CagriSema – composition of a peptide compound, clinical studies, mechanisms of action and limitations of scientific evidence

CagriSema is a specific combination of two peptide substances in clinical trial phase: cagrilintide (cagrilintide) and semaglutide (semaglutide). Despite the same developmental name, CagriSema is not a newly synthesized peptide with a single, continuous amino acid sequence.

The clinical trial program combines the amylin-mediated mechanism with the GLP-1 receptor agonist. In randomized studies, the effect of this combination on body weight and glycemic control was evaluated.

These results should be distinguished from evidence regarding cardiovascular events, regulatory approval, and claims relating to unverified products. 1 2

According to the sponsor's statement of October 20, 2026, CagriSema remained unapproved in the United States, and the application for marketing approval was being considered.

The date of this statement is important because clinical evidence and regulatory approval are separate issues. A positive test result in itself does not mean that the product has been approved. 3

What is CagriSema? Names, synonyms and identity

The starting point is the distinction between the developmental name and the chemical substance it represents.

CagriSema is the name of a specific program concerning the combination of two substances; however, kagrylintide and semaglutide have their own pharmacological and analytical identity.

Distinction is particularly important when interpreting studies involving separate groups receiving individual components or different formulations of a complex preparation.

The name CagriSema is derived from the names of two components: cagrilintide and semaglutide.

Publications may refer to this combination as cagrilintide–semaglutide, simultaneous administration of cagrilintide and semaglutide, or a compound with fixed dosages.

These terms identify two active components, not one combined molecule. 1 4

The first component, kagrylintide, is a modified amylin analogue with prolonged action.

The second component, semaglutide, acts as an agonist of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor.

Their biological goals are different, which justifies the study of such a combination.

The common goal in research on weight control does not mean that the individual components are interchangeable. 5 6

The difference between the actual compound itself and its pharmaceutical form also matters.

The simultaneous administration of the substances in the study protocol does not prove that any preparations can be effectively mixed.

The finished product requires its own data regarding formulation, component compatibility, stability, and method of delivery.

The clinical results refer to the materials and procedures used in the study.

CagriSema should not be confused with kagrylintide itself, semaglutide itself, or a single molecule designed to act on multiple receptor systems.

When reading the headlines, it is worth checking which intervention was actually evaluated and whether the comparator was a placebo, one of the ingredients, or another active drug.

How is CagriSema classified? Peptide, protein, mixture, or other substance?

In scientific publications, the classification may apply to more than one level.

The two active substances are peptide-like molecules, but the intervention under investigation is a combination of them.

The description can therefore correctly represent the chemistry of each component, while at the same time misleadingly suggest the number of distinct active molecules being evaluated.

Precise classification prevents the transfer of results regarding individual dual-action molecules to a program covering two separate compounds.

From a chemical and pharmaceutical perspective, CagriSema is best described as a defined combination of two pharmacological substances of a peptide nature.

This is a complex product under development, and not an unidentified tissue extract or any short peptide that exists under two informal names. 3

The term „mixture” is possible from a chemical point of view, but it is incomplete. It does not indicate that the components have a defined identity and are evaluated jointly in the clinical development program.

In turn, calling CagriSema a „double-acting peptide” may mistakenly suggest the existence of a single molecular structure.

A more precise term is the combination of cangrelor and semaglutide.

Structural studies confirm the activity of kagrylintide against the complexes of the amylin and calcitonin receptors.

The biology of these receptors differs from the GLP-1 mechanism characteristic of semaglutide.

The product's receptor profile should be presented in a precise manner, without treating all the peptide interventions studied in the weight management control as a single category. 7

The structure and composition of CagriSema – what has been confirmed?

The absence of a single CagriSema amino acid sequence does not mean a gap in the chemical identification.

This results directly from the two-component nature of the connection.

For each component, researchers can independently analyze the molecular identity and structural modifications, and the finished pharmaceutical preparation can be evaluated for the properties resulting from the combination of both substances.

These levels of analysis should not be reduced to a single test result.

The composition defining CagriSema includes kagrylintide and semaglutide, each of which retains its own molecular identity.

There is no single sequence of amino acids or a single summary pattern of CagriSema that could replace the identification of both components.

The article or certificate describing the combination should clearly indicate which component the given characteristic applies to.

The development of kagrylintide involved designing a stable, lipid-based amylin analog with prolonged action.

The original publication describing the discovery presents research on the relationship between structure and activity, focused on the difficulties associated with developing amylin-based drugs.

Chemical modifications are part of the kagrylintidine identity. It should not be described simply as unmodified natural amylin. 5

Studies of receptor structure enabled imaging of kagrylintide in active complexes with the amylin receptor and the calcitonin receptor.

They help to clarify molecular recognition, but do not confirm the safety or properties of the two-component finished product.

The molecular structure and the behavior of the formulations answer various questions. 7

A reliable evaluation of the complex preparation would require separate confirmation of both active substances, their quantities, integrity, and significant impurities.

The detection of one expected component does not confirm the composition of the other.

Similarly, the measurement of total mass does not prove that the two-component formulation contains the intended proportions.

Research on CagriSema – evidence in humans, animals and in the laboratory

Clinical literature is most useful when the studies are organized by population and comparator, rather than by the highest percentage given in the title.

The studies in adults without diabetes, adults with type 2 diabetes, and participants receiving insulin as primary treatment address partially common but non-identical questions.

The statistical estimator used in the result is also an element, which determines under which treatment conditions the numerical estimate applies.

From the pharmacology of the ingredients to the research of combinations in humans

Laboratory and preclinical studies helped to establish the rationale for the individual molecules and their receptor interactions.

They support the development of mechanistic hypotheses, but do not prove that any claimed benefit occurs in humans.

Direct studies of the combination are necessary to determine whether the addition of cagrilintide improves the results compared to semaglutide alone. 5 7

In a Phase 2 study from 2023, 92 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to groups receiving the combination or one of its components.

Over 32 weeks, the combination resulted in greater weight reduction than any of the components used separately.

However, the reduction in HbA1c was not statistically greater in this study than with semaglutide.

The distinction shows why beneficial results regarding body weight should not be presented as a success with regard to each metabolic endpoint. 6

REDEFINE 1 – adults without diabetes

Because all the groups in this study participated in a lifestyle intervention, the estimates describe the differences observed in these structured research conditions.

The placebo group was not a population that did not receive any intervention other than the study.

Providing a 68-week time point along with an analysis consistent with the treatment assignment strategy provides more information than simply citing the percentage of weight reduction in the active group.

In the REDEFINE 1 program, 3417 adults without diabetes were included and randomized, evaluating the results over 68 weeks.

The estimated mean change in body weight according to the treatment-policy estimate was −20.4% for CagriSema compared to −3.0% for placebo.

All the groups participated in the lifestyle intervention.

Adverse events related to the gastrointestinal tract were reported in 79.6% and 39.9% participants, respectively. In most cases they were transient and of mild to moderate severity. 1

The Estymand treatment policy refers to the effect of assigning a treatment, taking into account in the statistical approach the study of events such as discontinuation of therapy.

It differs from the idealized estimate of effectiveness that assumes continued treatment.

The percentage values corresponding to these different questions should not be used interchangeably without explanation.

REDEFINE 2 – adults with type 2 diabetes

A study involving people with diabetes can assess both body mass and glycemic results, but they are not interchangeable.

The concomitant treatment and population characteristics influence the range of possible conclusions.

The most reliable comparisons concern groups randomized within the same study, and not percentages selected from different programs.

The REDEFINE 2 study involved 1,206 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.

After 68 weeks, the estimated changes in body weight were −13.7% for CagriSema and −3.4% for placebo according to the treatment-policy estimate.

The glycemic parameters also improved, while gastrointestinal events occurred more frequently in the group receiving the combination. 4

The difference between these results and the results of REDEFINE 1 is not a controlled experiment regarding the effect of diabetes itself.

The studies included different populations and different accompanying conditions.

Comparisons between studies can generate questions, but they do not replace randomization within a single study.

Additional evidence from Phase 3 studies published in 2026

Additional studies also show how a clinical program can evolve beyond a single endpoint related to obesity.

Some comparisons assess body weight relative to the active drug, while others focus on HbA1c in specific populations with diabetes.

The result may be statistically detectable but of small magnitude, and the observation in a subgroup may be informative without resolving all the questions concerning the given population.

The REDEFINE 5 study analyzed 331 participants recruited in Japan and Taiwan, including people with and without type 2 diabetes.

According to the trial-product estimate, the estimated change in body weight after 68 weeks was −18.4% for the combination compared with −11.9% for semaglutide.

This expands the clinical evidence to a specific East Asian population, while adhering to the limitations resulting from the study's eligibility criteria and statistical methods. 8

In the REIMAGINE 2 study, 2,713 participants with type 2 diabetes were assigned to several randomized therapeutic groups.

In the main comparison, the reduction in HbA1c was greater for the higher-strength combination than for semaglutide alone, and the estimated difference according to the effectiveness estimate was −0.16 percentage points.

Statistical significance should be interpreted in relation to the magnitude of the effect and the clinical context. 2

The REIMAGINE 3 study evaluated CagriSema in individuals receiving basal insulin as the primary treatment.

274 participants were included and observation was conducted for 40 weeks.

A greater reduction in HbA1c was reported in the CagriSema group than in the placebo group, and there was no severe hypoglycemia during the study.

This observation does not eliminate concerns about hypoglycemia in all situations nor does it prove that combinations with insulin do not require clinical monitoring. 9

Comparisons of efficacy and questions regarding the cardiovascular system

Comparative effectiveness and the prevention of cardiovascular events require different types of evidence.

The study with an active comparator tests a previously defined question regarding the relative effectiveness.

The cardiovascular endpoint study, on the other hand, monitors events of clinical significance.

None of these types of evidence can replace the assumption that a change in body mass must predict the outcome of the second one.

The sponsor’s February 2026 communication stated that the REDEFINE 4 study did not demonstrate previously established non-inferiority of CagriSema compared to tirzepatide in terms of weight reduction.

This was an 84-week open-label study involving 809 participants.

These results constitute the most important results presented by the sponsor in the source included in the review, and do not substitute for a full assessment of the reviewed publication. 10

The publication REDEFINE 3 from 2026 describes the design and baseline characteristics of a cardiovascular endpoint study involving 7076 participants.

It does not constitute conclusive evidence that CagriSema prevents cardiovascular events.

The resolution of this question requires real-world results regarding events. 11

Mechanism of action studied in the CagriSema program

Mechanistic reasoning explains why researchers decided to combine these substances, but it does not replace the observed results.

The effects on receptors, food intake-related behaviors, glycemic parameters, and long-term clinical events are among the various levels of evidence.

Even if the connection affects the clinical endpoint, the result does not specify the exact contribution of each further biological process.

The biological rationale for the combination lies in the simultaneous study of complementary signals involved in regulating appetite, food intake, and glucose levels.

The pharmacology of aglyconidine associated with amylin differs from the GLP-1 receptor agonism characteristic of semaglutide.

The assumption is that the combination of mechanisms can yield an additional effect, but its magnitude must be determined experimentally, rather than being derived from the names of the receptors themselves. 6

Structural studies indicate that kagrylintide interacts with many receptor complexes belonging to the amylin and calcitonin receptor families.

Binding studies help determine the potential effects of a molecule on a molecular target, but they do not directly indicate how much weight a specific person will lose.

Clinical outcomes are influenced by exposure, physiological responses, tolerance, and continuation of treatment. 7

The reduction in body mass is not a direct measure of any proposed mechanism either.

It does not specify exactly which part of the change resulted from appetite, the amount of food consumed, digestive processes, or other subsequent effects.

The total body mass alone also does not indicate how much fat tissue, non-fat tissue, or fluids have changed.

This requires additional measurements.

The combination of two effective ingredients does not automatically lead to pharmacological synergy.

Greater efficacy than that of a single component may be confirmed in the study, but demonstrating synergy requires a more detailed analysis of the interaction and its definition.

The term „more effective in this comparison” is often more justified.

Limitations of the scientific evidence regarding CagriSema

Several limitations should be treated as separate questions, rather than being reduced to a single statement that further research is needed.

They concern the durability of the observed effects, tolerability during continued treatment, the possibility of drawing conclusions about the population excluded from the studies, and the properties of the precisely defined pharmaceutical formulation.

Separately, the prevention of cardiovascular events and regulatory approval must be considered; these require their own evidence and decisions.

Compared to the numerous substances discussed under the broad term of research peptides, CagriSema has a much larger program of published randomized studies involving humans.

However, even large randomized studies have limitations.

The eligibility criteria, the observation period, the accompanying interventions, the discontinuation of treatment, and the statistical handling of missing observations all influence the interpretation.

Distinguishing endpoints is essential.

Weight reduction, change in HbA1c, improvement in blood pressure, cardiovascular events, physical fitness and mortality are not interchangeable.

Studies designed for a single endpoint cannot be considered conclusive evidence regarding all others.

The publication describing the REDEFINE 3 project clearly points to the still open cardiovascular question. 11

Secondary and post hoc analyses also require unambiguous identification.

The sponsor’s October 2026 report on women and groups related to menopause describes exploratory analyses.

Menopausal status was attributed retrospectively, and a formal testing of the interaction between treatment and the subgroup was not conducted.

These observations should not be turned into a claim that different effects of combination have been proven at different stages of the reproductive life cycle. 3

Regulatory and formulary restrictions remain separate from effectiveness.

The dated statement from the sponsor informs about the ongoing review of the approval application in the USA.

This does not mean the acceptance of products from other suppliers or the confirmation of the equivalence of research vials.

The results obtained for the validated clinical preparations cannot be transferred to the unvalidated mixture simply because the names of the ingredients are known. 3

Most frequently asked questions about CagriSema

1. Does CagriSema mean a specific substance?

CagriSema means a specific combination of two substances, cagrilintide and semaglutide, rather than a single molecule. Differentiation is important for chemistry, quality control, and the interpretation of clinical evidence. The identity of both components and the finished product must be determined. 1 When searching for scientific literature, it is worth considering both the name of the compound and the names of both components, checking whether the publication concerned a common interaction or just one compound. The list of components alone does not replace the description of the formulation being studied.

2. What do the available studies on CagriSema confirm?

Randomized studies confirm the effects on body weight and glycemic parameters in the analyzed populations and comparisons, as well as providing data on gastrointestinal tolerance. They do not confirm all long-term health outcomes or verify every product using this name. The evidence base is extensive, but remains specific to endpoints and formulations. 4 2 The strongest conclusions relate to the results directly measured in randomized comparisons. Questions about cardiovascular events, the durability of effects after treatment discontinuation, and the safety of non-study-related commercial preparations remain separate.

3. Is CagriSema a single peptide that acts on two receptors?

No. It combines two peptide substances with different receptor profiles. Calling it a single molecule that acts on two receptors is misleading; it is a combination therapy involving the design of a multifunctional molecule. The names of both components should be clearly stated in scientific descriptions. 6 In a single molecule with multiple active pharmacological activities, the activities are designed within a single chemical substance. Here, the components remain separate molecules, therefore the evaluation of the composition and attribution of effects must take into account each of them independently.

4. Is CagriSema the same as semaglutide itself?

No. CagriSema contains kagrylintide added to semaglutide. Studies with comparator groups receiving the individual components verify whether this addition changes the results, rather than assuming that all findings regarding semaglutide automatically describe the combination. The formulation and identity of the intervention must be clearly indicated. 2 The study of semaglutide itself can therefore provide knowledge about one component, but it does not determine the additional effect or tolerance resulting from the addition of cagrilintide. This question requires studies with appropriate comparison groups.

5. Is kagrylintyd an unmodified natural amylin?

No. Kagrylintyd is a designed, lipid-based, prolonged-action analog developed based on studies of the relationship between structure and activity. Modifications are important for its pharmacology and distinguish it from an endogenous hormone. The evidence itself regarding natural amylin is not sufficient to fully characterize the drug candidate. 5 Structural design is important because receptor behavior, stability, and exposure cannot simply be inferred from the properties of the natural hormone. Research on the discovery of the molecule provides the molecular context, not the self-assessment of clinical benefits.

6. Does greater weight loss indicate better glycemic control?

Not automatically. Body weight and HbA1c are separate endpoints, and early phase 2 studies show that their statistical comparisons may differ. Each claim requires its own data regarding the specific outcome, rather than transferring statistical significance from another measurement. 6 The endpoint regarding body weight may change without a statistically significant improvement in HbA1c, or vice versa. The direction, magnitude, precision, and previously determined analysis of each endpoint should be reported independently.

7. Why do the weight loss percentages for CagriSema vary between publications?

They can relate to different populations, observation periods, comparators, or estimators. An estimate assuming continuation of treatment answers a different question than an estimate that takes into account discontinuation of therapy. Before considering two values to be inconsistent, these conditions must be compared. 1 8 Estimation-based treatment policies and trial products or efficacy can answer different practical questions. Comparing values without specifying an estimate can create apparent contradictions where analyses are designed to measure different circumstances.

8. Does the average test result predict a specific person’s response?

No. The group average summarizes the distribution of results and does not guarantee a specific change in a particular person. Eligibility criteria, tolerance, continuation of treatment, and other circumstances may differ from study conditions. Average results are useful in evaluating evidence, but they do not represent an individual promise of results. 4 The results of individual participants form the distribution around the given average, and the summary itself does not show each person's experience. Therefore, it is not necessary to convert the group estimate into a guaranteed personal forecast.

9. Has it been shown that CagriSema prevents cardiovascular events?

The cited publication REDEFINE 3 from 2026 describes the research design and baseline characteristics of the participants, not the final cardiovascular event outcomes. The improvement in body weight or risk factors alone does not resolve this question. The claim of preventing events requires appropriate clinical results. 11 The cardiovascular study must present real events and planned statistical comparisons before such a claim can be evaluated. Improvements in indirect risk markers cannot be ignored as a substitute for evidence regarding events.

10. Did REDEFINE 4 show no less effectiveness than CagriSema?

No. The sponsor informed that the study did not achieve this primary endpoint. Presenting weight loss without mentioning the failure of the comparison would give an incomplete picture of the study. If the summary is based on the sponsor’s communication, the source of the information should also be indicated. 10 No less effective is a certain statistical hypothesis, and not merely the question of whether both interventions resulted in a decrease in body weight. The failure to reach the endpoint regarding no less effective results must remain visible, even if other measurements appear favorable.

11. Are the gastrointestinal side effects insignificant, since most were mild or moderate?

No. Severity descriptors do not imply that symptoms are insignificant, especially when they affect the continuation of treatment or daily functioning. Reports from phase 3 studies document a significant frequency of gastrointestinal events. Interpretation requires considering both frequency and severity, not just one reassuring adjective. 1 Tolerance also affects adherence to therapy and completeness of follow-up, which is important for interpreting efficacy. The frequency, duration, discontinuation of treatment, and severity should be analyzed together.

12. Does the absence of severe hypoglycemia in one study mean zero risk?

No. A study with a limited number of participants and a specific duration cannot confirm that the risk is impossible, and the drugs used concurrently affect the clinical context. The observation with REIMAGINE 3 is useful within the limits of its protocol and observation period. It should not become a universal guarantee for every combination or patient. 9 The interpretation of risk depends on the population, concomitant therapies, and the number of subjects observed. A zero incidence in a single finite study does not imply zero probability under all clinical circumstances.

13. Do the results in the menopausal subgroups indicate a specific menopause-related effect?

No. The analyses described by the sponsor were exploratory in nature and used categories assigned retrospectively. Without appropriate analysis of the interactions and prospective confirmation of numerical differences between subgroups, they should not be considered established biological differences in response. These results generate research questions, not resolve them. 3 Exploratory patterns within subgroups can help design further studies, but repeated comparisons and retrospective definitions can lead to misleading differences. Confirmatory studies would require the appropriate pre-specified analyses and direct testing of the interactions between subgroups.

14. Was CagriSema approved by the FDA at the time of the conclusion of the review of the evidence?

No. In the statement of October 20, 2026, the sponsor explicitly indicated that CagriSema was not approved in the United States, and the decision was expected later in 2026. This is information about the status as of a specific date, not a forecast of the outcome. In case the article is used after that date, the official status must be verified again. 3 The statement should be presented along with the date and jurisdiction. Clinical development can change over time, and the sponsor's communication should not be considered an indefinitely current regulatory document.

15. Can the individual test vials be considered equivalent to CagriSema used in clinical studies?

No. The compliance of the ingredient names does not confirm identity, formulation consistency, exposure, or the quality of the product. Clinical studies evaluate controlled preparations, and their results cannot confirm the authenticity of the connection to them. Product equivalence requires evidence beyond the label or a theoretical list of ingredients. Both active substances would require appropriate characterization, and a compounded product introduces additional questions regarding stability and delivery. The nominal label or certificate alone cannot replicate the production and clinical evidence regarding the product under study.

16. Does weight loss prove that all the lost tissue was fat?

No. Body mass includes fat tissue, non-fat tissue, fluids, and other components. The endpoint regarding body mass does not quantify any of these components nor confirm the maintenance of muscle function. Claims about body composition require appropriate measurements beyond the weight result. Assessing whether the change in mass is primarily due to fat tissue, non-fat tissue, or fluids requires validated methods of body composition testing. Functional outcomes such as strength are a separate issue and should not be inferred from body mass measurements.

17. What should a responsible summary of the research on CagriSema include?

It should indicate both components, the population, the comparator, the observation time, the endpoint, the estimator and the relevant adverse events. It should also indicate exploratory analyses and distinguish the results of the study from the approval status. This information allows interpreting the studies without converting the mean result into a universal statement. A useful summary should also indicate whether the findings come from reviewed clinical publications, registration reports or sponsor communications. This prevents the planned study or exploratory analysis from being attributed the same evidentiary strength as a completed randomized comparison.

Conclusions

Responsible synthesis should take into account both the strengths and limitations of this research program.

Large randomized studies provide stronger evidence than mechanistic speculation alone.

At the same time, the negative result of the comparison with an active comparator and unresolved cardiovascular issues make it impossible to unconditionally recommend CagriSema as a solution with higher effectiveness.

The appropriate conclusion depends on the final point being discussed and the comparison.

The available literature identifies CagriSema as a combination of two peptide substances for which there is significant randomized clinical evidence regarding body weight and glycemic parameters.

Its identity should not be reduced to a single peptide sequence, and clinical results should be presented in the context of the population, the comparator, and the statistical methods.

Regulatory status, cardiovascular outcomes, and product equivalence with other suppliers remain separate issues.

Educational, medical and regulatory reservations

This article is intended solely for scientific education and the critical evaluation of published research. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, prescription, or recommendation regarding the acquisition, combination, preparation, administration, or discontinuation of any substance. Decisions regarding treatment require evaluation by appropriately qualified medical personnel and reference to current guidelines in effect locally.

CagriSema is discussed as a specific combination of cabergoline and semaglutide. The regulatory information cited reflects the sponsor's position as of October 20, 2026 in the United States. Approval and availability may vary among jurisdictions and may change after the review date. The study registration, published efficacy results, or the product name itself do not constitute a marketing authorization.

The clinical results refer to the populations, formulations, comparators, observation periods, and statistical analyses described in the cited studies. The group averages do not predict individual results, and favorable measurements of body weight or glycemia do not automatically indicate prevention of cardiovascular events, long-term safety, or benefits in populations not included in the studies. Adverse effects and uncertainties should be interpreted in the context of full clinical reports.

Products advertised on the internet as CagriSema, kagrylintyd or semaglutide do not obtain confirmation of authenticity through the mere fact of these publications existing. Corresponding names or nominal amounts of ingredients do not prove identity, purity, equivalence of formulations, quality of production, or clinical usefulness. The article does not contain instructions for mixing, dosing, obtaining, or self-administration.

The cited publications, registration entries, and sponsor communications were presented as the sources of the original article’s scientific content. They have been retained for the purposes of tracing the information, but have not been independently re-verified during this editing process.

References

1. Garvey, W. T., Blüher, M., Osorto Contreras, C. K., Davies, M. J., Winning Lehmann, E., Pietiläinen, K. H., Rubino, D., Sbraccia, P., Wadden, T., Zeuthen, N., Wilding, J. P. H., & REDEFINE 1 Study Group. (2025). Coadministered cagrilintide and semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity. The New England Journal of Medicine, 393(7), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2502081
2. Buse, J. B., Bajaj, H. S., Dalskov, S. M., Donaldson, L., Hansen Duus, H. H., Fabricius, T. W., Haluzík, M., Lingvay, I., Pedersen, S. D., Pratley, R. E., Jain, A. B., & REIMAGINE 2 study group. (2026). Cagrilintide-semaglutide (CagriSema) versus semaglutide or cagrilintide in people with type 2 diabetes (REIMAGINE 2): a double-blind, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 14(8), 662–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(26)00125-7
3. Novo Nordisk. (2026, October 20). Novo’s CagriSema was associated with 25% weight loss on average for women in a post hoc analysis of REDEFINE 1 presented at The Menopause Society Annual Meeting [Sponsor press release]. https://www.novonordisk.com/news-and-media/news-and-ir-materials/news-details.html?id=918569
4. Davies, M. J., Bajaj, H. S., Broholm, C., Eliasen, A., Garvey, W. T., le Roux, C. W., Lingvay, I., Lyndgaard, C. B., Rosenstock, J., Pedersen, S. D., & REDEFINE 2 Study Group. (2025). Cagrilintide-semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 393(7), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2502082
5. Kruse, T., Hansen, J. L., Dahl, K., Schäffer, L., Sensfuss, U., Poulsen, C., Schlein, M., Hansen, A. M. K., Jeppesen, C. B., Dornonville de la Cour, C., Clausen, T. R., Johansson, E., Fulle, S., Skyggebjerg, R. B., & Raun, K. (2021). Development of cagrilintide, a long-acting amylin analogue. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 64(15), 11183–11194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c00565
6. Frias, J. P., Deenadayalan, S., Erichsen, L., Knop, F. K., Lingvay, I., Macura, S., Mathieu, C., Pedersen, S. D., & Davies, M. (2023). Efficacy and safety of co-administered once-weekly cagrilintide 2·4 mg with once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial. The Lancet, 402(10403), 720–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01163-7
7. Cao, J., Belousoff, M. J., Johnson, R. M., Keov, P., Mariam, Z., Deganutti, G., Christopoulos, G., Hick, C. A., Reedtz-Runge, S., Glendorf, T., Ballarín-González, B., Raun, K., Bayly-Jones, C., Wootten, D., & Sexton, P. M. (2025). Structural and dynamic features of cagrilintide binding to calcitonin and amylin receptors. Nature Communications, 16(1), 3389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58680-y
8. Yamauchi, T., Becker, N. P., Hagemann, C. A., Huang, K. C., Kiyosue, A., Lim, S., Onishi, Y., Kosuvaripalli, A., Takano, T., Ishigaki, Y., & REDEFINE 5 study group. (2026). Efficacy and safety of co-administered cagrilintide and semaglutide versus semaglutide alone in adults with overweight or obesity with or without type 2 diabetes in Japan and Taiwan (REDEFINE 5): a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3a trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 14(6), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(25)00402-4
9. Rosenstock, J., Billings, L. K., Gajria, R., Giorgino, F., Johansen, N. B., Klein, K. R., Thamattoor, U. K., Buse, J. B., & Jain, A. B. (2026). Cagrilintide-semaglutide (CagriSema) as an add-on to basal insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes (REIMAGINE 3): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 study. The Lancet, 408(10549), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01022-6
10. Novo Nordisk. (2026, February 23). CagriSema demonstrated 23% weight loss in an open-label head-to-head REDEFINE 4 trial in people with obesity, the primary endpoint was not achieved [Sponsor press release]. https://www.novonordisk.com/news-and-media/news-and-ir-materials/news-details.html?id=916501
11. Cavender, M. A., Jastreboff, A. M., Cheng, A. Y. Y., Davies, M. J., Donaldson, L., Gerlach, L. O., Gylvin, S. H., Jacobsen, J. B., Marx, N., Osorto Contreras, C. K., Le Roux, C. W., & Lincoff, A. M. (2026). Design and baseline characteristics of the CagriSema cardiovascular outcomes trial (REDEFINE 3). *American Heart Journal*, *, 107626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2026.107626