Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

Petrelintide

A long-acting amylin analogue in Phase 2, with Phase 3 weight-management trials planned.

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:
long-acting amylin analogue, ZP8396
Last reviewed:
2026-09-06
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Petrelintide

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.

Reviewed 2026-09-06
Evidence level
L3Early human studies
Confidence
Low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
In clinical trials
Development status
In clinical development

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence38 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.

Human safety evidence22 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.

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 programme reported; Phase 3 initiation planned
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength38 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 strength62 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 2 programme reported; Phase 3 initiation planned

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. Phase 2 (ZUPREME) reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 chronic weight management initiation described as planned for H2 2026.

Last documented development: 2026 — Phase 2 reported, Phase 3 planned

What it is

A long-acting synthetic amylin analogue intended for weekly subcutaneous use, positioned as an alternative or partner to incretin therapy rather than a replacement for it.

What people claim

  • Meaningful weight loss with amylin pharmacology alone
  • Better tolerability than incretins

What the evidence actually says

Mid-stage sponsor-reported data exist and a Phase 3 programme is planned, which puts this ahead of most of the registry — but well behind the approved incretins. Tolerability comparisons in particular are marketing-adjacent until head-to-head trials say otherwise.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Sponsor-reported Phase 2 ZUPREME programme results in overweight and obesity.
  • Phase 3 chronic weight management programme described as planned for H2 2026.

Preclinical evidence

  • Amylin analogue pharmacology and rodent food-intake models.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Amylin and calcitonin receptor signalling reduces meal size and slows gastric emptying.

Safety and unknowns

  • Gastrointestinal effects and injection-site reactions reported in trials.
  • No long-term 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

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's Phase 2 ZUPREME programme has reported results, and initiation of Phase 3 chronic weight management trials was described as planned for the second half of 2026.

Evidence grade

L3Early human studiesLow confidence in rating

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 Phase 2 publication.
  • Phase 3 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.

Sources fully curated
Last editorial review
2026-09-06
Recently reviewed · 45 days ago
Linked curated sources
1
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Sponsor / official: 1

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.

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.