Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

VRX-0075

A preclinical single-molecule agonist reported to engage five receptors — GLP-1, GIP, glucagon, amylin and calcitonin — with no human data of any kind.

L2Animal / lab studiesResearch / unapproved supplyPreclinical
How settled this rating is:
very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Subcutaneous injection
Also known as:
referred to online as 'GLP-5' (unofficial community shorthand only)
Last reviewed:
2026-09-20
Jump to section

Evidence passport

VRX-0075

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 2026-09-20
Evidence level
L2Animal / lab studies
Confidence
Very low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Research / unapproved supply
Development status
Preclinical

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence0 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 evidence0 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
Mostly animal and laboratory research
Furthest established stage
Preclinical
Human research maturity
Preclinical. A rodent study reported in an American Diabetes Association 2026 abstract (2839-LB); no Phase 1 trial is established in our curated record
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection

Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells

The supporting research for VRX-0075 is predominantly preclinical (Level 1–2). That is a legitimate starting point for science and a poor basis for personal decisions. Human results are not simply a scaled-up version of mouse results.

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength0 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 strength35 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 strength0 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: Preclinical. A rodent study reported in an American Diabetes Association 2026 abstract (2839-LB); no Phase 1 trial is established in our curated record

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injection

Administration in the curated record is animal dosing in a research setting. Anything sold under this name is unapproved material of unverified identity.

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

    Furthest established stage

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

Preclinical

Preclinical work only. Online discussion of this molecule is far ahead of its evidence base.

Last documented development: 2026 — ADA 2026 scientific sessions abstract 2839-LB

What it is

A single investigational peptide reported to act at five receptors at once: GLP-1, GIP, glucagon, amylin and calcitonin. It is one molecule, not a combination of drugs. The nickname 'GLP-5' circulating online is informal community shorthand for 'five targets' — it is not a receptor, not a drug class and not a name used by regulators or in the scientific literature.

What people claim

  • More powerful than retatrutide
  • The next generation of weight-loss injections
  • 'GLP-5' is a new class of drug
  • Renamed or hidden by a large pharmaceutical company

What the evidence actually says

What people claim: that VRX-0075 beats retatrutide, that it belongs to a new 'GLP-5' class, and that its naming is being manipulated. What the evidence actually says: a conference abstract describes a comparison in rats. Rodent weight change does not predict human weight change, tolerability or safety, and no human has been studied. A disclosed research-support relationship with a pharmaceutical company is ordinary scientific disclosure, not evidence of suppression or secret renaming.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • No human data. No Phase 1 trial for this molecule is established in our curated record, so there is no human efficacy, tolerability or safety evidence to interpret.

Preclinical evidence

  • ADA 2026 abstract 2839-LB reports a long-acting single-molecule agonist at the GLP-1, GIP, glucagon, amylin and calcitonin receptors, with a comparison against retatrutide in a rodent obesity model.
  • The retatrutide comparison in that abstract is animal-to-animal only. A conference abstract is a short summary that has not been through full peer review.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

Quintuple agonistOne molecule acting at five named receptors.

Receptor targets: GLP-1 receptor, GIP receptor, Glucagon receptor, Amylin receptor, Calcitonin receptor

Mechanism class counts the receptors the pharmacology engages and says whether one molecule or several drugs do it. More targets is not the same as more effective, and none of these labels is a receptor name — there is no GLP-3, GLP-4 or GLP-5 receptor.

  • GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonism are the incretin pathways used by approved medicines in this space.
  • Glucagon receptor agonism is intended to add energy expenditure effects, as in triple agonists such as retatrutide.
  • Amylin and calcitonin receptor activity target satiety signalling through a separate pathway from the incretins.
  • Engaging five receptors adds pharmacological complexity in both directions: more potential mechanisms of benefit and more potential mechanisms of harm. Neither is established in people.

Safety and unknowns

  • No human safety data exist for this molecule.
  • Broader receptor coverage is not inherently safer or more tolerable; it widens the range of effects that would have to be characterised in Phase 1.
  • Material sold online under this name is unapproved, unverified and outside any trial or quality system.

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

Not established in either direction. No human data exist, so no cancer signal can be claimed or excluded.

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 and not in human trials in our curated record. Our record establishes a conference abstract describing animal work; it does not establish an IND, a registered trial or any regulatory review.

Evidence grade

L2Animal / lab studiesVery low confidence in rating

Documented compound-specific animal or laboratory outcome findings, without qualifying human evidence for the assessed benefit.

What would change our rating?

  • A registered Phase 1 trial in humans.
  • Peer-reviewed publication of the preclinical package rather than an abstract alone.
  • Any reported human pharmacokinetic, tolerability or safety data.

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
2026-09-20
Recently reviewed · 26 days ago
Linked curated sources
1
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Peer-reviewed: 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.

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.

  1. Added a profile for VRX-0075, a single-molecule agonist reported at the GLP-1, GIP, glucagon, amylin and calcitonin receptors in ADA 2026 abstract 2839-LB, including a comparison against retatrutide in a rodent obesity model.

    Change 1 of 1
    L2Animal / lab studies
    Added because online discussion, including the informal 'GLP-5' nickname, is far ahead of the evidence. The retatrutide comparison is rat-to-rat; there is no human efficacy or safety data. 'GLP-5' is community shorthand for five targets, not a receptor or drug class, and a disclosed research-support relationship is not evidence of suppression. Reviewed 20 September 2026.

Related claims we’ve checked — in full

Claim verdict

Experimental pipeline

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“VRX-0075 is more powerful than retatrutide in humans.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported as worded — the only comparison is in rats.

Why this verdict

  • The comparison people are quoting comes from a 2026 conference abstract describing a rodent obesity model, not a human study.
  • No human has been given VRX-0075 in our curated record, so there is no human efficacy, tolerability or safety data to compare with retatrutide's Phase 3 results.
  • Animal weight change routinely fails to predict human weight change, dosing, or tolerability. Many compounds that outperformed a comparator in rodents did not do so in people.
  • Unsupported here means the evidence needed does not exist yet — not that the molecule has been shown to be worse.

Claim verdict

Experimental pipeline

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“VRX-0075 is GLP-5.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading terminology — 'GLP-5' is informal shorthand, not a receptor or a drug class.

Why this verdict

  • There is no GLP-5 receptor. GLP-1 and GLP-2 are named peptides with named receptors; 'GLP-3', 'GLP-4' and 'GLP-5' do not exist in receptor pharmacology.
  • Online, 'GLP-5' is community shorthand for 'five targets'. VRX-0075 is reported to engage the GLP-1, GIP, glucagon, amylin and calcitonin receptors — that is five receptors, not a fifth GLP molecule.
  • Counting targets is not a measure of strength or benefit. More receptor activity also means more ways to cause unwanted effects, none of which has been characterised in people.
  • We list the actual receptor targets on each profile for this reason, and never use GLP-3/4/5 style labels as scientific classification.

Claim verdict

Experimental pipeline

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“VRX-0075 has a secret alias because Eli Lilly is suppressing it.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported — a research-support disclosure is not evidence of suppression or renaming.

Why this verdict

  • Disclosing that a company provided research support is standard scientific practice and is required by journals and conferences. It is the opposite of concealment.
  • The informal 'GLP-5' nickname originated in online discussion, not in a corporate renaming exercise.
  • Nothing in our curated record documents suppression, withdrawal or renaming of this molecule by any company.
  • The real limitation is much simpler and less dramatic: preclinical work, no human trial, and therefore nothing established about people.