Skip to content
Peptide Evidence RegistryFollow the evidence

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

Eloralintide

An investigational selective amylin-pathway agonist now in a broad Phase 3 programme.

L3Early human studiesIn clinical trialsIn clinical development
How settled this rating is:
low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Subcutaneous injection
Also known as:
LY3841136, selective amylin receptor agonist
Last reviewed:
2026-09-06
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Last reviewed 2026-09-06

A one-screen summary of what is known about this compound. Every field describes the evidence and legal status — not how safe or effective it is, and not a recommendation. The 0-100 figures are evidence-strength ratings, not percentages.

Evidence level (type of study, not a quality rating)
L3Early human studies
How settled this rating is
Low confidence in rating
Human efficacy evidence
40 of 100 evidence strength
Human safety evidence
22 of 100 evidence strength
Regulatory status
In clinical trials
Development
In clinical development
Routes
SC injection
Evidence base
Includes human studies
Furthest stage
Phase III
Source curation
Sources fully curated
How far human research has progressed
Phase 3 programme actively enrolling; published human data limited

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength40 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength65 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength22 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Phase 3 programme actively enrolling; published human data limited

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injection

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

    Furthest established stage

  6. Approved

In clinical development

Multiple Phase 3 ENLIGHTEN trials listed as recruiting in 2026. No regulatory submission is established in our curated record.

Last documented development: 2026 — Phase 3 ENLIGHTEN trials recruiting

What it is

A peptide designed to act selectively on amylin receptors rather than the calcitonin receptor, aiming for satiety effects with a cleaner receptor profile than earlier amylin analogues.

What people claim

  • Weight loss without incretin-style gastrointestinal burden
  • Useful added on top of existing incretin therapy

What the evidence actually says

The interesting part of this compound is the breadth of its Phase 3 programme, not the strength of its published data. Trial registry entries confirm active late-stage testing across several conditions; that tells you a sponsor is confident, not that a benefit has been demonstrated. Treat it as an unresolved question with real trials attached.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Phase 3 ENLIGHTEN trials registered and recruiting in obesity, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnoea, knee osteoarthritis and persistent obesity on incretin background therapy.

Preclinical evidence

  • Selective amylin receptor pharmacology and rodent satiety models.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Selective amylin receptor signalling reduces meal size and food intake.

Safety and unknowns

  • Nausea and injection-site reactions are the expected class-level effects; comparative tolerability claims are not established.
  • No long-term human safety dataset exists.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

No established human signal

No established human cancer signal for this compound.

Regulatory status

Not approved anywhere. The Phase 3 ENLIGHTEN programme is enrolling across obesity, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnoea, knee osteoarthritis and people already on incretin therapy.

Evidence grade

L3Early human studiesLow confidence in rating

Small, short or uncontrolled studies in people. A hint worth following up, not a conclusion you can rely on.

What would change our rating?

  • Peer-reviewed Phase 2 or Phase 3 publications.
  • Any regulatory filing or decision.

References and sources

Sources fully curated

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-09-06.