Compounded Semaglutide and Tirzepatide: What to Know Now

When patients ask me about compounded weight loss drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide, I take a deep breath. The topic is complicated and keeps changing. I won’t just tell patients to avoid them. They’re already looking for these options, and my job is to help them navigate the risks safely.

Dr. Beverly Tchang’s “swim safely” analogy fits well. We can’t stop people from diving into the ocean of compounded products, but we can at least give them floaties: information, caution, and tools to make better decisions. (Tchang, Medscape)

Here’s how I explain it to patients and colleagues, updated with the most recent data.

Why compounded versions exist

When semaglutide and tirzepatide injections were in short supply a few years ago, patients turned to compounding pharmacies that offered custom formulations, often at a lower price. (GoodRx)

In late 2024, the FDA ended the declared shortage of tirzepatide. (Stat News) By early 2025, semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) followed. Once the shortages ended, enforcement ramped up against compounded versions. (GoodRx)

Now, compounded versions are only legal in narrow circumstances, such as when a patient has a medical need that can’t be met by an approved product. (GoodRx)

In December 2024, the FDA sent warning letters to several companies selling unapproved GLP-1 drugs labeled “for research use only.” (Reuters) Some of these contained no active ingredient, incorrect salt forms, or inconsistent potency. (Verywell Health)

Key risks and what to look for

Not all compounding pharmacies operate at the same standard. A friendly local pharmacist doesn’t necessarily mean the product is safe. Dr. Tchang’s checklist gives a good framework for evaluating any compounded GLP-1 medication. A simplified version: look for a pharmacy where the medication is prescribed by a licensed provider, there are no disciplinary actions on file, the pharmacy has been in business for more than a year, only semaglutide base is used (not a salt form), and the facility is FDA-registered or FDA-inspected; it should also be able to ship sterile drugs safely to all 50 states.

If a compounding pharmacy cannot meet these criteria, that’s a red flag. Ask directly for documentation. If they can’t provide it, walk away.

Some compounders also mix in vitamins or preservatives to make their product “different” from the brand name; that may sound harmless, but combining untested additives with peptides can change how the drug behaves. (GoodRx)

A few are promoting oral or sublingual forms of semaglutide and tirzepatide. These seem attractive for patients who don’t like injections, but they haven’t been validated in clinical trials, and absorption is unpredictable. (Omada Health)

Even small changes in formulation or dosing can interrupt treatment and cause rebound weight gain or side effects.

How I approach this with patients

When a patient says, “I found a compounding pharmacy that sells it for half the price,” I acknowledge their concern. Access and cost are real issues. But I explain that the regulatory situation has changed. If an FDA-approved version is available, that’s the standard we should use first.

I encourage patients to ask the pharmacy for their certificate of analysis, sterility test results, and ingredient source; if the pharmacy hesitates or says it’s proprietary, that’s enough reason to stop.

One patient of mine was on a compounded semaglutide microdose that wasn’t commercially available, at least as she described it to me. I never could pin down what she was actually getting. The compounder wouldn’t release potency data either. We moved her to a low-dose commercial version instead. Weight loss slowed a little. Safety and consistency improved, and I knew what was in the pen.

We also reviewed manufacturer assistance programs and insurance coverage. Many patients don’t realize that drug makers often cap out-of-pocket costs for brand medications; cost confusion is one of the biggest drivers behind compounded use.

The FDA’s BeSafeRx campaign

The FDA has an ongoing public safety campaign called BeSafeRx, designed to help patients and providers verify the legitimacy of online pharmacies and compounded drug sources; it offers tools to check pharmacy licenses, identify red flags, and report suspicious products.

It’s a good resource for anyone considering buying compounded or online medications; I often share it directly with patients so they can see what trustworthy sourcing looks like.

You can find the BeSafeRx information at:

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/buying-using-medicine-safely/besaferx-your-source-online-pharmacy-information

What’s changed recently

The REDEFINE trial (NEJM, 2025) studied cagrilintide combined with semaglutide (CagriSema) and showed about 20.4 percent weight loss over 68 weeks, compared with 14.9 percent with semaglutide alone; that kind of data will shape treatment algorithms going forward. GoodRx reports that the FDA’s grace period for compounding GLP-1s has officially ended for both tirzepatide and semaglutide, though some pharmacies still market “custom” or “non-identical” formulations, and regulators are watching closely.

Approach this without judgment if you’re a clinician. Patients are trying to find affordable solutions. And they often trust what they see on social media more than official channels; we can help most by staying informed, asking questions, and documenting carefully. Patients should be cautious for a different reason. Ask your provider to review any compounded medication before you use it, make sure your pharmacy meets every item on that checklist, and use resources like the FDA’s BeSafeRx to verify safety.

Knowledge and transparency remain the best safeguards.

Scott Rennie, D.O.

Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.

What Is an Obesity Medicine Board Certified Doctor?

More family physicians, myself included, are choosing to become certified through the American Board of Obesity Medicine. The credential looks small on paper. What sits behind it is a real change in how we handle obesity and the conditions that travel with it.

ABOM certification is open to physicians who can show advanced knowledge in preventing, evaluating, and treating obesity. There are two routes. One is 60 hours of continuing medical education credits in obesity-related topics, half of which must specifically address obesity treatment. The other is an accredited obesity medicine fellowship. Either way, candidates then sit for a 4-hour exam covering the physiology and pathophysiology of obesity, nutrition and behavioral treatment, medications, surgery, and bias in care.

Why go through all that? We are the ones patients come to first. About 40% of U.S. adults have obesity, and it is tied to diabetes, heart disease, infertility, arthritis, and worse outcomes with infections. Yet most of us had very little structured training on obesity in medical school or residency. I certainly didn’t. ABOM fills that gap with something more useful than repeating “eat less, move more.”

Patients are also asking harder questions than they used to. GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide changed the conversation. People have worked out that weight regulation is physiology, not character. They want to know whether medication makes sense for them, what the risks are, and what else they should be doing. Certification puts you in a better position to answer that honestly and to build a plan that lasts longer than a few months.

For me, the certification built confidence. I know how to adjust anti-obesity medications, screen for related conditions like PCOS or fatty liver, and talk about weight without stigma. Patients notice. They feel taken seriously when obesity gets treated as the chronic medical condition it is.

One case stays with me. A patient in her fifties came to me with obesity and prediabetes, worn down after years of failed diets. Using what I’d learned, I recognized she was a candidate for pharmacotherapy. We started semaglutide, and we built a plan around meal structure, activity, and sleep. Within months her A1c had come back into the normal range and her energy had returned.

Colleagues are seeing benefits too. A physician I know in rural Missouri became ABOM-certified and quickly became a regional referral point. Practices in nearby towns began sending her patients rather than having them drive hours to an urban obesity clinic. In an underserved area, that is the difference between getting treated and not.

For doctors considering it, the field is growing quickly. More than 11,500 physicians in the United States and Canada now hold the certification, up from roughly 9,800 a year earlier. Insurers are beginning to recognize obesity medicine, which means more treatments get covered when a certified physician is guiding them. You also end up connected to a national group of people working on one of the largest drivers of chronic disease we have.

So the certification is a line on a CV. It is also the reason I practice differently than I did before I sat the exam, and that is the part that reaches patients.

Scott Rennie, D.O.

Sources:

American Board of Obesity Medicine: https://www.abom.org

Johnson-Rabbett B, et al. An Update on the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM): 2017-2024. Obesity. 2025. doi:10.1002/oby.70013

CDC/NCHS. Obesity and Severe Obesity Prevalence in Adults: United States, August 2021-August 2023. NCHS Data Brief No. 508: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db508.htm

Flegal KM, Kruszon-Moran D, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Trends in Obesity Among Adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2284-2291.

Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.

Do Weight Loss Apps and Devices Really Help?

Patients ask me whether weight loss apps and digital programs actually work. It is a fair question, and the honest answer has a lot of qualifiers in it. Traditional obesity care runs into limited visit time, cost, and a shortage of places to refer people. Technology, whether an app, a web platform, or a hybrid program with human coaching, routes around some of that.

Dr. Bonnie Spring at Northwestern has studied how eHealth, mHealth, and telehealth are reshaping obesity treatment. Her finding is that these tools extend reach, lower cost, and deliver feedback in real time. The difficulty is holding anyone’s attention long enough for that to matter.

The trends in the research are reasonably clear. Web-based programs on their own produce small losses, around 2 to 3 percent of body weight. Better than nothing, and well short of the 7 to 8 percent that structured in-person programs achieve (Wieland 2014; Raaijmakers 2015; Tang 2014). Roughly half of users drop out.

Mobile approaches do better. In a review of U.S. trials, about 63 percent of studies found meaningful weight loss with mHealth interventions (Burke, Ma, Spring 2015). Texting on its own moved very little; outcomes improved when coaching or app-based monitoring was layered on. The catch is that most people abandon apps almost immediately, with more than three quarters stopping within three days of downloading.

Spring’s Opt-In Study used the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to build something cost-effective: remote sessions, structured self-monitoring, goal setting, and a trained buddy for support. Participants targeted a 7 percent loss, the threshold known to reduce diabetes and cardiovascular risk. More than half got there, at under $500 per person. That is comparable to the Diabetes Prevention Program at a fraction of the cost.

The buddy component turned out to matter most. Having a friend or family member reinforcing the changes between formal sessions kept people going, which lines up with what we already knew: social support is among the strongest predictors of durable results.

Access remains uneven. Reliable internet and comfort with digital tools are not evenly distributed, even though weight loss apps are among the most downloaded health apps in the world (Nikolaou & Lean, 2017). Owning a smartphone is the easy part. Cultural fit, affordability, and whether someone finds the technology tolerable all matter as much.

In my practice I have seen patients do well with commercial programs like Omada or Noom, which pair app-based tracking with remote coaching. Others get further with something simpler, MyFitnessPal being the usual example. These run somewhere between $40 and $130 a month, which is its own barrier and worth asking about before recommending one.

Technology works when it carries evidence-based strategy inside it: goal setting, self-monitoring, timely feedback, social support. Without those it is a download that gets deleted on day three. Knowing which products have research behind them and which have marketing behind them is part of our job now, and steering a patient toward the right one is often what separates a few weeks of enthusiasm from an actual result.

Scott Rennie, D.O.

References

Spring B. Use of Technology in the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity. Northwestern University, 2024.

Wieland LS et al. Systematic Reviews. 2014.

Raaijmakers LGM et al. Obesity Reviews. 2015.

Tang J et al. Obesity Reviews. 2014.

Burke LE, Ma J, Spring BJ et al. Ann Behav Med. 2015.

Nikolaou CK, Lean MEJ. Int J Obes. 2017.

Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.

Food Addiction and Obesity: How the Brain Is Involved

The human brain gets described as an engineering marvel. Like any product, it ships with vulnerabilities. Evolution built a system for surviving scarcity, and we now run that system in an environment of constant stimulation and engineered food. The mismatch explains a great deal about why obesity and addiction share so much ground.

One useful way to frame it is in terms of failure modes. Sometimes the design itself creates the problem. Sometimes development goes off track. And sometimes a perfectly good brain breaks down under conditions no brain was built for.

Take the design. We evolved to crave calorie-dense food because it was scarce and it kept us alive. Sugar and fat are now everywhere, and those old drives get hijacked. Food companies understand how to exploit them, the same way addictive substances exploit the same reward circuitry. The biology has not changed. The environment has.

Development matters too. Prenatal nutrition, early childhood adversity, and other disruptions shape how the brain handles reward and stress. Analysis of roughly 2,700 children in the NIH-funded ABCD Study found that higher BMI was associated with thinner cortex, particularly in prefrontal regions, and with lower working memory on list-sorting tasks (Laurent et al., 2020). Brain development itself appears alterable in the setting of poor diet and excess weight.

Then there are the extreme conditions. Trauma, chronic stress, and social adversity overwhelm coping systems, and food and drugs become the fallback. Calling that a failure of willpower misses what is happening. The brain is adapting, badly, to circumstances it can’t otherwise handle. It also helps explain why obesity and addiction cluster in groups facing economic hardship and unstable environments.

Dopamine sits at the center of both. Dopamine does more than produce pleasure. It teaches the brain what to attend to and what to repeat. Eat sugar, dopamine surges, the brain takes note. Use a drug, same signal. With repeated exposure, dopamine receptors downregulate (Volkow et al., 2013). Tolerance builds. Soon more sugar or more drug is needed to reach baseline.

Refined sugar is unusually effective in this loop. It spikes glucose fast, drives dopamine release, and slips past satiety signaling. Animal studies show sugar producing binge-like intake patterns and withdrawal signs on removal (Avena et al., Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2008). In humans, high sugar intake has been linked to memory problems, greater inflammation, and impaired hippocampal function (Kendig, Appetite, 2014). Which is why cutting sugar feels less like breaking a habit and more like breaking an addiction.

So what helps? Supporting the brain at each stage. Protecting the developing brain through prenatal nutrition and limiting early sugar exposure. Teaching children coping skills, protecting sleep, and building activity, all of which strengthen the prefrontal cortex that reins in impulse. Reducing ultra-processed food at home and in schools.

Medications now target this signaling directly. GLP-1 receptor agonists act on satiety hormones in the gut and on brain pathways that regulate appetite. They reset the system rather than substituting for resolve.

Research is moving toward brain-based interventions: neurofeedback, brain stimulation, digital tools that reinforce healthier behavior in real time. The underlying message has not changed. Obesity and addiction are brain-based conditions shaped by biology, environment, and lived experience. Recognizing that changes how we treat and support the people in front of us, without letting anyone off the hook for their own care.

Scott Rennie, D.O.

References:

1. Laurent JS, et al. Associations Among Body Mass Index, Cortical Thickness, and Executive Function in Children. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(2):170-177. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31816020/

2. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Tomasi D, Baler RD. Obesity and addiction: neurobiological overlaps. Obes Rev. 2013;14(1):2-18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23016694/

3. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(1):20-39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17617461/

4. Kendig MD. Cognitive and behavioural effects of sugar consumption in rodents: a review. Appetite. 2014;80:41-54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24816323/

Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.

Weight Loss Surgery Without Incisions: Bariatric Endoscopy

Obesity is one of the most common health problems we face, and treatment has never kept pace with the need. More than 100 million U.S. adults meet criteria for obesity. Roughly 1% of patients who qualify for metabolic and bariatric surgery actually undergo it in a given year. Lifestyle change and medication help, and plenty of patients either get insufficient benefit or can’t sustain them. That leaves a wide gap, particularly for people with moderate obesity and for those who don’t qualify for surgery.

Bariatric endoscopy is starting to fill it. These are minimally invasive outpatient procedures sitting between lifestyle and pharmacotherapy on one side and surgery on the other. No incisions, lower risk, same-day discharge for most patients. They are also repeatable or reversible, which gives patients and clinicians room to change course.

Intragastric balloons are the simplest example. The device occupies space in the stomach, and patients feel full on less food. Studies consistently show 10 to 15% total body weight loss over six months alongside improvements in insulin resistance and liver health. In a prospective study of patients with NASH and early fibrosis who underwent balloon placement with paired liver biopsies, every patient who lost 10% or more of their weight showed a reduction in NAFLD activity score, 90% had resolution of NASH, and 45% showed fibrosis regression (Bazerbachi et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021). Small study, striking numbers.

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty is the more durable option. An endoscopic suturing device reduces stomach volume, mimicking a surgical sleeve without incisions. MERIT, the first randomized trial of the procedure, compared ESG plus lifestyle modification against lifestyle alone in class 1 and 2 obesity and found the procedure safely induced and maintained weight loss with improvement in metabolic comorbidities (Abu Dayyeh et al., Lancet, 2022). Five-year data from a single-center cohort show mean total body weight loss around 16%, with roughly three-fifths of patients holding 10% or more (Sharaiha et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021). Compared with surgery it means fewer complications, faster recovery, and preserved native anatomy.

Endoscopic revision is gaining traction too. Transoral outlet reduction addresses weight regain after gastric bypass by tightening the gastrojejunal anastomosis and the pouch, restoring restriction (Jirapinyo & Thompson, Endoscopy, 2018). For patients demoralized by regain, it is a far less invasive option than surgical revision.

Duodenal interventions work differently. Duodenal mucosal resurfacing and duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeves act less on restriction and more on metabolic signaling, with early data showing HbA1c reductions and weight loss in the 9 to 15% range. This is the least mature part of the field and should be described that way to patients.

Safety looks good. Serious adverse events run in the 0.2 to 4% range depending on the procedure. Most problems, nausea and abdominal discomfort, are mild and short-lived. FDA clearance of endoscopic suturing platforms reflects the accumulating evidence on both safety and efficacy.

So who are the candidates? Typically patients with BMI 30 to 50 who haven’t gotten results from diet and exercise alone. It is also an option for people who aren’t ready for surgery or not eligible. Patients who have regained weight after bariatric surgery may benefit, especially from TORe. Comorbidities like diabetes and MASLD factor in, since weight reduction directly improves their course.

The thing to stress is that bariatric endoscopy is a tool rather than a cure, and it doesn’t replace surgery or medication. Outcomes are best when procedures are combined with pharmacotherapy and lifestyle change, which is the same lesson obesity keeps teaching. It is a chronic, relapsing disease and it needs long-term management.

Scott Rennie, D.O.

References:

1. Bazerbachi F, et al. Intragastric Balloon Placement Induces Significant Metabolic and Histologic Improvement in Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(1):146-154.e4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32360804/

2. Abu Dayyeh BK, et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for treatment of class 1 and 2 obesity (MERIT): a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10350):441-451. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35908555/

3. Sharaiha RZ, et al. Five-Year Outcomes of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty for the Treatment of Obesity. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(5):1051-1057.e2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32683103/

4. Jirapinyo P, Thompson CC. Endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies: surgical analogues and mechanisms of action. Endoscopy. 2018;50(4):371-377.

5. Ponce J, et al. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(4):874-881.

Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.