Are there clinical trial results comparing gelatide to approved GLP-1 or peptide obesity drugs?

1. What the literature actually compares: GLP‑1 vs GLP‑1, and new GLP‑1‑type entrants

Most peer‑reviewed and summary sources in the dataset focus on comparative efficacy within GLP‑1 receptor agonists (for example, systematic reviews and network meta‑analyses comparing multiple GLP‑1RAs on glycaemic control, weight and lipids) and on the expanding GLP‑1 pipeline with dozens of trials in 2025 ^{[1] [2]}. Large randomized trials of newer agents such as orforglipron and tirzepatide and meta‑analyses that pool GLP‑1 drugs dominate the reporting; these materials document head‑to‑head or network comparisons among GLP‑1 class drugs rather than comparisons to a product called “gelatide” ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

2. No mention of “gelatide” in the provided sources

I searched the supplied result set for any mention of “gelatide” and found none; the documents discuss established GLP‑1s (semaglutide, liraglutide, tirzepatide), novel GLP‑1s (orforglipron, retatrutide, CagriSema) and non‑GLP‑1 approaches such as amylin agonists (eloralintide/amycretin) — but not gelatide ^{[3] [5] [4] [1]}. Therefore any assertion that gelatide has been compared in clinical trials to approved GLP‑1s is not supported by the supplied reporting (available sources do not mention “gelatide”) ^{[5] [3] [1]}.

3. How head‑to‑head evidence typically appears in these sources

When direct comparisons exist, they appear as randomized controlled trials, phase‑3 programs or network meta‑analyses pooling many RCTs; examples in the set include phase‑3 orforglipron obesity trials and systematic comparisons of GLP‑1RAs in type 2 diabetes and weight outcomes ^{[4] [1]}. Industry pipeline trackers and commentary emphasize many trials in 2025 and point to companies (Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly) running the largest programs — that is where head‑to‑head or indirect comparative evidence is concentrated ^{[2] [6]}.

4. Alternatives and non‑GLP‑1 competitors being tested

The field is explicitly moving beyond single‑hormone GLP‑1 agonists: the sources note new multimodal peptides and non‑peptide small molecules (GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonists like tirzepatide, GLP‑1 + amylin combinations, oral small‑molecule GLP‑1 agonists) and an amylin receptor agonist (eloralintide) showing strong phase‑2 weight‑loss signals in reporting ^{[3] [5] [4]}. Those materials indicate that comparative testing is likely to concentrate on next‑generation GLP‑1 combos and new mechanism drugs — again, no mention of gelatide in this context ^{[3] [5]}.

5. How to verify whether gelatide exists and has been trialled

Given the absence of gelatide in this dataset, verify its existence by checking clinicaltrials.gov, company pipelines or primary trial publications. In the supplied sources, clinical‑trial databases and pipeline trackers are referenced as the places where new comparative trials are logged — for example GlobalData/ClinicalTrials databases and Prime Therapeutics’ pipeline updates ^{[2] [6]}. The material implies that most head‑to‑head data show up first in registries and peer‑reviewed trial reports ^{[4] [1]}.

6. What this means for clinicians and patients now

Available reporting documents robust comparative data among GLP‑1 agents and many trials for next‑generation or non‑GLP‑1 drugs; clinicians should rely on published RCTs and systematic reviews for relative efficacy and safety comparisons ^{[1] [4]}. If you or a clinician are weighing a therapy called “gelatide,” the absence of mention in these trial summaries and pipeline reports means its comparative evidence is not present in the cited coverage — confirm by looking for primary trial entries or peer‑reviewed results in trial registries and journals ^{[2] [4]}.

Limitations: these conclusions are strictly drawn from the supplied sources; they do not rule out gelatide being reported elsewhere outside this dataset (available sources do not mention “gelatide”) ^{[1] [3]}.