This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Retatrutide does in the body
Switching it on alongside the appetite signals means the drug may reduce what goes in and raise what gets burned at the same time.
Two of the three receptors it hits are the appetite hormones already used by approved drugs. The third is glucagon, which the body normally uses to release stored energy. Whether that combination is safe over years is exactly what the phase 3 programme was built to find out, and most of it has not reported.
Why people take it. Studied for obesity and type 2 diabetes, but not yet approved.
What happened in people
In a 338-person study, the highest-dose group lost nearly one quarter of body weight on average in under a year.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
The larger obesity study has not yet published its results.
Where it acts
Hypothalamus, pancreatic islet, hepatocyte, brown and white adipose tissue
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as protein.
FDA substance registry · NOP2Y096GV · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
A reviewer approved this sentence against this exact record and its sources.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 110 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 9 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Body weight
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
△Only a number moved1 registered test measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Body weight
body weight
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
△ Only a number moved
1 registered test measure.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
Who was studied is listed further down the page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Phase 2 obesity trial (NCT04881760)
How many people
338
Study design
Phase 2
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Dose-dependent separation from placebo at every dose level
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Dose-related gastrointestinal events; the trial was not powered for rare harms
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Subcutaneous once-weekly injection, investigational
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.4 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
□AnimalsNo evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.No animal record is stored.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Retatrutide
What a person takes: Subcutaneous once-weekly injection, investigational.
The measurement behind this step
Weekly subcutaneous administration with stepwise dose escalation, at doses from 1 mg to 12 mg across the published trials. No licensed presentation exists, so any device a patient encounters outside a trial is not a regulated product.
Getting in
Weekly injection with a fatty acid arm
Like the approved drugs in this family, it carries a fatty tail that binds albumin and keeps it circulating for about a week.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
An acylated peptide backbone with non-natural residues conferring protease resistance; the full sequence has not been published in a label or peer-reviewed paper, so no structure is stated on this page.
It engages the two appetite receptors that approved drugs use, plus the glucagon receptor, which normally releases stored energy.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Agonism at GIPR, GLP-1R and GCGR, all Gs-coupled class B GPCRs. The therapeutic hypothesis is that the potency ratio between the three matters more than the potency at any one.
The GIP and GLP-1 arms do what tirzepatide does: less hunger, slower stomach, more insulin when glucose is high.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Central GLP-1R and GIPR signalling in the hypothalamus and hindbrain reducing energy intake, with glucose-dependent potentiation of insulin secretion at the beta cell.
The glucagon receptor arm is supposed to raise the rate at which the body burns energy and mobilise fat from the liver, rather than only reducing what goes in.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Hepatic GCGR agonism increases fatty acid oxidation and energy expenditure. It also raises glucose output, which is why the incretin arms have to be potent enough to offset it, and why the dose ratio is the central design problem of this molecule.
Twenty-four percent of body weight over 48 weeks in a 338-person trial, and up to 15.3% over 40 weeks in a 537-person diabetes trial. The pivotal obesity trial has finished and has not reported.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Phase 2 least-squares mean -24.2% at week 48 on 12 mg versus -2.1% on placebo; phase 3 diabetes monotherapy -15.3% at week 40 versus -2.6% placebo, alongside a 1.94 percentage point HbA1c reduction.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
hemoglobin a1c
body weight
pk maximum observed concentration of midazolam
pk maximum concentration of metoprolol
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (5)
pk auc of warfarin
pk cmax of warfarin
pk auc of caffeine
pk cmax of caffeine
glomerular filtration rate
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Trial participants. Outside trials, nobody is meant to be taking it, and a large unregulated market says otherwise.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
Earlier glucagon-containing co-agonists were limited by the glucose-raising effect of glucagon receptor agonism, which is the problem the dose ratio in this molecule is designed to solve
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Still being tested
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as investigational; no register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Weekly subcutaneous administration with stepwise dose escalation, at doses from 1 mg to 12 mg across the published trials. No licensed presentation exists, so any device a patient encounters outside a trial is not a regulated product.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Predominantly gastrointestinal and dose-related in the published trials, with discontinuation for adverse events of 2 to 5% in the phase 3 diabetes trial. Long-term safety is not established: the largest completed obesity trial has not reported, and no cardiovascular outcome trial has read out.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
No licensed presentation exists, so any device a patient encounters outside a trial is not a regulated product.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
12 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 12 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 84347-003 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as powder.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 84347-003 · read 2026-08-29
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine, investigational agent. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Retatrutide studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the phase 2 obesity figure will hold in the 2,335-person pivotal trial, which completed in April 2026 and has not reported
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That glucagon receptor agonism is the reason for the larger effect, which no human comparison has isolated
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a product sold online under this name contains this molecule
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Phase 2: 24.2% mean weight loss at 48 weeks on the 12 mg dose
In plain words
In 338 adults, the highest dose produced nearly a quarter of body weight lost in under a year, against 2.1% on placebo. Eighty-three percent of that group lost at least 15%.
What was measured
Percentage change in body weight at week 48
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48 weeks. Least-squares mean weight change at 48 weeks -8.7% (1 mg), -17.1% (combined 4 mg), -22.8% (combined 8 mg), -24.2% (12 mg) versus -2.1% placebo. At 12 mg, 100% lost at least 5%, 93% at least 10% and 83% at least 15%. Adverse events were dose-related and predominantly gastrointestinal.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
TRANSCEND-T2D-1: the first published phase 3 result, in diabetes not obesity
In plain words
In 537 people with type 2 diabetes on diet and exercise alone, 40 weeks of retatrutide lowered HbA1c by up to 1.94 percentage points and weight by up to 15.3%.
What was measured
Change in HbA1c from baseline to week 40
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48 sites in the USA, Mexico and India. Treatment-regimen estimand HbA1c change -1.69%, -1.86% and -1.94% for 4, 9 and 12 mg versus -0.81% placebo, all P<0.0001. Weight change -11.5%, -13.9% and -15.3% versus -2.6%. Discontinuation for adverse events 2 to 5%. Two deaths, both in the 4 mg arm and judged unrelated.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The 24% figure everybody quotes is a phase 2 number that phase 3 has not confirmed
In plain words
The pivotal obesity trial, TRIUMPH-1, enrolled 2,335 people and completed on 30 April 2026. No results are posted on the trial registry and none are published.
What was measured
Publication status of the completed pivotal obesity trial
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
NCT05929066 is a master protocol with percentage weight change as its primary outcome, status COMPLETED with a completion date of 2026-04-30, and no results posted as of this audit. The only published phase 3 data are from a 537-person diabetes trial in which weight fell 15.3% at the top dose over 40 weeks, which is not the same population, dose exposure or duration as the phase 2 obesity result.
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT05929066 (TRIUMPH-1), completed 30 April 2026, no results posted
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A grey market is selling an unapproved molecule, and the products have been analysed
In plain words
Retatrutide is not approved anywhere, and is sold widely online. A 2026 study measured what is actually in products sold under that name in Australia. A BMJ news investigation examined a reported death.
What was measured
That a product sold as retatrutide contains retatrutide at the stated concentration
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Drug and Alcohol Review 2026 published a compositional and labelling-accuracy analysis of products sold as retatrutide in Australia. BMJ published a fact-check on a reported death associated with the unapproved product in July 2026, and separately reported the opening of a compassionate-use route in the United States in August 2026. None of this constitutes efficacy or safety evidence for the molecule; it is evidence about the market around it.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
That the glucagon receptor arm is what produces the extra weight loss
In plain words
Plausible, and untested in humans. No trial has compared retatrutide against a matched dual agonist at equal exposure, which is the only design that could attribute the difference.
What was measured
That glucagon receptor agonism is responsible for the additional weight reduction
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The mechanistic case rests on rodent work and on the energy-expenditure biology of glucagon receptor agonism. No head-to-head human trial against tirzepatide exists, and the phase 2 and phase 3 comparators were placebo. Attribution of the effect size to the third receptor is therefore inference from mechanism, not measurement.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A urinary tract infection signal is under discussion in the literature
In plain words
Trial data raised a question about urinary tract infections with retatrutide, and the timing of those events is being argued over in print.
What was measured
Not recorded
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A 2026 European Journal of Internal Medicine correspondence examines the urinary tract infection signal reported in the retatrutide programme and whether event timing explains it. This is a live question in the literature, not a settled adverse-effect profile.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
4 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A triple GIP, GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist that produced 24.2% weight loss at 48 weeks in a 338-person phase 2 trial and lowered HbA1c by up to 1.94 percentage points in a 537-person phase 3 trial, with no approval anywhere and no published phase 3 obesity result.
Recorded evidence blocks (7)
Q1
What did Retatrutide's largest trial (10000 people) and its longest (6.8 years) measure?
10000 people in Retatrutide's largest registered study, 6.8 years in its longest registered window, measuring Pharmacokinetics (PK): Area Under the Concentration Versus Time Curve From Zero to Infinity (AUC[0-∞]) of Midazolam. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
14 phase1, 14 phase3, 4 phase2, 1 na or unstated; NCT07165028; 2032-08; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2026, NCT05929079.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Retatrutide was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase1
14
phase3
14
phase2
4
na or unstated
1
Last recorded human testNCT05929079
2026-06-16
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
Retatrutide was tested only in human — what did it show?
Pharmacokinetics (PK): Area Under the Concentration Versus Time Curve From Zero to Infinity (AUC[0-∞]) of Midazolam — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
humanNCT05445232
biomarker; Pharmacokinetics (PK): Area Under the Concentration Versus Time Curve From Zero to Infinity (AUC[0-∞]) of Midazolam; 33
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
Could one person measure Retatrutide's effect on hemoglobin a1c?
Hemoglobin a1c: measured in Retatrutide's trials.
hemoglobin a1c is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
hemoglobin a1c; 2026-09-01
body weight; 2026-09-01
pk maximum observed concentration of midazolam; 2026-09-01
pk auc of warfarin; 2026-09-01
pk cmax of warfarin; 2026-09-01
pk auc of caffeine; 2026-09-01
3 more recorded rows
biomarkers
pk cmax of caffeine; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
glomerular filtration rate; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
pk maximum concentration of metoprolol; 2026-09-01
human trials at or under30
2
Not recorded for this substance
a recorded half-life
smallest human trial
29; NCT05611957; PHASE1; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; COMPLETED
Q4
Which of body weight, glomerular filtration rate and hemoglobin a1c did Retatrutide's trials measure?
body weight, glomerular filtration rate and hemoglobin a1c lead 9 outcome terms across Retatrutide's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
Interpretation pk auc of warfarin, pk cmax of warfarin, pk auc of caffeine, pk cmax of caffeine, glomerular filtration rate and pk maximum concentration of metoprolol follow.
Show the evidence
hemoglobin a1c
1
body weight
1
pk maximum observed concentration of midazolam
1
pk auc of warfarin
1
pk cmax of warfarin
1
pk auc of caffeine
1
3 more recorded rows
pk cmax of caffeine
1
glomerular filtration rate
1
pk maximum concentration of metoprolol
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Which of Retatrutide's 12 ongoing trials reports first?
Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (%); Time to First Occurrence of Composite Endpoints; latest 2032-08
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT06260722
"Effect of Retatrutide Compared With Semaglutide in Adult Participants With Type 2 Diabetes and Inadequate Glycemic Control With Metformin With or Without SGLT2 Inhibitor (TRANSCEND-T2D-2)"; n 1250; "Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (%)"; 2027-01
NCT06297603
"Effect of Retatrutide Compared With Placebo in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment, With Inadequate Glycemic Control on Basal Insulin, With or Without Metformin and/or SGLT2 Inhibitor (TRANSCEND-T2D-3)"; n 320; "Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (%)"; 2026-11
NCT06383390
"The Effect of Retatrutide Once Weekly on Cardiovascular Outcomes and Kidney Outcomes in Adults Living With Obesity (TRIUMPH-Outcomes)"; n 10000; "Time to First Occurrence of Composite Endpoints"; 2029-02
NCT06662383
"A Study of Retatrutide (LY3437943) Compared to Tirzepatide (LY3298176) in Adults Who Have Obesity"; n 800; "Percent Change from Baseline in Body Weight"; 2026-12
NCT06859268
"A Study of Retatrutide (LY3437943) in the Maintenance of Weight Reduction in Individuals With Obesity"; n 643; "Percent Change from Baseline in Body Weight"; 2028-04
NCT06982859
"A Study to Evaluate the Effect of Retatrutide on Insulin Secretion and Insulin Sensitivity in Adult Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus"; n 95; "Change from Baseline in Total Clamp Disposition Index (cDI) for Comparison of Retatrutide With Placebo"; 2026-12
6 further recorded trials
NCT07035093
"A Study of Retatrutide (LY3437943) in Participants Who Have Obesity or Overweight and Chronic Low Back Pain"; n 586; "Change from Baseline in Pain Intensity Per Numeric Rating Scale"; 2027-09
NCT07165028
"A Master Protocol of Multiple Agents in Adults With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (SYNERGY-Outcomes)"; n 4500; "Time to First Occurrence of Any Component of the Composite Endpoint for Major Adverse Liver Outcomes (MALO)"; 2032-08
NCT07232719
"A Study of Retatrutide (LY3437943) in Participants With Obesity or Overweight"; n 250; "Percent Change from Baseline in Body Weight"; 2027-07
NCT07357415
"A Study of Retatrutide (LY3437943) in Participants Without Type 2 Diabetes Who Have Obesity or Overweight"; n 600; "Percent Change from Baseline in Body Weight"; 2028-11
NCT07467447
"Effect of LY3437943 Versus Placebo in Participants Who Have Obesity or Are Overweight"; n 300; "Mean percent change in body weight from randomization/baseline to Week 24."; 2028-02-17
NCT07629401
"Pre-approval Expanded Access of Retatrutide (LY3437943)"
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q6
Which 9 trials of Retatrutide posted no result?
Posted no result
9 of 9 completed trials
Registrations
NCT03841630, NCT04143802, NCT04823208, NCT05445232, NCT05548231 and NCT05611957, and 3 more
Completion dates
oldest 2019-07-25; newest 2024-07-25
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT03841630
2019-07-25
NCT04143802
2020-12-28
NCT04823208
2022-06-23
NCT05445232
2023-02-24
NCT05548231
2023-07-27
NCT05611957
2023-09-05
3 further recorded trials
NCT06003465
2024-02-08
NCT06039826
2024-07-11
NCT05959096
2024-07-25
Q7
At the median, Retatrutide's trials enrolled 265.5 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
265.5
Largest enrolment
10000
Registered trials counted
32
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 4 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.