Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Investigational amylin/GLP-1-GIP peptide combination
This profile covers the specific investigational pairing of the amylin analog petrelintide with CT-388, also known as enicepatide.
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.
Petrelintide plus CT-388 is a specific investigational pairing of an amylin-like fullness signal with enicepatide's two gut-hormone signals.
Researchers want to know whether combining these distinct appetite and metabolic pathways changes weight more than either component alone, and whether overlapping effects alter tolerability or body composition.
A Phase 2 trial directly registers the combination in adults with obesity. No outcome results were posted at Relay's evidence cutoff, so separate petrelintide and CT-388 findings cannot show what the complete pairing does.
Efficacy, added benefit, gastrointestinal effects, blood-sugar changes, rare harms, lean-mass effects, interactions, and long-term safety all remain directly unresolved. A registered combination does not establish an approved or validated preparation.
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.
An official Phase 2 registry directly identifies the petrelintide and CT-388 combination in adults with obesity, but no outcome results were available at Relay's evidence cutoff.
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.
Direct registered-combination evidence with no outcome results; component programs cannot substitute for combination findings.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
Whether the complete combination improves outcomes beyond either component and how overlapping appetite, gastrointestinal, metabolic, and body-composition effects change safety.
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: Registration confirms that the combination is being studied; it does not establish benefit, safety, or compatibility. Component studies cannot supply a combination schedule, interaction conclusion, or preparation standard. 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.
The ZYNERGY Phase 2 trial directly registers the combination, but no results were posted at Relay’s evidence cutoff.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Whether the complete combination improves outcomes beyond either component and how overlapping appetite, gastrointestinal, metabolic, and body-composition effects change safety.
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.
This is the strongest human-evidence boundary in the current record.
Mechanistic findings explain biological plausibility; they do not establish a human outcome.
Relay keeps this uncertainty visible rather than converting it into a prediction.
The safety snapshot reflects the studied record and its limitations.
Regulatory and identity status determine how the evidence should be interpreted.
Mechanisms
A registered Phase 2 study directly evaluates the pairing, making the relationship more than conceptual. Until results are reported, efficacy and safety conclusions still come only from separate component programs and cannot establish what the combination does.
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.
Registered interventional trial
Adults with obesity
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
No plain-English finding recorded.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Registered study; no posted results were represented at the evidence cutoff.
Registered interventional trial
Adults with overweight or obesity
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
No plain-English finding recorded.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Registered study; no posted results were represented at the evidence cutoff.
Registered interventional trial
Adults with overweight or obesity
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
No plain-English finding recorded.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Registered study; no posted results were represented at the evidence cutoff.
Safety snapshot
A registered Phase 2 study directly evaluates the pairing, making the relationship more than conceptual. Until results are reported, efficacy and safety conclusions still come only from separate component programs and cannot establish what the combination does.
Registered study — no resultsMechanism, biomarker change, and clinical benefit are different evidence questions.
Open sourceThe current record does not support a reliable common-versus-uncommon frequency split.
Evidence boundaryUnder-detected or under-reported events must not be described as rare.
No source-qualified compound-specific warning or contraindication is encoded in the current record.
Evidence boundaryInvestigational fixed research combination; a direct combination trial is registered, with no posted outcome results at the cutoff. Whether the complete combination improves outcomes beyond either component and how overlapping appetite, gastrointestinal, metabolic, and body-composition effects change safety.
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
NCT07589686
NCT06054854
NCT06451653