Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Signal-biased dual GIP / GLP-1 receptor agonist
Enicepatide, formerly CT-388, is a once-weekly dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist. A 48-week sponsor-reported Phase 2 trial showed substantial weight loss, but full peer-reviewed Phase 2 reporting and Phase 3 outcomes remain pending.
60-Second Overview
Start with what it is, why it matters, what research has shown, and what remains unknown. The science follows after the orientation.
Start here. These four answers explain why the compound matters before the page introduces the deeper science.
Enicepatide, formerly called CT-388, is an investigational medicine designed to influence two gut-hormone signals involved in appetite and blood-sugar regulation.
Researchers want to know whether its particular two-signal design can produce durable weight and metabolic changes with a manageable safety profile. A large late-stage program is now testing that question beyond short early studies.
A peer-reviewed early human trial found short-term weight and glucose signals. A larger 48-week trial also produced a substantial sponsor-reported weight signal, but its complete results have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed paper.
Phase 3 outcomes, long-term safety, cardiovascular effects, maintenance after treatment ends, and direct comparisons remain unknown. Enicepatide is not approved, and clinical-trial material does not validate independently sourced products.
The research depth, routes, studies, and primary sources below explain how Relay knows—and where the evidence stops.
Research context
Published research has investigated this compound using the following study designs.
These records explain what researchers did. They are not instructions, recommendations, or a transferable protocol.
Peer-reviewed early research examined CT-388 in adults with overweight or obesity to characterize short-term safety, pharmacology, and initial metabolic signals.
Reported study administration—not a recommendation.
Research at a glance
Evidence depth, confidence, and route context explain how Relay knows—not what anyone should do.
Phase 1, Phase 2, and registered Phase 3 research.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
The largest result is a sponsor topline, not yet full peer-reviewed Phase 2 reporting.
Confidence describes how reliable and consistent the conclusions are. It can be high for one outcome and low for another.
The strongest evidence type shows what the best-supported conclusions are actually based on.
Human findings are more directly relevant than animal or laboratory results, but they still apply only to the populations and outcomes studied.
Route-specific record
These are exposures used in cited research for a specific route and population—not an instruction for an individual.
Half-life describes how long it takes the measured amount in the body to fall by half. It is not a dosing recommendation.
Evidence can change by administration method. Findings from one route should not automatically be applied to another.
Evidence boundary: The study was early phase and lasted no more than four weeks. It cannot establish durable weight outcomes, uncommon harms, an approved product standard, or equivalence to independently sourced material. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
Detailed evidence
Start with the strongest supported conclusion and its main uncertainty. Claim-level records below show how the evidence changes by question, population, route, formulation, and study design.
Peer-reviewed Phase 1 evidence plus a randomized 469-participant Phase 2 obesity trial reported by the sponsor at 48 weeks.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Independent full Phase 2 publication, Phase 3 durability and rare-event safety, cardiovascular outcomes, maintenance after discontinuation, and comparative performance.
Keeping the main uncertainty visible prevents an early or promising finding from looking more settled than it is.
Questions people bring to the evidence
Research questions—not promises of benefit.
The highest arm was reported at 22.5% placebo-adjusted loss under an efficacy estimand.
Short-term tolerability does not establish long-term or rare-event safety.
Enrollment and trial design are not evidence of benefit.
Clinical trial formulations do not validate research-market material.
Its receptor class is similar to other dual incretins, but it is a distinct molecule with its own evidence and safety record.
Mechanisms
Enicepatide is a long-acting, signaling-biased dual agonist at GIPR and GLP-1R. A peer-reviewed first-in-human study established early pharmacology and short-term weight and glycemic signals. Roche subsequently reported a 469-participant, 48-week Phase 2 obesity trial with placebo-adjusted mean weight loss of 22.5% under an efficacy estimand at the highest 24 mg arm and 18.3% under the treatment-regimen estimand. Those figures are sponsor toplines rather than a complete peer-reviewed pivotal record. Gastrointestinal adverse events were common and mostly mild or moderate; discontinuation due to adverse events was higher than placebo. Registered Phase 3 Enith trials are designed to test longer-term efficacy and safety.
A plausible mechanism can explain why a study was attempted. It does not prove that the compound improves a human outcome.
Studies
Study arms are reported for transparency. They describe what researchers did in a defined record and do not transfer across identities, routes, formulations, or populations.
A later trial phase can ask a more mature question, but it does not guarantee a positive result, regulatory approval, or relevance outside the studied population.
Randomized first-in-human single- and multiple-ascending-dose study
Adults with overweight or obesity
Early cohorts showed dose-related weight reduction and target engagement.
Study administration: Once-weekly subcutaneous CT-388 or placebo
Limitations: Small early-phase cohorts and short exposure cannot establish durable efficacy or uncommon harms.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pivotal trial
Adults with obesity or overweight
Enith-1 is intended to test the candidate in a larger, longer pivotal program.
Study administration: Once-weekly enicepatide or placebo
Limitations: No Phase 3 results were available at the evidence cutoff.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging trial
Adults with obesity
The sponsor reported placebo-adjusted mean weight loss up to 22.5% under an efficacy estimand and 18.3% under a treatment-regimen estimand.
Study administration: Once-weekly enicepatide dose groups or placebo
Limitations: Sponsor topline reporting is not equivalent to a complete peer-reviewed publication; estimands and attrition matter.
Official registry record for the completed obesity trial
Adults with obesity
The registry confirms the design and enrolled population behind the sponsor topline.
Study administration: Weekly subcutaneous CT-388 or placebo
Limitations: A registry record does not independently validate reported outcomes.
Safety snapshot
Gastrointestinal adverse events were common and generally mild or moderate in the Phase 2 topline.
Other human evidenceSponsor summaries provide less detail than a full publication.
Open sourceGastrointestinal adverse events were common and generally mild or moderate in the Phase 2 topline.
Other human evidenceThe stated frequency is source-, product-, population-, route-, dose-, comparator-, and duration-specific; it is not a universal incidence estimate.
Open sourceNo source-qualified compound-specific warning or contraindication is encoded in the current record.
Evidence boundaryInvestigational — Phase 2 obesity results; Phase 3 registered Independent full Phase 2 publication, Phase 3 durability and rare-event safety, cardiovascular outcomes, maintenance after discontinuation, and comparative performance.
The current record does not identify a reliable compound-specific pattern of events that caused study discontinuation.
Evidence boundaryThis is an evidence gap, not proof that discontinuations did not occur.
No compound-specific patient-facing urgent-action threshold is established in the current Relay record.
Evidence boundaryRelay does not infer emergency guidance from study discontinuations, mechanism, or incomplete adverse-event reporting.
Community
Built by the community
Every structured report adds useful context about research setup, outcomes, and unwanted effects as the community dataset grows.
Publicly anonymous by default. Your account keeps reports editable and helps reduce duplicate submissions.Sources
2026-01-27
2026-01-01 · NCT07351045
2025-12-01 · PMID 41319798 · NCT04838405
2024-07-29 · NCT06525935