NAION and GLP-1 Medications: What Is Known, and What Isn’t

Marin & MurphySuper Lawyers® 2014–2024(888) 348-2735

Ozempic (GLP-1) Lawsuit — Free Case Review

Sudden Vision Loss Deserves Answers

If NAION was diagnosed during or after brand-name GLP-1 use and some vision loss is permanent, you may qualify — spouses and family welcome to call.

No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state.

Did this happen to you — or someone you love?

Start your free case reviewTell us anyway

Answered 24/7 · Free & confidential · No fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney's fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

(888) 348-2735

Partners

Matthew T. Marin & Stefanie A. Murphy

Super Lawyers® honorees · American Association for Justice members

Ozempic inquiries get a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.

No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state. Do not stop, start, or change any prescribed medication because of anything on this page. Those decisions belong with your prescriber. Attorney Advertising.

NAION — non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy — is a sudden loss of vision in one eye caused by an interruption of blood flow to the optic nerve. It is painless, it usually happens overnight, and most people are told there is no known cause. Since 2024, a series of studies and regulators in Europe, the UK and Australia have linked it to semaglutide. Federal NAION lawsuits are consolidated as MDL 3163 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where 216 cases were pending as of September 2026.

Reports submitted to FDA are not verified and do not establish causation.

If you are looking this up for someone else

Many people who read this page are not the patient. They are a wife, a husband, a daughter, a son — doing the reading because the person it happened to is tired, or newly unable to drive, or finds a screen hard to use right now. You are in the right place. You don’t need their permission to find out what is known, and nothing here commits anyone to anything.

What NAION is

The optic nerve carries signal from the eye to the brain. In NAION, blood flow to the front of that nerve is interrupted and the nerve tissue is injured. Clinically it is described as acute, monocular and painless — sudden, in one eye, and it does not hurt.

People notice it on waking. Part of the visual field is missing or dimmed — commonly the lower half, sometimes described as a gray curtain across the bottom, or a shape like a C. Central vision may be preserved while the lower field is not, and colors can look washed out.

Typical age at onset is around 66. There is currently no medical or surgical treatment shown to improve the outcome once acute NAION has occurred. Most vision stays roughly where it settles: about 70% remain stable, around 20% improve modestly, and about 10% get worse.

“They said there’s no known cause”

This is the sentence almost everyone hears, and it is the hardest part for most families. A permanent injury arrives overnight, and the explanation offered is that these things happen — possibly related to a crowded optic disc, sometimes called a “disc at risk,” and to circulation.

That is an honest answer from the specialists giving it. NAION’s cause genuinely has been uncertain. What has changed since 2024 is that one possible contributing factor has been identified, studied, and acted on by several national regulators — and it is a medication that a great many people with these risk factors were taking.

The science, in order

• July 2024 — JAMA Ophthalmology. Researchers at Massachusetts Eye and Ear published a retrospective study of patients at their center reporting substantially higher rates of NAION among those prescribed semaglutide. It is the study that started this. The authors framed it as hypothesis-generating, and it had real limitations: a single specialty referral center, small numbers, and wide statistical ranges.
• June 6, 2025 — European Medicines Agency. The EMA’s safety committee concluded that NAION is a “very rare” side effect of semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) — meaning it may affect up to 1 in 10,000 people — and required it to be added to the European product information. The committee cited roughly a two-fold increase in risk, and about one additional case per 10,000 person-years of treatment.
• 2025 — larger population studies. A nationwide Danish–Norwegian registry study using an active comparator found roughly a 2.8-fold increased risk while noting the absolute risk remains low; a large propensity-matched US study found roughly a 2.4-fold increase over two to four years; at least one sizable study found no statistically significant increase. Honest summary: the association has been replicated across several independent designs and clusters around two to three times the baseline rate — lower than the original 2024 figures.
• 2025–2026 — other regulators. A WHO notification followed in June 2025, a UK MHRA drug safety update in March 2026, and Australian TGA warnings in July 2026.
• As of August 7, 2026 — the US label still carries no NAION warning. That gap between what European regulators required in June 2025 and what US patients have been told is the center of this litigation.

Two things are true at once, and we would rather say both. A doubling or tripling of the risk is a real finding that regulators acted on. And NAION remains rare — roughly one extra case per 10,000 person-years. Most people who take these medications will never develop it.

Where the litigation stands

Federal NAION cases were consolidated into MDL 3163 on December 15, 2025, before Judge Karen S. Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Notably, it was Eli Lilly that asked for consolidation and a group of plaintiffs who opposed it. The MDL has grown from 20 cases at creation to 216 as of the JPML report dated September 1, 2026. New Jersey has a parallel state-court proceeding in Bergen County.

The court has ordered that general causation and preemption be litigated first, before any case is tried. No expert schedule has been set, no bellwether cases selected, and no trial date exists. This track is early, and we won’t predict its outcome.

Who may qualify today

• Use of brand-name Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Trulicity, Mounjaro, or Zepbound — not compounded or generic versions. Note this list is broader than the stomach-injury track.
• An actual NAION diagnosis from a physician — usually an ophthalmologist or neuro-ophthalmologist.
• Diagnosed while taking the medication or after stopping it.
• Some degree of permanent vision impairment.
• Not already represented by another lawyer for this issue.
• No age limit and no hospital requirement applies to this track, and there is no diagnosis-date cutoff.
• Other conditions — diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, a crowded optic disc — are recorded as part of the history. They are not automatic disqualifiers.

If this hasn’t happened to you

Some readers are here because they take one of these medications and are worried. If you have not had sudden vision loss, you do not need a lawyer and we are not going to suggest otherwise. Speak with your prescriber about your own risk factors, and contact an eye doctor promptly if vision changes suddenly. That is the whole of the advice.

Common questions

Related vision-loss topics: “eye stroke” (NAION), sudden vision loss in one eye, risk to the other eye, and the US vs. EU warning-label gap.