GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine
Enicepatide
An investigational GLP-1/GIP dual agonist reported to be advancing towards Phase 3.
- How settled this rating is:
- low confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Subcutaneous injection
- Also known as:
- CT-388, RO7795068, GLP-1/GIP dual agonist
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-09-06
Jump to section
Evidence passport
Enicepatide
A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.
- Evidence level
- L3Early human studies
- Confidence
- Low confidence in rating
- Regulatory status
- In clinical trials
- Development status
- In clinical development
Evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.
- Evidence base
- Includes human studies
- Furthest established stage
- Phase II
- Human research maturity
- Phase 2 results reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 advancement stated
- Source curation
- Sources fully curated
Routes recorded
Overview
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
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 2 results reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 advancement stated
Routes & formulations
Studied / approved routes
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
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Furthest established stage
Phase III
Approved
Active development. Sponsor communications in January and June 2026 reported Phase 2 results and advancement plans. No peer-reviewed pivotal publication is established in our curated record.
Last documented development: 2026 — Phase 2 results reported, Phase 3 advancement stated
What it is
A dual incretin receptor agonist in the same broad pharmacological family as tirzepatide, given by weekly subcutaneous injection in trials.
What people claim
- Very large weight loss
- Best-in-class dual agonist potency
What the evidence actually says
The headline number people repeat — around 22.5% placebo-adjusted weight loss at 48 weeks at the highest tested dose — is sponsor-reported Phase 2 data, not a peer-reviewed pivotal result. Mid-stage numbers in selected trial populations routinely shrink in Phase 3. Interesting; nowhere near settled.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
Tirzepatide evidence profile
A dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist with strong Phase 3 weight and glycaemic data.
- Compare
Compare Enicepatide vs Tirzepatide evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Checked claim
Claim review: “Tirzepatide improves obstructive sleep apnoea in people with obesity.”
A closely related claim we have graded, from GLP-1s.
- Context
GLP-1 Centre
How the incretin medicines compare on trial evidence and where they are actually licensed.
Human evidence
- Sponsor-reported Phase 2 data: placebo-adjusted weight loss of about 22.5% at 48 weeks at the highest tested dose.
- Sponsor statements in 2026 describing advancement towards Phase 3.
Preclinical evidence
- Dual incretin receptor pharmacology in preclinical metabolic models.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite and improves glucose handling.
- GIP receptor agonism contributes additional metabolic effects still being characterised.
Safety and unknowns
- Class-typical gastrointestinal effects reported in trials.
- No long-term safety dataset; Phase 3 has not reported.
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.
Monitored in trials; not demonstrated in humans
Regulatory status
Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.
Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.
Not approved anywhere. The sponsor reported positive Phase 2 results in 2026 and stated an intention to advance the compound towards Phase 3.
Evidence grade
Preliminary human outcome research, including small or observational studies. Descriptive exposure studies alone do not demonstrate therapeutic benefit.
What would change our rating?
- Peer-reviewed publication of the Phase 2 dataset.
- Phase 3 initiation and readouts.
References and sources
Source transparency
A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.
- Last editorial review
- 2026-09-06
- Recently reviewed · 45 days ago
- Linked curated sources
- 2
- Sources still pending
- 0
- External specialist reviews
- 0
- None recorded for this profile
Review provenance
Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.
Current linked evidence is sponsor-only. Treat findings as provisional until independent or peer-reviewed documentation is available.
Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.
- Sponsor / officialRoche media release (27 January 2026) — CT-388 / enicepatide programme update
- Sponsor / officialRoche media release (1 June 2026) — CT-388 / enicepatide programme update
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.