Are there clinical trial results directly comparing gelatide to approved GLP-1 or peptide weight-loss drugs?
Executive summary
No available sources describe a head‑to‑head randomized clinical trial that directly compares the new non‑GLP‑1 agent eloralintide (an amylin receptor agonist) or similarly named “gelatide” against approved GLP‑1 or GLP‑1/GIP peptide weight‑loss drugs; the Lancet report on eloralintide and phase‑3/phase‑2 publications about oral and injectable GLP‑1s report placebo‑controlled results, not direct comparator trials [1] [2] [3]. The clinical‑trial landscape is dense in 2025 — many GLP‑1 agents (injectable and oral) have large placebo‑controlled trials and expanding indications — but the sources here do not document any published head‑to‑head efficacy trials of amylin receptor agonists versus approved GLP‑1 drugs [4] [2].
1. Why readers are asking: a fast‑moving market and many new drugs
The appetite for alternatives to GLP‑1s has surged because GLP‑1 receptor agonists and dual agonists like tirzepatide have generated large trial‑reported weight losses and new indications through 2024–25, prompting many companies to test oral formulations and different receptor targets — but most reported trials in the sources compare investigational drugs to placebo rather than to an approved GLP‑1 active comparator [4] [2] [5].
2. The eloralintide study: strong single‑arm numbers but not a direct match
Reporting from Medical News Today highlights a Lancet‑published Phase 2 trial showing meaningful weight loss with eloralintide, an amylin receptor agonist developed by Eli Lilly — the story frames eloralintide as once‑weekly injectable and contrasts it conceptually with GLP‑1s, but the coverage and linked Lancet report present placebo‑controlled results rather than a randomized head‑to‑head comparison with semaglutide, tirzepatide or other approved agents [1].
3. GLP‑1 evidence base: many large placebo‑controlled trials, few active comparators
The GLP‑1 class has amassed high‑profile, large randomized placebo‑controlled trials — including orforglipron’s 72‑week phase‑3 obesity trial reported in NEJM and numerous trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide — which establish efficacy against placebo and create benchmarks for percent weight loss, but these trials are generally not designed as direct active‑comparator superiority or non‑inferiority studies against new mechanism drugs in the sources provided [2] [3] [4].
4. Trial registry noise: ongoing studies but no published head‑to‑head results in cited records
ClinicalTrials.gov and pipeline summaries in the materials show many ongoing and planned trials in 2025 — including oral GLP‑1s, combination agonists and studies for new indications — but the cited records and pipeline updates in these search results do not report completed, peer‑reviewed trials that pit an amylin agonist (or product called “gelatide” in your query) directly against an approved GLP‑1 drug [6] [7] [5].
5. Alternative interpretations and limitations of available reporting
Sources confirm the dominance of placebo‑controlled randomized trials in this field and the rapid expansion of GLP‑1 development activity [5] [4], so the lack of head‑to‑head data in these documents could mean such trials have not been completed, have not been registered in the cited records, or have not yet been published. Available sources do not mention any completed, peer‑reviewed head‑to‑head trial comparing eloralintide (or “gelatide”) directly with approved GLP‑1s [1] [2] [3].
6. What would constitute a definitive answer and where to watch next
A definitive head‑to‑head would appear as a randomized active‑comparator trial published in a major journal or listed with results on ClinicalTrials.gov with investigators named and outcomes reported. To verify if such a trial emerges, watch Lancet/NEJM publications and updated ClinicalTrials.gov records and pipeline summaries from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and trial aggregators; the current cited pipeline and journal items emphasize placebo‑controlled efficacy and expanding indications rather than direct comparative trials [2] [7] [5].
Limitations: This analysis draws only on the provided search results and cites them directly. If you want, I can search ClinicalTrials.gov and the major journals for any newly posted active‑comparator trials beyond these results.