What clinical trials exist for Lipoless or its active ingredients?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No clinical trials for a product named “Lipoless” appear in the provided reporting; the sources instead document clinical programs for a handful of investigational lipolytic or lipid‑lowering agents (notably CBL‑514 for fat reduction and several Lp(a)‑targeted siRNA/antisense therapies) and offer databases and reviews useful for independent verification (ClinicalTrials.gov, Nature Medicine) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Because none of the supplied sources identifies Lipoless or lists its active ingredients, this analysis catalogs the closest relevant clinical programs cited in the reporting and explains the limits of the available evidence [1] [2].
1. No direct evidence of a “Lipoless” clinical program in the supplied reporting
A systematic read of the supplied snippets finds no registry entry, journal article, press release, or trial listing that names “Lipoless” or outlines specific clinical testing of a product by that name; the primary searchable resource recommended for trial verification is ClinicalTrials.gov, which the reporting cites as the central database for registered studies [4] [6]. The absence of “Lipoless” in these excerpts means there is no direct, source‑backed record of trials for that brand in the material provided [4].
2. CBL‑514: the clearest clinical program for non‑surgical fat reduction cited in the sources
Reporting about treatments for lipomas and non‑surgical fat reduction highlights CBL‑514 as an agent that completed Phase IIb work and was planning pivotal Phase III studies in late 2025 or early 2026, making it the closest analogue to a “lipolytic” clinical program referenced in the material [1]. The source frames CBL‑514 as moving toward Phase III pending Phase IIb results, which signals an industry pathway from early‑stage efficacy/safety work to larger, registrational trials [1].
3. Lp(a)‑targeted RNA therapeutics: active, high‑profile cardiovascular trials with robust trial infrastructure
Several sources document a separate but large clinical space targeting lipoprotein(a) — not local fat deposits — where agents such as lepodisiran (a long‑duration siRNA) showed large, durable Lp(a) reductions in Phase II and are advancing into Phase III testing; reviews and NEJM coverage underscore ongoing Phase 3 planning and expectation of event‑driven readouts for cardiovascular outcomes [2] [3] [7]. These programs are driven by cardiovascular outcome trials (MACE endpoints, multi‑year randomized periods) rather than aesthetic fat‑reduction endpoints, so while mechanistically related to “lipid” biology they are a different therapeutic category and are documented in the sources as major trials to watch [7] [2].
4. Gene‑editing and other lipid‑targeting programs referenced as future clinical avenues
The reporting notes that companies including CRISPR Therapeutics plan to advance a one‑time gene‑editing candidate (CTX310) into Phase Ib studies to address major lipid drivers of cardiovascular risk, reflecting a broader trend of gene‑editing and RNA‑based approaches entering clinical testing for lipid modulation [8]. Nature Medicine and related summaries also flag a slate of pivotal trials expected to shape medicine in 2026, but these citations describe high‑level trial priorities rather than a product called Lipoless [5] [9].
5. Cosmetic and surgical liposuction research vs. pharmacologic lipolysis — distinct evidence streams
Consumer and clinical‑trial directories for liposuction and lipoplasty are cited as places where cosmetic‑procedure trials are aggregated, indicating that research into surgical and device‑based fat removal is tracked separately from drug development [10] [11]. The supplied material therefore points readers toward ClinicalTrials.gov or specialty registries for procedure or device trials, but it does not connect those registries to any “Lipoless” product [4] [10].
6. Limitations, alternative explanations and how to verify further
The central limitation is that none of the provided sources identifies Lipoless or its active ingredients; therefore it is not possible from this reporting to assert which trials, if any, involve that product or its components [4]. Independent verification steps recommended by the reporting include searching ClinicalTrials.gov for the product name, ingredient names or company sponsor, and consulting peer‑reviewed summaries (Nature Medicine, NEJM) and specialty trial listings for cosmetic interventions [4] [5] [2] [10]. Readers should note potential promotional bias in industry summaries—media pieces highlighting promising Phase II data (e.g., Cleveland Clinic commentary) can overemphasize efficacy before Phase III outcome confirmation [3].