Amycretin (amycretin) is an experimental modified peptide developed to act on several receptor pathways related to appetite regulation and glucose metabolism. In newer scientific publications and development documentation, this same substance is also referred to as zenagamtide (zenagamtide). Both names refer to the same research candidate, therefore a review limited solely to the name „amycretin” could overlook important, more recent data. As of October 2026, results from human clinical trials have been published, animal experiments have been conducted, and clinical Phase 3 development has begun. Therefore, amycretin should not be presented as a substance whose documentation is limited solely to the manufacturer’s preliminary statements. 1 2
Reliable analysis of the evidence requires separating the molecular identity from the properties of the specific formulation, indicating the results actually measured in the individual studies, and presenting the remaining uncertainties.
The results obtained for the clinically tested controlled product do not confirm the equivalence of the powder, capsule or tablet offered by an independent supplier.
What is amy cretin? Names, synonyms, and identity of the substance
The nomenclature changed as the research program evolved.
From the perspective of literature review, this creates a practical risk: searching exclusively for the original name may overlook newer clinical publications, whereas treating both names as different compounds may lead to double counting the same development program.
The registration numbers of clinical trials and information about the participant populations help to avoid both errors.
The names amycretin and zenagamtide, and the development code NNC0487-0111 refer to the same experimental active substance.
Novo Nordisk develops oral and subcutaneous formulations. The names identify the active substance, but do not indicate that all formulations have identical composition, systemic exposure or administration requirements. 3 2
Distinguishing between the active substance and the finished formulation is particularly important here.
The oral peptide product must enable the molecule to be delivered through the gastrointestinal tract, whereas the subcutaneous formulation bypasses this absorption barrier.
The results obtained for these two routes cannot be transferred by simply calculating the quantities of the substance.
The search for studies should include both the name and the development code, and then combine the publications with the study identifiers.
Two Phase 2 publications from 2026 regarding oral and subcutaneous zenegastatin are associated with the registration of NCT06542874.
They represent different cohorts related to the route of administration within a registered program, rather than two completely independent development programs. 1 4
In the official sources, the preparation phase of this review refers to zenagamtyd as an experimental substance.
Registration of a clinical trial or an advanced stage of development are not equivalent to permission to market a medicinal product.
The registration documentation includes Phase 3 studies conducting recruitment, but the recruitment process itself does not mean that results regarding efficacy or safety are already available. 2 5
How is an amy ketone classified? Peptide, protein, mixture, or other substance?
The chemical and pharmacological classification answers different questions.
The term amy ketone refers to its molecular structure, while the description of receptor antagonism refers to the biological signals it can trigger.
None of these descriptions means that the substance has been approved for the treatment of a specific disease.
Chemically, amy ketone is a modified peptide designed as a single molecular unit that exhibits activity against more than one receptor system.
The term „unicompartmental” means that the elements responsible for receptor activity are combined in a single molecule.
It is not a mixture of two separately delivered drugs that act on GLP-1 and amylin. 3
Pharmacologically, the substance is often described as an agonist of the GLP-1 and amylin receptors.
Primary studies also document activity against the calcitonin receptor.
This is important because the amylin receptor complexes include the calcitonin receptor along with proteins that modify the receptor activity.
The abbreviated name of the pharmacological category therefore does not include all the results of receptor tests. 3
The classification cannot replace scientific evidence.
Two compounds can affect similar receptors, but they differ in their potency, exposure, tolerance, and clinical effects.
Studies of semaglutide, cangrelor, or combinations of separate drugs provide useful context, but are not direct results of amy ketone studies.
Similarly, the term „peptide” does not imply natural origin or automatic superiority in terms of safety.
The designed peptide can exhibit strong and long-lasting biological activity.
The evaluation depends on the specific molecule, formulation, population, and measured results.
The structure and composition of amy cortex – what has been confirmed?
The production of Amycaine is important because it is not simply an unmodified natural hormone or a physical mixture of two known drugs.
Compounds and chemical bases are part of the structure of the active substance.
They can influence the molecule's interaction with biological targets and its behavior in the body.
A preclinical publication from 2025 describes amy cretine as a peptide containing 68 amino acid residues, with an average molecular mass of approximately 7.85 kDa.
Its design combines regions exhibiting agonist activity towards GLP-1 and amylin receptors via a peptide linker.
The molecule also contains a side chain based on C18 diacid, which supports reversible binding to albumin, an amidated C-terminus, and an amino acid modification designed to enhance resistance to enzymatic degradation.
These characteristics distinguish the modified molecule from the unchanged endogenous hormones. 3
Full characterization of an identity requires more than determining the number of amino acid residues.
The importance is given to the chemical bonding, the place of attachment of the side chain, the end groups, the stereochemistry and the profile of impurities.
The mere consistency of the molecular mass does not prove the correctness of all the elements of the structure.
The molecular structure and formulation also answer other questions.
Structural characterization identifies the active substance.
The formulation characteristics, however, include the other components, stability, release, absorption, and the properties of the substance delivery.
The tablets used in the clinical trial cannot be reproduced simply by placing nominally the same amount of peptide in a capsule.
For this reason, an online offer that uses the correct research title does not confirm that its content corresponds to the material used in the studies.
Establishing equivalence would require a reliable analytical comparison and the ability to trace the manufacturing process.
This review did not confirm such equivalence for any product originating from an independent supplier.
Scientific studies on amycreta – clinical, animal and laboratory evidence
Studies in humans should be analyzed taking into account the route of administration, the population, the phase, the duration, and the statistical methods.
The oral and subcutaneous research programs are linked by a common active substance, but each assesses a specific form under different conditions.
Providing the percentage value of the change in body weight without this information can lead to a misinterpretation.
Early studies of oral amycretin in humans
The first oral administration program of amoxicillin in humans should be considered as a collection of several parts of the study, rather than a uniform treatment period for all participants.
Differences in the time of exposure and the method of gradual dose increase affect the possibility of interpreting tolerance and changes in body weight.
Demonstrating the possibility of oral delivery of the substance at an early stage is not equivalent to a confirmed comparison with the subcutaneous formulation.
The first human study, published in 2025, involved 144 adults in several parts of the project.
Only 60 people participated in the longer, 12-week part, which involved gradually increasing the dose.
Therefore, the claim that all 144 people received the substance for 12 weeks would be inconsistent with the design of the study.
The main objective was to assess safety and tolerability, complemented by pharmacokinetic analyses and exploratory pharmacodynamic measurements.
Gastrointestinal events occurred frequently, and the reported events occurring during treatment were mild or moderate in severity in this study. 6
An early-phase study can confirm that the formulation leads to measurable exposure, and allows the identification of frequent short-term adverse events.
However, it is not designed to resolve issues related to rare risks, the results of long-term treatment, or superiority over approved drugs.
Early studies of subcutaneous amyckretin in humans
The development of the subcutaneous formulation involves a different method of delivering the substance than oral studies.
The results help assess clinical activity in controlled subcutaneous study conditions.
The estimated response of a particular cohort does not, however, determine the results that can be expected for all patients or for future formulations.
In a separate phase 1b/2a study, 125 participants were randomly assigned, including 101 to the amy ketone group and 24 to the placebo group.
In individual parts of the study, the treatment lasted a maximum of 36 weeks.
In one of the dose-escalation cohorts, the estimated mean change in body weight was −24.3%, compared with −1.1% in the placebo group at 36 weeks.
This was a result for a specific cohort, not a predicted result for each participant or formulation. 7
Investigators reported a significant number of people who withdrew from the study, including cases of discontinuation unrelated to adverse events occurring during treatment.
This increases the importance of the way in which missing observations are handled.
The results justify further research, but the sample size, the one-center nature of the project, and the selected population limit the ability to predict the effects in a broad way.
Phase 2 research from 2026 on type 2 diabetes
Two publications on different routes of administration are particularly valuable because they describe the results in adults with type 2 diabetes.
They therefore do not rely solely on transferring data regarding weight reduction from another population.
The results still require interpretation, taking into account the research groups, the way in which missing data are handled, and the accepted estimate of effectiveness.
Oral Zenagamtyd – Phase 2 study
The oral route study included 186 adults with type 2 diabetes who were randomly assigned to study groups.
After 36 weeks, the estimated reduction in HbA1c in the groups receiving the active substance was approximately 0.9–1.4 percentage points compared to baseline values.
In some active groups, adverse events from the gastrointestinal tract occurred more frequently than in the placebo group.
Serious adverse events were reported in seven participants in the active groups.
The term „serious” refers to the classification of the event and does not automatically mean that it was caused by the substance under investigation. 1
Subcutaneous Zenagamtyd – Phase 2 study
The subcutaneous route publication included 262 randomly assigned participants.
The estimated reduction in HbA1c after 36 weeks was approximately 0.9–1.7 percentage points in the active groups.
Serious adverse events were reported in 21 of the 261 participants who received the intervention or placebo.
The main efficacy analysis used observations from the period when the substance under study was being taken, without the use of additional rescue treatment.
This analysis corresponds to a specific treatment scenario and should not be presented as the result of all participants without explanation, regardless of the discontinuation of therapy. 4
These studies provide direct clinical evidence regarding the effect on glycemic parameters in a selected population of people with diabetes.
However, they do not confirm the prevention of cardiovascular events, long-term remission, or identical effects in people without diabetes.
Amycrite research and kidney function
Pharmacokinetic studies conducted in individuals with varying levels of renal function allow an assessment of whether exposure to the substance changes under the conditions analyzed.
However, it is not designed to confirm improvement in kidney function, prevent kidney disease, or to ensure safety for long-term use in all subgroups.
A 2026 study evaluated the pharmacokinetics after a single dose in 42 adults with varying degrees of renal function, including those with end-stage renal disease.
In the conditions of this study, no clinically significant effect of renal dysfunction on the exposure to the substance was observed.
However, a short project involving a single administration does not allow us to determine the safety of long-term treatment in all people with kidney disease.
It also does not prove that Amy Kretyna prevents kidney failure. 8
Laboratory studies and experiments on animals
Preclinical studies are important for understanding the mechanisms and selecting a candidate for further development.
However, differences between modified receptor systems, rodents, and humans can influence how a given biological signal translates into a clinical outcome.
Results regarding the liver or insulin-related parameters in animals should be presented with a clear indication of the species and model.
Receptor tests and experiments on rodents analyze biological activity, food intake, body weight, sensitivity to insulin, and liver-related parameters.
Their role is to explain the biological rationale and formulate clinical questions.
The results of an animal study cannot replace the final endpoint evaluated in humans.
The benefits observed in experimental models of liver steatosis should not be presented as a confirmed indication for the treatment of liver diseases in humans. 3
Ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials
The registration entries constitute updated information about planned or ongoing studies.
Recruitment and the target number of participants do not confirm the effectiveness of the intervention.
Future results may also differ from the results of smaller or shorter studies.
Current registrations include Phase 3 studies, including a comparative study with semaglutide, for which recruitment is underway.
This documentation confirms the plan and status of the study, but does not yet provide comparative results.
It will be important to complete analyses that include previously defined endpoints, the course of participants' participation, reporting of adverse events, and appropriate long-term follow-up. 5
The mechanisms of action of amycretin studied scientifically
The design based on two pathways combines the activity associated with GLP-1 signaling and the amylin receptor system in a single modified molecule.
This is a pharmacological strategy, not evidence that each pathway is equally responsible for the observed clinical effects.
Receptor experiments and randomized clinical trials provide complementary but irreplacable types of evidence.
GLP-1 signaling and glucose regulation
One of the elements of the action concept is the use of signaling related to GLP-1.
This pathway is involved in the regulation of insulin response dependent on glucose concentration and in appetite control.
Clinical studies evaluated glycemic parameters and body weight among other things, but the results of these measurements do not allow one to independently determine the role of each receptor in the response.
Amylin signaling and the feeling of satiety
The second element is the amylin receptor system, which is associated with the regulation of satiety during meals.
The premise of the development program is to combine complementary metabolic signals into a single molecule.
The studies are intended to determine whether such a combination leads to useful clinical effects with an acceptable safety profile. 6 4
Is it possible to determine the contribution of each receptor to the change in body weight?
Not based on the measurement of body weight alone.
The receptor experiment can confirm activity under controlled conditions.
The measurement of body mass, on the other hand, indicates a change in the total mass of the organism.
None of these results alone determines which portion of the response results from the action of a specific receptor, reduced food intake, changes in stomach emptying, or other mechanisms.
Similarly, weight loss should not be automatically considered selective fat reduction or muscle preservation.
Such claims require appropriate measurements of body composition, functional results, and a clearly defined analysis.
The percentage value on the body weight chart does not confirm all of these effects simultaneously.
To demonstrate that the combination of mechanisms is more effective than each of them separately, researchers need appropriate comparative studies.
The presence of two pharmacological activities justifies conducting studies, but does not prove additional clinical benefit under all conditions.
Limitations of scientific evidence regarding amycreta
Even if the study shows statistically or clinically significant changes in body weight or glycemic parameters, many questions remain unanswered.
They concern the durability of the effect, the consequences of discontinuing treatment, the frequency of rare adverse events, and the possibility of drawing conclusions about people excluded from the original studies.
Limited ability to generalize results
Randomized human studies provide more direct information than pre-clinical observations alone.
However, they do not eliminate all uncertainties.
The criteria for the participants’ qualifications, the limited duration, the various routes of administration and the populations, the missing observations, and the involvement of the sponsor all have significance.
The funding or conducting of research by the manufacturer does not invalidate the results, but transparent reporting and independent evaluation remain important.
Difficulties in comparing different studies
Comparing the results from separate studies is particularly uncertain.
The twelve-week oral study, the 36-week subcutaneous study with gradual dose increase, and the study in the population of people with diabetes do not provide substitute estimates.
Differences in baseline body weight, concomitant treatment, incidence of diabetes, adherence to the protocol, and statistical estimators used can alter the results even before taking molecular differences into account.
Uncertainty regarding long-term safety
A reliable summary should separate the evidence on short-term activity from questions regarding the durability of the effect, discontinuation of treatment, rare risks, and the prevention of complications of the diseases.
These issues require separate studies.
Achieving Phase 3 means progress in the clinical evaluation process, not the completion of the collection of evidence.
Frequently asked questions about Amy Kretyna (zenagamtyd)
1. Does the term "amy kretyna" mean a specific substance?
Yes. The research name identifies one designed active molecule. The substance is also referred to as zenagamtyd, however the tablets and injection preparations under study contain ingredients characteristic of the individual formulations. Molecular identity therefore does not imply equivalence of all product forms. 3 2 Name consistency is only the first step in comparing evidence. The route of administration, excipients, the manufacturing process, and the ability to trace analytical documentation still determine whether the preparations can be considered comparable.
2. What do the available studies on amycreatin confirm?
They confirm measurable pharmacological activity and clinical effects in the populations studied. Published studies assess body weight, glycemic control, exposure to the substance, and adverse events, and larger studies are still ongoing. The results justify further development, but they do not resolve all questions regarding long-term benefits and safety. 7 1 During interpretation, it is necessary to distinguish the observed endpoint from the confirmed long-term clinical benefit.
3. Are amycretin and zenagamtide two different drugs?
No. Newer development documents use the name zenagamtide for a substance previously referred to as amycretin. Searching for both names increases the completeness of the literature review. Changing the name should not lead to double counting of the same participants or studies, therefore the registry identifiers remain valid. 2 Common developmental identity does not mean independent confirmation by two unrelated research programs.
4. Is Amy the stupid one a mixture of two drugs?
No. The regions responsible for receptor activity are linked in a single peptide molecule. This is different from administering two separate drugs simultaneously. Similarity of biological targets does not confirm equivalent exposure or identical results, therefore evidence regarding combination therapy cannot automatically confirm the action of amy ketone. 3 One modified molecule and two separately administered drugs can have different exposure profiles, even if their target pathways partially overlap.
5. Does the term „peptide” mean that amy ketone is a natural substance?
No. The term „peptide” describes a molecular organization, not a natural origin. Compounds designed in the laboratory can contain chemical modifications and significantly differ from endogenous hormones. Natural origin would also not be sufficient to confirm safety. Direct evidence regarding the specific substance and formulation is needed. Molecular modifications can alter the potency, duration of action, and biological activity, therefore real data from research studies is more important than the term „natural.”.
6. Are oral and subcutaneous Amycreta interchangeable?
No. The method of administration and the exposure should be evaluated separately. Both routes of administration were studied, but the amount administered orally cannot be converted into the amount administered subcutaneously using a simple ratio. The evidence relates to a specific formulation studied clinically, and not solely to the common name of the active substance. 1 4 The very fact of testing both routes does not justify directly converting quantities or replacing one product with another.
7. Is the reported weight reduction of 24% guaranteed?
No. The study’s estimate describes a specific cohort and the way the analysis is conducted. Individual responses are varied, and the duration of the study, discontinuance of participation, and eligibility criteria influence interpretation. The early subcutaneous test result should be presented in its actual context, not as a universal expectation. 7 It is also important to take into account the people who withdrew from the study, and the statistical approach to incomplete observations.
8. Does lowering HbA1c indicate a reduction in the number of heart attacks?
No. HbA1c is a glycemic control parameter, not a direct measure of cardiovascular events. A beneficial change may support the assessment of metabolic efficacy, but the claim of a reduction in the number of heart attacks requires adequate evidence regarding clinical outcomes. Differentiation remains necessary even when the biological rationale is convincing. Cardiovascular events must be studied directly, because the glucose-related biomarker alone does not confirm their frequency.
9. Can weight reduction be directly compared with the results of another drug?
No. Percentages derived from separate studies are not a reliable direct comparison. The population, the length of observation, concomitant treatment, protocol adherence, and analysis methods should be taken into account. Well-designed studies that directly compare interventions provide stronger evidence than aggregating independent percentage values. Randomized comparisons are needed to separate real differences between substances from differences resulting from study designs.
10. Does achieving Phase 3 mean that Amycretin has been approved?
No. Phase 3 is the stage of clinical trials. The study conducting the recruitment does not yet need to have results, and regulatory approval is a separate decision. The current registration confirms the continued evaluation, but does not mean that the substance is available as an approved drug. 5 The regulatory decision requires a separate assessment of the documentation, regardless of whether the Phase 3 study has already begun.
11. Does the study on renal function show a protective effect on the kidneys?
No. The study evaluated exposure to the substance and short-term tolerance in groups with different renal function. It was not determined whether amy ketone prevents renal failure. The pharmacokinetic results may support clinical development, but they are not evidence of modifying the course of the disease. 8 Exposure to the substance in patients with impaired renal function and the protection of the kidneys are two separate research questions that should not be combined into a single statement.
12. Are all the adverse events caused by amy cretina?
No. An adverse event means the occurrence of a specific problem during the study, not an automatic proof of a causal relationship. Interpretation requires groups of comparison, analysis of time of occurrence, clinical assessment, and patterns observed in participants. Both events related to and unrelated to the intervention should be clearly reported, rather than being discarded without analysis or attributed to the substance. Group comparisons and medical assessment help determine whether there is a likely association with the intervention being studied.
13. Do the studies confirm the preservation of muscle mass?
Not based on the results alone regarding body weight. Confirmation of muscle retention requires data regarding tissue composition, and preferably also strength or muscle function. A reduction in the total body mass does not indicate which part of the change concerned fat, non-fat tissue, or water, therefore such claims require separate evidence. Muscle strength, non-fat tissue mass, and body mass are different endpoints that must be measured separately.
14. Do the liver test results in animals confirm the treatment of liver diseases in humans?
No. Animal experiments are used to identify hypotheses and possible mechanisms. Results regarding human liver require studies in an appropriate population using appropriate clinical or histological endpoints. Preclinical improvement should remain so defined until direct clinical evidence confirms the claim. Uncertainty associated with the transmission of results remains significant even when the animal mechanism appears to correspond to human biology.
15. Does the analysis certificate confirm that the product complies with the material used in the studies?
No. The analysis certificate documents specific tests conducted on a specific sample. Establishing equivalence also requires verifiable identity information, information about the formulation, control of production, and the ability to trace the origin of the material. The percentage of purity alone does not replicate the package of evidence behind the product used in a clinical trial. The studies of a specific product and a reliable reference standard still do not replace clinical evaluation of the actual finished formulation.
16. Do early tolerance results confirm the safety of Amycretin in pregnancy?
No. The tolerance observed in the selected adult population of participants does not confirm safety during pregnancy. This issue requires appropriate data on fertility and clinical studies. The absence of a reported problem in a study that was not designed to assess this issue should not be interpreted as providing safety. The results obtained in adults not pregnant should not be generalized to the period of pregnancy without appropriate testing.
17. What evidence would most strongly support the current conclusions regarding amycreta?
Larger, completed studies with transparent reporting of the observation period would be of the greatest importance. Data on the durability of results, analyses of discontinuation of treatment, rare adverse events, direct comparisons, and effects in specific populations would be useful. Such information would allow for a more precise determination of the extent to which promising early results translate into lasting clinical value.
Conclusions
Amycretin, also known as zenagamtyd, is an experimental peptide with a characterized structure, for which randomized clinical trials have been published and further development has been documented.
Its identity is better defined than in the case of many poorly characterized research products.
However, the formulation, population, endpoint, and study phase still have fundamental importance when interpreting each claim.
Educational, medical and regulatory reservations
The article serves solely for scientific education and critical interpretation of research. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, individual treatment plan, or recommendation for the purchase, preparation, administration, injection, oral administration, combination, or self-administration of amy ketone (zenagamotide) or other experimental substances. The discussed evidence pertains to specific populations, controlled study formulations, specific observation periods, and selected endpoints. Changes in body weight or HbA1c do not confirm all proposed benefits, and the results of laboratory and animal studies should not be presented as evidence of clinical efficacy in humans. Long-term safety, rare adverse events, effects after discontinuation of treatment, and the impact on populations insufficiently studied remain important questions. Experimental status and marketing authorization are separate matters; the registration of a study, publication, or commercial offer, nor the analysis certificate, confirms the product’s approval or equivalence to clinical material. Oral and subcutaneous preparations are not automatically interchangeable. In matters of obesity, diabetes, kidney diseases, pregnancy, and other health issues, you should consult a qualified medical professional and use current official regulatory information. This article does not replace individual medical evaluation, approved information about medicinal products, or the ongoing review of new scientific evidence. Complete reporting of both beneficial and adverse results will be necessary for a balanced assessment of the future balance of benefits and risks.
References
- Mora, P., Aroda, V. R., Asong, M., Blüher, M., Carlander, A. F., Kaltoft, M., Vilsen, L. N., & Rosenstock, J. (2026). Efficacy and safety of once-daily oral zenagamtide, a novel unimolecular GLP-1 and amylin receptor agonist, in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2 trial. The Lancet, 408(10555), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01247-X
- Novo Nordisk. (2026, June 6). Novo Nordisk’s investigational zenegamotide shows significant HbA1C reductions with up to 14.6% weight loss in adults with type 2 diabetes—presented at ADA 2026 [Press release]. https://www.novonordisk.com/news-and-media/news-and-ir-materials/news-details.html?id=916559
- Kuhre, R. E., Ballarín-González, B., Brand, C. L., Glendorf, T., Madsen, K. G., Hjøllund, K. R., Hogendorf, W. F. J., Ipsen, D. H., Lundh, S., Kruse, T., Petersen, S. B., Secher, A., Vegge, A., & Raun, K. (2025). The effect of amycretin, a unimolecular glucagon-like peptide-1 and amylin receptor agonist, on body weight and metabolic dysfunction in mice and rats. EBioMedicine, 118, 105862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105862
- Mora, P., Aroda, V. R., Asong, M., Blüher, M., Heftdal, L. D., Carlander, A. F., Vilsen, L. N., & Rosenstock, J. (2026). Efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous zenagamtide, a novel unimolecular GLP-1 and amylin receptor agonist, in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2 trial. The Lancet, 408(10555), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01248-1
- Novo Nordisk A/S. (2026). A research study investigating how well the medicine zenagamtide helps people with excess body weight lose weight compared to semaglutide (NCT07668414) [Clinical trial registration]. ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieved October 23, 2026, from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07668414
- Gasiorek, A., Heydorn, A., Gabery, S., Hjerpsted, J. B., Kirkeby, K., Kruse, T., Petersen, S. B., Toubro, S., Vegge, A., & Key, C. (2025). Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the first-in-class GLP-1 and amylin receptor agonist, amycretin: a first-in-human, phase 1, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet, 406(10499), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01176-6
- Dahl, K., Toubro, S., Dey, S., Duque do Vale, R., Flint, A., Gasiorek, A., Heydorn, A., Jastreboff, A. M., Key, C., Petersen, S. B., Vegge, A., & Adelborg, K. (2025). Amycretin, a novel, unimolecular GLP-1 and amylin receptor agonist administered subcutaneously: results from a phase 1b/2a randomized controlled study. The Lancet, 406(10499), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01185-7
- Oldenburg, L. I. K., Haugaard, S. P., Karlsson, T., Kegel-Hübner, V., Parwez, M., Wiingaard, C., & Flint, A. (2026). Renal impairment does not affect the pharmacokinetics, safety, or tolerability of zenagamtide. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 28(10), 8946–8954. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.71096