Why compare them?
These records are compared to clarify how their mechanisms, research areas, and evidence maturity differ.
Simple first. Deeper when you want it.
Understand the differences that matter.
See the biggest similarities, differences, strengths, limitations, and unanswered questions first—then open the evidence behind them.
Compound comparison
IGF-1 LR3 vs. Cagrilintide
Understand the meaningful overlap, differences, evidence, and unknowns—then go deeper only when you want to.
60-Second Summary
The answer first
Current evidenceComparable evidence base
No direct head-to-head study is represented. This comparison uses separate evidence records that may differ in population, duration, route, dose, and endpoint.
✓ Shared
Shared Similarities
- Both are included in the Relay research library, but their current records answer substantially different questions.
⇄ Different
Biggest Difference
IGF-1 LR3 is distinguished by a modified IGF-1 analogue engineered for low binding-protein affinity. Its direct evidence is laboratory and animal—not the approved human record for native recombinant IGF-1; Cagrilintide is distinguished by long-acting amylin analogue with amylin- and calcitonin-receptor activity; it is not a GLP-1 receptor agonist and is not the same evidence record as CagriSema.
? Unknown
Biggest Unknown
No direct head-to-head study establishes how these compounds compare under the same population, dose, duration, and endpoints.
Key Takeaways
IGF-1 LR3 is distinguished in the current record by a modified IGF-1 analogue engineered for low binding-protein affinity. Its direct evidence is laboratory and animal—not the approved human record for native recombinant IGF-1. Cagrilintide is distinguished by long-acting amylin analogue with amylin- and calcitonin-receptor activity; it is not a GLP-1 receptor agonist and is not the same evidence record as CagriSema. Neither is objectively “better”; the useful question is which evidence record addresses the research question being asked.
Research matrix
Which question has stronger current support?
Research questionStronger current supportExplanation
Human evidenceCagrilintide
IGF-1 LR3: Preclinical evidence. Cagrilintide: Developing human evidence.
Regulatory historyComparable
IGF-1 LR3: Not FDA approved — preclinical evidence only. Cagrilintide: Investigational — Phase 3.
Mechanistic breadthComparable
More named targets describes mechanistic breadth; it does not establish greater effectiveness.
Direct comparisonUnknown
Separate studies cannot establish comparative superiority.
Deeper when you want it
Explore the evidence and nuance
Best-studied areas and pathway mapSee shared targets, unique pathways, and the research questions attached to each record.
IGF-1 LR3
- Muscle-protein preservation — animal evidence
- Whole-body and organ growth — inconsistent animal evidence
- Glucose lowering — animal risk signal
- Cancer-cell proliferation — laboratory evidence
Cagrilintide
- Weight management
- Appetite and energy intake
- Obesity with type 2 diabetes
- Visceral and ectopic fat
Pathway and research map
Shared foundation and unique questions
Research confidence by questionCompare regulatory, human-evidence, outcome, and administration records side by side.
Question by question
What each evidence base can actually answer
Regulatory statusEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3Not FDA approved
Not FDA approved. A peer-reviewed anti-doping paper states that LR3 and related analogues were never approved for human use and are prohibited in sport.
CagrilintideInvestigational
Investigational. No FDA-approved standalone cagrilintide product, consumer dose, reconstitution method, or official storage procedure.
Evidence depthEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3Preclinical only
Multiple animal, laboratory, and analytical studies; no direct human efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic, or dose-finding study located.
CagrilintidePhase 2 + Phase 3 pending
One published 706-participant Phase 2 monotherapy trial, a 105-participant thorough-QT study, sponsor-reported Phase 3 component-arm data, and two active dedicated Phase 3 RENEW trials without posted results.
Weight outcomesEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3No human evidence
No controlled human weight-loss or body-composition evidence. Animal growth effects were inconsistent and sometimes negative.
CagrilintidePeer-reviewed Phase 2
Phase 2 reported mean reductions of 6.0% to 10.8% across studied cagrilintide arms versus 3.0% placebo at 26 weeks. A sponsor-reported Phase 3 component arm later reported 11.8% versus 2.3% at 68 weeks under an efficacy estimand.
Type 2 diabetesEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3Animal glucose-risk signal
No human diabetes-treatment evidence. Animal studies show stronger and more prolonged glucose lowering than native IGF-I—a risk signal, not a validated therapy.
CagrilintidePhase 3 registered
RENEW 2 is studying standalone cagrilintide in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes; no results were posted by the cutoff.
Obstructive sleep apnoeaEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3No human evidence
No controlled human obstructive-sleep-apnoea evidence was located.
CagrilintideNo dedicated evidence
No dedicated completed controlled human obstructive-sleep-apnoea outcome study was located.
Cardiovascular outcomesEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3No human outcome evidence
No human cardiovascular-outcome evidence was located. General IGF pathway biology cannot substitute for LR3 outcome trials.
CagrilintideQT study only
A 105-participant thorough-QT study found no clinically relevant QTc prolongation at the tested exposure. That narrow result is not a cardiovascular outcomes trial.
Administration and handlingEvidence, not a winner
IGF-1 LR3No validated human protocol
Published LR3 protocols are animal or laboratory exposures. No evidence-based human route, dose, cycle, reconstitution, or monitoring standard was identified.
CagrilintideTrial descriptions only
Published and registered studies describe once-weekly subcutaneous administration under protocol-specific escalation. These are trial descriptions, not approved dosing instructions.
Comparison limitationsUnderstand what this comparison cannot establish before interpreting separate studies.
Comparable evidence base
- No direct head-to-head trial is represented for this pair.
- Separate studies may use different populations, endpoints, durations, doses, routes, and estimands.
- Results should not be interpreted as comparative superiority or individual guidance.
Current unknowns
Questions the evidence cannot answer yet
- Human pharmacokinetics, glucose risk, long-term proliferative and organ effects, feedback suppression, and real-world product identity.
- Whether the dedicated RENEW Phase 3 trials confirm long-term standalone efficacy and safety in people with and without type 2 diabetes.
Community Intelligence
Emerging patterns, clearly separated from evidence
IGF-1 LR3
No community experiences yetBe the first account holder to contribute.
Cagrilintide
No community experiences yetBe the first account holder to contribute.
Community Intelligence summarizes structured, self-reported experiences. It can reveal patterns and useful research questions, but it cannot prove safety, effectiveness, or cause and effect. Published evidence is always shown separately.