Which specific commercial 'blood sugar' gummy brands, if any, appear in ClinicalTrials.gov records and what are their ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers?

1. What the question actually asks and how sources were framed

The user requests which specific commercial “blood sugar” gummy brands appear on ClinicalTrials.gov and their identifiers; that requires finding ClinicalTrials.gov entries that explicitly link a commercial gummy brand marketed for blood‑sugar control to a registry identifier. The materials provided include direct ClinicalTrials.gov links and industry reporting about gummy companies and academic trials of gummy formulations, so the search is constrained to those records and the caveat that not all company studies are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Direct hits: Seattle Gummy Company’s ClinicalTrials.gov entry

Seattle Gummy Company publicly states that its first gummy drug, Ceteric™ Allergy Gummy, has been “published at ClinicalTrials.gov” and points readers to NCT04071821; the company’s blog and press materials repeat that the trial is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov ^[1] and the company has documented IND activity with the FDA (IND 140312) ^[6]. The provided ClinicalTrials.gov search snippet itself appears in the source set ^[2], corroborating that records exist, but the supplied materials explicitly link Ceteric™ to NCT04071821 ^[1].

3. Trials that study “gummies” but not commercial blood‑sugar brands

Academic clinical trials in the supplied reporting investigate gummy formulations and glycemic response but do not study or name commercial “blood sugar” brands on ClinicalTrials.gov. A crossover trial described as testing sugar‑substitute gummy candies reports results using labels such as T‑SG (total sugar substitutes gummy), P‑SG (partial sugar substitutes gummy), and CG (comparison sucrose‑based gummy) rather than a market brand, and that trial’s publications appear in MDPI/PMC ^{[3] [4]}. These publications analyze glycemic peaks and texture effects but do not present a branded dietary supplement product linked to a ClinicalTrials.gov identifier in the supplied snippets ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Where industry coverage and registry records diverge — incentives and blind spots

Industry PR and trade reporting can overemphasize branded progress while registry coverage remains partial: Nutritional Outlook notes that many industry‑sponsored studies of blood‑sugar outcomes may not be registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or may be registered on other platforms, and the authors explicitly limited their analysis to trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, acknowledging that not every company registers trials there ^[5]. That means absence of a brand in the provided ClinicalTrials.gov snippets does not prove there are no branded “blood sugar” gummies being studied elsewhere or unregistered, and companies like Seattle Gummy Company actively publicize ClinicalTrials.gov listings to bolster legitimacy ^{[6] [1]}.

5. Bottom line and reporting limits

Based on the supplied reporting, the sole explicit commercial gummy product tied to a ClinicalTrials.gov record is Seattle Gummy Company’s Ceteric™ Allergy Gummy, associated with NCT04071821 as reported by the company (p1_s14; ClinicalTrials.gov index entry present in the dataset) ^[2]. Academic trials touching on glycemic responses to gummies exist but use generic labels rather than commercial brand names in the provided sources ^{[3] [4]}. The available materials also warn that not all industry trials are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and searches limited to that registry will miss studies on other platforms or unregistered company studies ^[5]. Where the supplied sources are silent, this report does not assert absence beyond those limitations.