weight (which also can be described as prevention of weight regain).”

The 2025 guidance, on the other hand, refers to “sustained weight reduction.” It defines weight reduction as a long-term reduction in excess adiposity (body fat) with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. The term “long-term” refers to maintaining weight loss for at least one year on the maintenance dose of the drug, therefore the total duration of clinical trials, including both the dose-escalation and maintenance periods, should exceed one year.

2. Lifestyle Interventions

The 2007 guidance straightforwardly stated: “The use of a weight-management product should be contemplated only after a sufficient trial of lifestyle modification has failed.”

While the 2025 guidance includes recommendation on lifestyle modification, it does so in the context of comprehensive weight management, where non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment approaches may be combined rather than sequential. For example: “The lifestyle-modification programs used in the preapproval trials should be applicable to patients who would be prescribed the drug after approval. At least one phase 3 trial should incorporate a standard-of-care diet and physical activity program”.

In terms of clinical trial design, this means that studies will continue using standard eligibility criteria, requiring participants to have at least one unsuccessful attempt at diet or exercise in the past and a willingness to comply with the study-required lifestyle intervention. The 2025 guidance remains vague about what a lifestyle-modification program should entail, emphasizing the balance between effectiveness and simplicity, which is essential for retaining participants in placebo-controlled studies, considering poor adherence to very restrictive lifestyle interventions in clinical trials. These programs should also be designed such that they can be implemented in the primary care setting. To learn more on the factors influencing premature withdrawal rates and effective retention strategies read our whitepaper, “Optimizing Clinical Trial Design and Study Execution in Obesity.”

3. Acknowledgment of BMI Limitations

The 2025 guidance acknowledges the limitations of BMI but continues to use it as the most practical method for evaluating adiposity, stating: “BMI is inexpensive, universally available, easy to calculate, reproducible, and correlates strongly with total body fat in nonelderly adults.” Limitations of other methods to evaluate adiposity are noted either. Imaging modalities, such as dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or magnetic resonance imaging, although be more precise, require use of multiple blinded, central readers for implementation in a trial. Trial results based on imaging changes may not be generalizable to clinical care of patients. Additionally, change in fat mass based on imaging or other modalities is not as clearly tied to clinical outcomes as change in BMI.

4. Adjusted Efficacy Assessments

The 2025 guidance accounts for the results of recent clinical trials showing >10%, 15%, and 20% weight loss. While long-term weight loss greater than or equal to 5% remains a clinically meaningful outcome and an efficacy benchmark, the recommendation to use it as a categorical primary efficacy endpoint (i.e., the proportion of patients losing ≥5% of baseline weight) has been removed. Instead, the guidance includes responder analyses using continuous variables (e.g., the proportion of patients achieving prespecified thresholds such as ≥5%, 10%, or 15% weight reduction compared to the control arm). However, it cautions that this approach may exaggerate treatment effects and is generally not recommended.

Changes in weight-related comorbidities continue to be part of the efficacy assessment, but the requirement to measure meaningful dose reduction or complete withdrawal of concomitant medications has been softened. The 2025 guidance now recommends collecting data on medication initiation, discontinuation, or dose reduction to support evidence of the drug’s effect on blood pressure or glycemic control.

A new concept introduced in the 2025 guidance is the use of clinical outcome assessments (COA) as secondary endpoints to support labeling claims. These may include improvements in physical functioning or sleep apnea. The guidance recommends that plans for the use of fit-for-purpose COAs in Phase 3 trials should be discussed with FDA early in development along with discussion of endpoints, analyses and anchors to ensure the COA results are both clinically meaningful and interpretable.

5. Additional Indications in Labeling Claims

New remarks have been made regarding the delay and prevention of type 2 diabetes as a stand-alone indication. Whereas in 2007 it was required to demonstrate that a product effectively prevents or treats comorbidities through mechanisms independent of weight loss, the new guidance stipulates that an additional indication for delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes must be supported by evidence of clinical benefits resulting from the delay. Trials showing a delayed biochemical (!) diagnosis of type 2 diabetes alone are likely insufficient. Additionally, it is noted that since some weight-reduction drugs may have glycemic effects, a trial would need to demonstrate that diabetes diagnosis is delayed or prevented, rather than concealed by early antihyperglycemic treatment initiation. ‘How’ is a question to be clarified.

The metabolic syndrome is no longer questioned as a distinct disease entity. However, the requirements for inclusion of metabolic syndrome as an additional indication in a label remain unchanged. Approval would require evidence of a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality risks or another clinically meaningful benefits achieved through improvements in most or all components of the syndrome.

6. Key Study Design Elements

A requirement to implement a diversity plan is reiterated across the document. Representation of studied population should extend beyond BMI categories to include comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure, liver disease, and chronic kidney disease.
Key study design elements remain largely unchanged. The core eligibility criteria include:

  • BMI ≥ 30 kg/m², with a representative sample of participants with Class 3 or severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²), or
  • BMI ≥ 27 kg/m² in the presence of at least one weight-related comorbidity (e.g., type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

The general recommendation for a sample size to assess the safety of a weight-reduction drug remains at 3,000 subjects randomized to the investigational drug within the to-be-recommended dosage range and no fewer than 1,500 subjects randomized to placebo for at least one year of treatment at the maintenance dosage.

An additional comment is made for trials involving drugs with multiple dosing regimens. In such cases, the guidance recommends a study design that assigns a larger proportion of participants to the higher dose groups, ensuring sufficient data to assess the safety of these regimens. This adjustment may impact the overall size of the safety database. Additionally, the guidance specifies that these doses should first be studied in Phase 2. Specifically, “Phase 2 trials should include a range of doses and identify the appropriate dosing regimen(s) to take into Phase 3 trials.” Consideration should also be given to dose-escalation periods to improve tolerability. However, assessment of treatment effects should be based on the dose maintenance period.

7. Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes

Tailored recommendations are provided for specific populations, such as those with type 2 diabetes. Considering the less favorable response of patients with concomitant type 2 diabetes and the unique safety issues, such as the risk of hypoglycemia, the FDA continues to recommend either a dedicated trial involving subjects with type 2 diabetes (with concomitant obesity or overweight) or an adequately powered sub-study within larger weight-reduction trials that include non-diabetic subjects. The prior lower limit of 8% for HbA1c eligibility criteria has been dispensed with, replaced by the requirement for stable anti-diabetes therapy prior to enrolment. However, the exclusion of subjects with poor glycemic control at baseline (e.g., HbA1c exceeding 10% or fasting glucose levels above 270 mg/dL) remains recommended, along with stratification by the effects of common baseline glucose-lowering medications on weight (e.g., weight-promoting, weight-neutral, or weight-reducing) and baseline HbA1c (e.g., ≤8% vs. >8%). Algorithms for adjusting or eliminating glucose-lowering medications, rescue criteria for poor glycemic control, and hypoglycemia monitoring are still advised as essential components of trial protocols.

8. Pediatric Population

Key changes in recommendations for the pediatric population include shifting the timelines for pediatric investigation plans to an earlier period—no later than 60 days after the end-of-phase 2 meeting, compared to the previous expectation of after phase 3 data in adults became available, and is now in alignment with current PSP requirements. Eligibility criteria for pediatric studies have also been broadened to include participants aged six years and older, compared to the previous lower limit of 12 years And with a recommendation that separate cohorts or trials for adolescents (12 years and older) and younger pediatric subjects (6 – 11 years) should be considered.

9. Expanded Safety Assessments

The 2025 guidance broadens safety assessment recommendations and includes additional specialized evaluations for certain weight-reduction programs:

  • Cardiovascular Safety: In addition to the standard assessments (blood pressure and heart rate) required in 2007, the 2025 guidance emphasizes comprehensive evaluations such as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. A cardiovascular outcomes trial may be required if a signal for cardiovascular risk is identified during development.
  • Neuropsychiatric Function: Fit-for-purpose assessments such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) are now recommended for centrally acting weight-reduction drugs.
  • Other Safety Considerations: Immunogenicity assessments for biologics, abuse liability for centrally acting drugs, and evaluations for cardiac valvulopathy in 5HT2 receptor agonists remain consistent with the 2007 guidance.

The guidance also clarifies that some loss of lean mass is expected in weight reduction. It states: “Reduction of fat mass has typically accounted for 60% to 90% of weight reduction, and the accompanying reduction in lean mass has not been considered adverse.” Body composition should still be measured in a representative sample using DXA or a suitable alternative to ensure weight reduction primarily involves fat loss.

10. Statistical Considerations

The 2025 FDA guidance introduces significant statistical updates compared to the earlier 2007 guidance on how to address well-known challenges of high dropout rates and missing data. The 2007 guidance made it clear that high dropout rates should not be managed by over-enrolling participants. Instead, it stressed the importance of incorporating proactive measures into study designs to minimize dropouts.

One of the key changes in the 2025 guidance is the shift towards advanced imputation methodologies. While the 2007 guidance recommended single-point imputation methods, such as Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF), the 2025 update advocates for the use of multiple imputation as a more robust approach. Additionally, the 2025 guidance introduces the estimand framework with corresponding designations of Intercurrent Events, e.g., discontinuation of treatment or use of prohibited medications). New guidance allows for the use of alternative estimands if justified by the Sponsor to address a meaningful clinical question of interest, such as the on-treatment effect. However, the default recommendation remains the treatment policy estimand, where all participants are analyzed regardless of intercurrent events, consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) principle.

At Medpace, the standard recommendation is to utilise retrieved dropout subjects in the multiple imputation approach, aligning with the updated guidance. Sensitivity and/or supplemental analyses employing other imputation strategies may also need to be considered, particularly in situations where an insufficient number of retrieved dropout participants are present in the database.

Conclusion

In summary, the updates in the FDA’s 2025 guidance integrate key lessons from major clinical development programs, such as STEP and SURMOUNT. These changes incorporate findings from recent trials, including the demonstrated efficacy of higher weight loss thresholds (≥10%, 15%, and 20%) and the importance of a sustained weight reduction accompanied by clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related comorbidities. The new guidance reflects a significant shift in the treatment of obesity, recognizing it as a complex disease with multiple interconnected clinical manifestations rather than a simple issue of weight loss. It provides tailored recommendations for specific patient populations and places greater emphasis on improving overall health outcomes beyond weight reduction alone.


Your Obesity Breakthrough Starts Here

The Medpace medicaloperations, and regulatory staff understand the complexities of obesity trials from the perspective of the Sponsor, the clinical investigator, the scientific leader, and the reviewer at the regulatory agencies. Our matured relationships with global thought leaders, investigative sites, the Medpace global ‘flagship’ metabolic site network, and patient advocacy groups, as well as knowledge of effective patient retention strategies, ensure efficient and quality patient enrollment which is key to the success of these programs.

In addition to therapeutically specialized, full-service CRO offerings, Medpace provides comprehensive and fully integrated global central lab services, bioanalytical lab, imaging core lab, ECG core lab, and Phase I unit. The built-in collaboration and efficiencies of working with a single vendor facilitates a streamlined strategy for executing trials of all sizes and scope.