Zenagamtide
vs CagriSema.
Compare Amycretin, now Zenagamtide, with CagriSema by oral and injected routes, GLP-1 and amylin design, trial results, evidence maturity, and FDA status.
Also searched as Zenagamtide vs CagriSema · Amycretin pill vs CagriSema injection
What is the difference?
Amycretin, now called zenagamtide, and CagriSema are separate Novo Nordisk programs that both combine GLP-1 and amylin biology, but they have not been compared head to head. Zenagamtide is one investigational molecule being developed as a daily tablet and a weekly injection. CagriSema is a weekly fixed-dose injection containing two molecules, cagrilintide and semaglutide. CagriSema has completed pivotal Phase 3 trials and is under FDA review, while zenagamtide's current evidence is earlier and its Phase 3 development is underway. Neither is FDA approved.
See the useful differences first.
Start with identity, current US status, trial coverage, and the evidence relationship. Then carry the exact pair into a country-aware workspace without losing either record.
Zenagamtide
Investigational - not FDA approved
- Route
- Once-daily oral or once-weekly subcutaneous
- Registry
- 24 matched NCT records
- Sponsor
- Novo Nordisk
CagriSema
Submitted to FDA - not yet approved
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Registry
- 30 matched NCT records
- Sponsor
- Novo Nordisk
Zenagamtide vs CagriSema: how direct is the evidence?
No participant in the cited sources was randomized between Zenagamtide and CagriSema. Identity, mechanism, route, trial design, and regulatory status can be compared. Subtracting percentages from separate studies would create a treatment effect the evidence did not test.
Zenagamtide
GLP-1 + amylin receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-daily oral or once-weekly subcutaneous
- Stage
- Phase 3 development underway
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
Two evidence records, no shared randomization.
Treat percentages as separate source records. Do not subtract them, divide them into weekly rates, or use the larger value to name a winner.
No randomized head-to-head trialCagriSema
Amylin analogue + GLP-1 receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 / US regulatory review
- Status
- Submitted to FDA - not yet approved
The current exact-intervention dataset contains 268 unique NCT records across 13 tracked investigational programs. Counts describe registry coverage, not comparative evidence strength.
matched NCT records
- Recruiting
- 10
- Results posted
- 0
- Recruiting site observations
- 935
matched NCT records
- Recruiting
- 5
- Results posted
- 0
- Recruiting site observations
- 155
Compare the named molecules, active components, sponsors, and receptor strategies.
Compare the studied route, frequency, development phase, and exact program record.
Compare exact approvals, applications, and investigational status in the jurisdiction being checked.
Treat percentages as separate source records. Do not subtract them, divide them into weekly rates, or use the larger value to name a winner.
Use only adverse-event evidence reported for the cited protocol. Separate studies cannot establish which program is safer.
No group result, receptor count, route, approval milestone, or chart position predicts the best choice for one person.
Check both programs in the same market.
Approval, trial activity, product registration, pharmacy rules, and seller authority are country specific. Open both records before treating a status from one market as valid in another.
Zenagamtide
GLP-1 + amylin receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-daily oral or once-weekly subcutaneous
- Stage
- Phase 3 development underway
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
- Featured trial anchors
- NCT06049329 · NCT07503210 · NCT07668414
CagriSema
Amylin analogue + GLP-1 receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 / US regulatory review
- Status
- Submitted to FDA - not yet approved
- Featured trial anchors
- NCT05567796 · NCT05669755 · NCT07011667
Compare the field, then read the limit.
This comparison captures an unusually useful future-facing question: whether a single dual-agonist molecule, including an oral formulation, can eventually match or improve on a two-drug injectable combination that already has pivotal evidence. The shared GLP-1 and amylin language can make the programs sound interchangeable, but their molecular designs, formulations, trial populations, evidence maturity, and regulatory milestones are different.
| Field | Zenagamtide | CagriSema | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program identity | Zenagamtide, formerly amycretin, as one dual-agonist molecule | Cagrilintide plus semaglutide as a fixed-dose combination | Both engage GLP-1 and amylin pathways, but one molecule and a two-component combination are not interchangeable designs. |
| Routes in development | Once-daily oral tablet and once-weekly subcutaneous injection | Once-weekly subcutaneous injection | The oral program is a meaningful research differentiator, but neither route gives zenagamtide an approved commercial product today. |
| Evidence anchor | 13.1% at 12 weeks in a 16-person active oral Phase 1 cohort | 22.7% at 68 weeks in Phase 3 REDEFINE 1 under the trial-product estimand | Sample size, phase, duration, population, formulation, and estimand prevent a valid cross-trial winner claim. |
| Current milestone | Phase 3 development underway under the zenagamtide name | New Drug Application submitted to the FDA in December 2025 | CagriSema has the more mature regulatory record, but a submitted application is still not an approval decision. |
| Availability boundary | No approved product, dose, retail price, or pharmacy supply | No approved product, final label, retail price, or pharmacy supply | An online listing that borrows either investigational name does not establish sponsor identity or legitimate clinical supply. |
Why the headline numbers do not name a winner.
The widely repeated 13.1% zenagamtide result came from a 12-week oral Phase 1 cohort with 16 active participants. Later Phase 2 results were reported in adults with type 2 diabetes and included oral and injected formulations. CagriSema's 22.7% result came from the 68-week Phase 3 REDEFINE 1 obesity trial under a trial-product estimand. No participant was randomized between zenagamtide and CagriSema, so speed, magnitude, and tolerability cannot be ranked from these separate records.
Keep the comparison honest.
- 01
Use amycretin and zenagamtide for one development program, while keeping its oral and subcutaneous formulations and trial records distinct.
- 02
Do not compare a small 12-week Phase 1 signal with a 68-week Phase 3 estimate as though the programs shared randomization or analysis methods.
- 03
Treat CagriSema's FDA submission as a review milestone and treat both names as investigational until a regulator records a specific approval.
A country-specific approval, clinical trial, or matching name does not authenticate an online product or establish access elsewhere. This page contains no treatment recommendation, buying route, personal-use protocol, or affiliate link.
Open the safety and status guide →