Are there any registered long‑term clinical trials (≥6 months) currently recruiting to test collagen or gelatin for sustained weight loss?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the supplied reporting that any registered, long‑term (≥6 months) clinical trials currently recruiting are testing collagen or gelatin specifically for sustained weight loss; the clinical literature and trial summaries provided show most interventions are short (8–24 weeks) and focus on skin, joint, or mechanistic endpoints rather than long‑term weight management [1] [2] [3]. Several ClinicalTrials.gov entries for collagen or gelatin interventions exist in the provided dataset, but none of the snippets identify an actively recruiting, ≥6‑month randomized trial targeting sustained weight loss [4] [5] [6].
1. The state of the evidence: short trials dominate, long trials are explicitly called for
A recent review of collagen supplementation trials summarized 28 clinical studies with a mean intervention duration of roughly 11.6 weeks and noted that most RCTs clustered in the 8–12 week range, with only a handful extending to 18–24 weeks, prompting authors to call for long‑term trials with standardized endpoints and mechanistic biomarkers to validate durability and systemic effects [1]. Systematic and narrative reviews assembled here repeatedly show that published human trials have prioritized outcomes such as skin hydration, elasticity, and joint symptoms rather than sustained weight loss over many months [1] [3] [7].
2. Trials that tested weight‑related outcomes were short and inconclusive
Media and journal reports highlighting a human randomized trial of a low‑digestibility collagen that reported anti‑obesity effects describe a 12‑week study design, underscoring that the weight‑loss signals in the public conversation arise from relatively brief interventions rather than long‑term maintenance studies [2]. The broader clinical literature captured in systematic reviews likewise shows collagen research has concentrated on tissue, recovery, and cosmetic endpoints rather than chronic weight management, with trials frequently under 3 months and varying widely in dose, molecular form, and outcome measures [3] [1].
3. Registered trial records exist but do not, in the provided snippets, document ≥6‑month weight‑loss recruitment
Multiple ClinicalTrials.gov records for collagen or gelatin products appear among the sources (NCT03357432; NCT06321770; NCT07302789), indicating ongoing industry and academic interest in oral collagen interventions [4] [5] [6]. However, the supplied snippets do not identify any of these registrations as recruiting long‑term (six months or more) trials whose primary outcome is sustained weight loss, and none of the clinical summaries in the dataset report a trial meeting that specific criterion [4] [5] [6] [2].
4. Why the gap matters and what proponents and skeptics each emphasize
Proponents point to short‑term trials and mechanistic plausibility—hydrolysed collagen peptides have different absorption profiles and may affect satiety or gut mechanics—as rationale for exploring metabolic benefits, and industry coverage frames collagen as the “next” supplement to watch [8] [1] [2]. Skeptics and reviewers counter that heterogeneity in preparations, small sample sizes, short durations, and endpoints focused on skin or joints preclude claims about sustained weight loss, and multiple sources explicitly call for larger, longer, standardized RCTs with mechanistic biomarkers to decide the question [1] [3].
5. Limitations of this assessment and the transparent conclusion
This analysis is limited to the reporting and trial snippets provided: while clinicaltrials.gov identifiers for collagen studies are present in the dataset, the excerpts do not include full registry entries or real‑time recruitment statuses, so it is not possible from these sources alone to categorically rule out the existence elsewhere of an active ≥6‑month weight‑loss trial; nonetheless, within the supplied materials there is no documented, registered trial recruiting that meets the ≥6‑month criterion for sustained weight‑loss outcomes, and leading reviews recommend precisely the kind of long‑term studies that are absent from the current corpus [4] [5] [1] [2] [3].