Cagrilintide draws more dosage searches than any other single compound on this site's dosage queue, and it has a curious problem behind it: almost everything that has been tested is the compound combined with something else. The number people quote for cagrilintide on its own rests on one phase 2 trial.
This page reports what the registry holds, with the records and dates. It does not recommend anything and it is not a protocol. Our guide to reading a dosing claim sets out why a trial arm and a dose are different objects.
What cagrilintide is, and is not
Cagrilintide is a long-acting analogue of amylin, a pancreatic hormone that acts on satiety through a different pathway from the GLP-1 receptor. It carries the development codes NNC0174-0833 and, in later records, NNC0174-1213. It has no approved label in any jurisdiction.
The pathway distinction is not pedantry here — it is the reason the development programme looks the way it does. Because amylin and GLP-1 act separately, cagrilintide was developed as a partner to semaglutide rather than as a competitor, and the resulting combination product, CagriSema, is what the programme has mostly been testing.
The registry, counted
Checked on ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-09-09, with cagrilintide as the intervention:
| Count | |
|---|---|
| Registrations naming cagrilintide | 43 |
| Lead sponsor Novo Nordisk A/S | 43 |
| Any other sponsor | 0 |
| Study titles naming CagriSema | 27 |
| Phase 3 registrations with a cagrilintide-alone arm | 1 |
| Withdrawn with zero enrolment | 2 |
Two of those rows deserve stating plainly. Every registration in existence belongs to the manufacturer — there is no academic study, no competitor comparison, no independent replication of anything. And the phase 3 programme tests the combination, with a single exception.
The one trial the dose figures come from
NCT03856047 is a completed phase 2 study of 706 participants with overweight or obesity. Its registered arms are the source of essentially every cagrilintide dose figure in circulation:
| Arm | Comparator |
|---|---|
| NNC0174-0833, 0.3 mg once weekly | Matched placebo |
| NNC0174-0833, 0.6 mg once weekly | Matched placebo |
| NNC0174-0833, 1.2 mg once weekly | Matched placebo |
| NNC0174-0833, 2.4 mg once weekly | Matched placebo |
| NNC0174-0833, 4.5 mg once weekly | Matched placebo |
| Liraglutide 3.0 mg | Matched placebo |
Two observations follow directly, and neither requires disputing the study.
2.4 mg is not the top of the range. It is the fourth of five arms, and a 4.5 mg arm ran beside it. The reason 2.4 mg became the circulating figure is that it is the dose carried into CagriSema, where cagrilintide and semaglutide are each dosed at 2.4 mg. So the number people quote for the compound alone was selected for the compound in combination.
The trial had an active comparator. Liraglutide 3.0 mg, an approved drug, ran in the same study — which is more than most compounds this site covers have ever had, and it is worth crediting where it exists.
The gap the programme has not closed
Trace the phase 3 registrations and the picture is consistent: REDEFINE and its siblings test CagriSema against semaglutide, against tirzepatide, against placebo, in diabetes and in obesity, at enrolments in the thousands. What almost none of them test is cagrilintide by itself.
The single exception is NCT07253285, a 460-participant phase 3 study in children and adolescents with excess body weight, which randomises participants to CagriSema, semaglutide, cagrilintide alone or placebo, with a 16-week escalation and 52 weeks of maintenance. It was recruiting on 2026-09-09 and has posted no results.
So the state of the evidence for cagrilintide administered on its own, as it is sold, is: one completed phase 2 dose-ranging study in 706 adults, and one phase 3 study in children that has not reported. Everything else in the registry is about a two-drug product.
That is a specific claim about what is missing rather than a general complaint that evidence is thin, and it is the kind of absence worth distinguishing carefully. This site's MOTS-c page drew the distinction between a registry that is empty for jurisdictional reasons, one empty for chronological reasons, and one empty because the work was never done. Cagrilintide is a fourth case again: the work was done, extensively, on a different question from the one a solo buyer is asking.
What a vial does not come with
Cagrilintide sold as a research chemical arrives without a label, without an indication, and without the trial's screening, monitoring and matched placebo. It also arrives with a milligram figure describing what the vial is said to hold rather than what was administered to anyone — the distinction our certificate-of-analysis guide works through, where purity measured as an area percentage of detected material and peptide content measured as a mass fraction of the vial are different quantities that a dose calculation can silently confuse.
The comparison worth holding onto is with semaglutide, where a regulator has reviewed the same manufacturer's data and produced five distinct labelled schedules with escalation intervals, indications and exclusions attached. Cagrilintide has the trials and not the review.