Retatrutide clinical trials: design, status and registry dates

Retatrutide clinical trials: what is registered?

Registry records identify Retatrutide as LY3437943 and include interventional studies plus a separately classified expanded-access record. ^{[1, 5]}

An interventional study assigns a research intervention to study participants. A registry identifier identifies the study, rather than a publication or a catalog material. Read the table by identifier: program names are useful labels, but they do not replace the individual record.

Coverage is limited to the identifiers below. The comparison transcribes recorded fields; it does not certify an exhaustive registry search or live verification. This tracker is limited to administrative and design fields, with abbreviated assessment windows; it does not compare primary endpoint measurements. Complete endpoint wording, subsets and measurement-specific reference points remain in each cited registry entry.

For compound-level context, see the Retatrutide catalog record and the receptor and structure overview.

Which studies are registered, and how do their fields compare?

The registered studies distinguish phase, allocation, masking, comparator and administrative status as separate fields. ^{[1, 2, 3]}

Allocation describes assignment to study groups; randomized assignment uses chance. Masking means concealing assignment information from specified study roles. An active comparator is another compound used for comparison. The table retains the masking codes DOUBLE, SINGLE and NONE without inferring the roles involved.

A primary endpoint is a prespecified main measurement. Primary completion concerns the final collection of primary-endpoint data; study completion concerns the final collection of all scheduled study data.

Assessment windows below are abbreviated, not statements of total study duration or a comparison of what each study measures. “Not separately listed” does not mean that a study lacks comparisons; it avoids assigning a comparator role that is not explicit in the summarized fields. “Not reported” marks an unfilled field in this comparison. Retrieval timestamp: unverified for every entry.

The expanded-access row is retained for classification, not presented as an interventional phase study. ^[5]

How do TRIUMPH and TRANSCEND-T2D designs differ?

The published TRIUMPH design describes double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies, whereas TRANSCEND-T2D registry records also include an open-label semaglutide comparison. ^{[31, 3]}

Open-label means that study assignment is not masked. The human TRIUMPH design report describes a basket design, with related study questions nested within overarching studies. ^[31]

Registered TRANSCEND-T2D-1 lists randomized allocation, DOUBLE masking and placebo comparison. ^[25] Registered TRANSCEND-T2D-2 lists randomized allocation, NONE masking and semaglutide comparison, while registered TRANSCEND-T2D-3 lists randomized allocation, DOUBLE masking and placebo comparison. ^{[3, 24]}

The separate registered phase 3 study NCT06662383 lists tirzepatide as its comparator and DOUBLE masking. ^[26] For compound-level distinctions, see Retatrutide vs tirzepatide: receptors and comparison limits. Keep those distinctions separate from what a particular comparative study was designed to measure.

What do status labels and completion dates mean?

Registry status is an administrative label, not a reported study result.

The following Spanish glosses explain the labels without replacing the original registry wording:

• COMPLETED — completado: study activities have concluded.
• ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING — activo, sin reclutamiento: the study remains active but is not recruiting.
• RECRUITING — en reclutamiento: the study is seeking participants.
• AVAILABLE — disponible: the label attached to the expanded-access record here, rather than a phase designation. ^[5]

Registered study NCT06260722 lists primary completion as 2026-08-27 but retains ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING in its 2026-09-28 update. ^[3] This example should be read as separate recorded fields, not as a reason to replace the status with an inferred label.

Actual-versus-estimated date qualifiers remain unverified in this comparison. Separate study-completion dates are not reproduced. Month-only dates remain month-only; they should not be interpreted as a particular day.

What has changed since the previous registry update?

A last-update-posted date alone does not establish which status, design or endpoint fields changed.

The registered TRIUMPH-Outcomes record shows 2026-10-08 as its last-update-posted date, while registered study NCT07035093 shows 2026-09-25. ^{[4, 28]} Read these as record timestamps, not as a verified change log.

Change-log status: baseline field transcription only; no archived prior-version comparison is asserted.

For reproducible coverage, the refresh specification is to search ClinicalTrials.gov using both retatrutide and LY3437943, retain records explicitly identifying either research name, and deduplicate by study identifier. Interventional entries and expanded-access entries remain separately classified. These are inclusion rules, not a claim that a complete live search was executed.

A verifiable refresh would preserve the search terms, retrieval timestamp, record version and previous field values. A change entry would identify the affected study and distinguish a changed status from an amended design or endpoint. Until that comparison exists, “changed” should remain unverified rather than inferred from a publication date.

How do trial records relate to catalog documentation?

Registry identity fields do not establish equivalence between catalog material and material described in a registered study. ^{[1, 2]}

A study identifier identifies a research study; a lot identifier identifies a particular material batch. A certificate of analysis is a document reporting analytical test results for an identified sample or lot.

For lot-specific documentation, consult the Certificate of Analysis library. Keep the documentation questions separate: the registry is the reference for the study fields compared above, while lot documentation is the reference for the identified material. A shared compound name should not be read as a documented connection between them.