Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Compound monograph · §3

Ecnoglutide — clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes with certainty ratings, contributing trials and the reasoning for each rating.

Document identifier
CEI-MN-015/3
Series
Compound monograph
Version
3.2
Published
27 Jan 2025
Last reviewed
27 Jun 2025
Next review
27 Jun 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.mono.15
Certainty
Low
Cycle
2025 Q1

§3Clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes for EcnoglutidePoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.00.20.40.60.8Standardised direction and relative magnitude of the recorded effectIndicationEffect as recordedObesity1 trial · Low−13.2 % body weight at 48 weeks with…Type 2 diabetes1 trial · Very low−1.8 % HbA1c reported at 24 weeks
Moderate or high certaintyLow or very low certainty
Figure 3. Illustrative. Assessed outcomes plotted on a common standardised axis so that direction and relative magnitude can be compared at a glance. The estimates are not on a common natural scale and the intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the reported precision, not the published confidence intervals. Published intervals appear in the per-indication extracts and in the text below.

§3.1Obesity and overweight in adults

Anchor outcome. Percentage change in body weight from baseline.

Effect as recorded. −13.2 % body weight at 48 weeks with the highest dose versus −0.5 % with placebo in a Chinese phase 3 trial; estimated difference −12.7 percentage points (95 % CI −14.5 to −10.9).[1,2]

Certainty. Low certainty Downgraded for geographic indirectness and because the Institute could not verify the primary publication against an independent record at this cycle.

Contributing trials. ECNO-PH3-CN-OBESITY. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for obesity and overweight in adults · Indication assessment

§3.2Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Anchor outcome. Change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol).

Effect as recorded. −1.8 % HbA1c reported at 24 weeks; reported without full confidence-interval disclosure in the sources available to the Institute.[2,3]

Certainty. Very low certainty Reporting incompleteness is itself the reason for the rating.

Contributing trials. ECNO-PH3-CN-T2D. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for type 2 diabetes mellitus · Indication assessment

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. Drucker DJ. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic application of glucagon-like peptide-1. Cell Metabolism 2018;27(4):740–756. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2018.03.001 · PMID 29617641
  2. Müller TD, Finan B, Bloom SR, D’Alessio D, Drucker DJ, Flatt PR, Fritsche A, Gribble F, Grill HJ, Habener JF, Holst JJ, Langhans W, Meier JJ, Nauck MA, Perez-Tilve D, Pocai A, Reimann F, Sandoval DA, Schwartz TW, Seeley RJ. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). Molecular Metabolism 2019;30:72–130. doi:10.1016/j.molmet.2019.09.010 · PMID 31767182
  3. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Q6B Specifications: Test Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Biotechnological/Biological Products. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline 1999;Step 4 version. identifier not held by the Institute

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.