Short answer first, then the reasoning. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.

Dr.SleepRoch said:

Read four things before the headline number.

No disagreement with Dr.SleepRoch. One condition attached. Orforglipron is a small molecule rather than a peptide, which is the whole point: no SNAC absorption enhancer, no fasting window, no cold chain, and oral bioavailability in the tens of percent instead of around one. Phase 2 put it near 14.7% weight loss at 36 weeks on the top dose with a side-effect profile that looks like the injectables.

steve_okc said:

Reading the phase 2 write-up next to the injectable trials, and the comparison people keep making does not survive putting the two protocols side by…

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.