Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

VK2735

An investigational GLP-1/GIP dual agonist in Phase 3 as an injection, with an oral form behind it.

L3Early human studiesIn clinical trialsIn clinical development
How settled this rating is:
low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Subcutaneous injection, Oral
Also known as:
Viking dual agonist, GLP-1/GIP dual agonist
Last reviewed:
2026-10-01
Jump to section

Evidence passport

VK2735

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 2026-10-01
Evidence level
L3Early human studies
Confidence
Low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
In clinical trials
Development status
In clinical development

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence40 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 III
Human research maturity
Phase 3 fully enrolled (subcutaneous); oral Phase 3 not yet started
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injectionOral

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 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 3 fully enrolled (subcutaneous); oral Phase 3 not yet started

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injectionOral

Injectable and oral formulations are at different stages and are not interchangeable. Neither is approved.

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. Sponsor reported full enrolment of both subcutaneous Phase 3 trials by July 2026, with oral Phase 3 initiation expected in Q4 2026.

Last documented development: 22 September 2026 — maintenance study reported less-frequent dosing maintained much of induction weight loss

What it is

A dual incretin receptor agonist being developed in both weekly injectable and daily oral formulations for weight management.

What people claim

  • Large weight loss
  • An oral option matching injectable results

What the evidence actually says

Phase 2 data and the September 2026 maintenance study strengthen the human evidence base, while the subcutaneous Phase 3 trials remain fully enrolled without pivotal results yet. After 21 weeks of weekly dosing, mean weight loss in the maintenance study ranged from about 16% to 19%; participants transitioned to every-other-week dosing maintained up to 97% of that loss and monthly regimens up to 90% over the following 12 weeks. These sponsor-reported exploratory maintenance findings do not establish long-term equivalence to weekly dosing.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Randomised Phase 2 trials in obesity for both subcutaneous and oral formulations.
  • Phase 3 VANQUISH 1 and VANQUISH 2 reported as fully enrolled by July 2026; results not yet reported.
  • Randomised maintenance study reported 22 September 2026: after 21 weeks of weekly induction dosing, every-other-week regimens maintained up to 97% and monthly regimens up to 90% of mean weight loss over a 12-week maintenance period.

Preclinical evidence

  • Dual incretin receptor pharmacology in preclinical models.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite.
  • GIP receptor agonism adds metabolic effects still being characterised.

Safety and unknowns

  • Class-typical gastrointestinal effects reported in mid-stage trials.
  • Long-term safety is unknown.

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

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, in any formulation. The subcutaneous VANQUISH 1 and VANQUISH 2 Phase 3 trials were reported as fully enrolled by July 2026, and initiation of an oral Phase 3 programme was expected in the fourth quarter 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?

  • Phase 3 topline and peer-reviewed publication.
  • A regulatory filing.

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
2026-10-01
Recently reviewed · 20 days ago
Linked curated sources
2
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Sponsor / official: 2

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 2026-10-01.