Skip to content
Peptide Evidence RegistryFollow the evidence

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

Enicepatide

An investigational GLP-1/GIP dual agonist reported to be advancing towards Phase 3.

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:
CT-388, RO7795068, GLP-1/GIP dual 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
42 of 100 evidence strength
Human safety evidence
25 of 100 evidence strength
Regulatory status
In clinical trials
Development
In clinical development
Routes
SC injection
Evidence base
Includes human studies
Furthest stage
Phase II
Source curation
Sources fully curated
How far human research has progressed
Phase 2 results reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 advancement stated

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength42 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 strength25 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 2 results reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 advancement stated

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

    Furthest established stage

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

In clinical development

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.

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

No demonstrated human cancer signal. Class-level incretin precautions apply and remain under trial surveillance.

Regulatory status

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

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 publication of the Phase 2 dataset.
  • Phase 3 initiation and readouts.

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.