Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

GLP-1s & incretins · Metabolic & endocrine

Zenagamtide

An investigational single-molecule GLP-1 and amylin receptor co-agonist now in Phase 3 obesity trials.

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:
amycretin, GLP-1/amylin co-agonist, unimolecular co-agonist
Last reviewed:
2026-09-06
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Zenagamtide

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 evidence45 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 evidence25 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 2 data reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 programme started 2026
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injectionOral

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength45 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 strength70 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 data reported by the sponsor; Phase 3 programme started 2026

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injectionOral

Both subcutaneous and oral formulations have been studied. Results from one formulation do not transfer to the other, and dose-finding differs between them.

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. Phase 3 obesity trials started in early 2026; the diabetes Phase 3 programme was described as planned for the second half of 2026.

Last documented development: 2026 — Phase 3 obesity programme under way

What it is

A single engineered peptide designed to activate both the GLP-1 receptor and the amylin pathway, combining two separate satiety mechanisms in one molecule instead of two injections.

What people claim

  • Larger weight loss than GLP-1 therapy alone
  • Improved blood glucose control
  • Two satiety pathways in one molecule

What the evidence actually says

Sponsor-reported Phase 2 results in type 2 diabetes described weight reduction of up to roughly 14.6% and substantial HbA1c reduction at 36 weeks with the subcutaneous formulation. That is company topline reporting from a mid-stage trial, not settled peer-reviewed evidence, and the Phase 3 programme that would test it properly has only just begun. Promising, unfinished.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Sponsor-reported Phase 2 subcutaneous data in type 2 diabetes: up to about 14.6% weight loss and strong HbA1c reduction at 36 weeks.
  • Phase 3 obesity programme (AMAZE) initiated in Q1 2026; Phase 3 type 2 diabetes programme (AMBITION) described as planned for H2 2026.

Preclinical evidence

  • Amylin and GLP-1 co-agonist pharmacology underpinning the single-molecule design.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite and improves glucose-dependent insulin release.
  • Amylin-pathway signalling in the hindbrain reduces meal size through a separate route.

Safety and unknowns

  • Gastrointestinal effects consistent with incretin and amylin pharmacology have been reported in trials.
  • No long-term safety dataset exists — the Phase 3 programme is what will generate one.

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 precautionary considerations from incretin pharmacology 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. Formerly known as amycretin. The obesity Phase 3 programme (AMAZE) began in the first quarter of 2026 and a type 2 diabetes Phase 3 programme (AMBITION) is planned for the second half of 2026. Nothing sold under either name is a licensed medicine.

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 publication of the Phase 2 results in full.
  • Completed Phase 3 readouts with safety datasets.

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
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 2026-09-06.