Skip to content
Peptide Evidence RegistryFollow the evidence

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

Pemvidutide

An investigational GLP-1/glucagon dual agonist now developed primarily for serious liver disease, not weight loss.

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:
ALT-801, GLP-1/glucagon 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
40 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 III
Source curation
Sources fully curated
How far human research has progressed
Phase 2b reported; Phase 3 MASH trial initiated August 2026

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 strength60 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 2b reported; Phase 3 MASH trial initiated August 2026

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

Active development, with the current focus on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) rather than obesity as a standalone indication.

Last documented development: 2026 — Phase 3 PERFORMA MASH trial initiated

What it is

A dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist. The glucagon arm drives hepatic fat mobilisation, which is why development has concentrated on liver disease.

What people claim

  • Liver fat and fibrosis improvement in MASH
  • Weight loss with preserved lean mass

What the evidence actually says

The credible story here is liver disease, and it is still a Phase 3 question. Phase 2b data were strong enough for FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation in MASH, which reflects unmet need and early promise rather than proven benefit. Marketing that frames this as an obesity drug misreads the programme.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Randomised Phase 2b data in MASH supporting FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation.
  • Global Phase 3 PERFORMA trial in MASH initiated August 2026.

Preclinical evidence

  • Dual GLP-1/glucagon pharmacology and hepatic lipid handling in preclinical models.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure and hepatic fat mobilisation.
  • GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite and supports glycaemic control.

Safety and unknowns

  • Class-typical gastrointestinal effects; glucagon-related metabolic monitoring required.
  • Long-term safety and liver outcome data are not established.

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. A global Phase 3 trial (PERFORMA) in MASH was initiated in August 2026, and the compound holds FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation for MASH based on Phase 2b data. Breakthrough designation speeds up review; it is not approval and not evidence of benefit.

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?

  • Phase 3 histological outcomes in MASH.
  • A regulatory decision in any major region.

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.