(858) 665-2278

How Much Weight Loss Did the REDEFINE Trials Show
INVESTIGATIONAL - NOT FDA-APPROVED

CagriSema is being studied in clinical trials and is not approved by the U.S. FDA. It is not legally available for human use outside an authorized clinical study.

Status as of July 23, 2026

What did the REDEFINE clinical trials show about weight loss and metabolic outcomes?

REDEFINE is the phase 3 program behind CagriSema, an investigational once-weekly combination of the amylin analogue cagrilintide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide, and its headline result is human clinical evidence: roughly 20 percent mean body weight reduction over 68 weeks in adults with obesity or overweight and no type 2 diabetes. That number sits alongside broad improvement in waist circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides and glucose regulation, all of which are surrogate markers rather than demonstrated reductions in heart attacks or strokes. CagriSema is not approved in any major market, having been submitted to the U.S. FDA in December 2025 with a decision anticipated in late 2026, so the REDEFINE results describe trial evidence under regulatory review rather than an available prescription option.

REDEFINE 1 combination: about 20 percent Semaglutide 2.4 mg alone: about 15 percent Cagrilintide 2.4 mg alone: about 11 to 12 percent Placebo: about 3 percent REDEFINE 2 (type 2 diabetes): about 14 percent
The Big Picture

In REDEFINE 1, a 68-week phase 3 trial of roughly 3,400 adults, the cagrilintide and semaglutide combination produced a mean body weight reduction of about 20 percent against about 15 percent for semaglutide 2.4 mg alone, about 11 to 12 percent for cagrilintide 2.4 mg alone and about 3 percent for placebo.

How was the REDEFINE clinical trial program structured and what did each trial set out to test?

REDEFINE is a family of phase 3 trials rather than one study, which is why the published record reports it trial by trial instead of as a single pooled number. Each trial was carved out for a different population or a different question, and the four-arm layout of the anchor trial is what lets the combination be judged against its own components instead of against placebo alone.

REDEFINE 1, the anchor efficacy trial: Randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled in roughly 3,400 adults with obesity, or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication, without type 2 diabetes, over 68 weeks.
Four arms (combination, semaglutide 2.4 mg, cagrilintide 2.4 mg, placebo) separate the combination effect from a known GLP-1 effect.
REDEFINE 2, the diabetes population: A similar 68-week design in roughly 1,200 adults with both type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity, separated out because diabetes physiology and background glucose-lowering therapy blunt weight response.
REDEFINE 3, cardiovascular outcomes: An event-driven trial in adults with obesity and established cardiovascular disease, powered on major adverse cardiovascular events rather than on kilograms, and by design reporting years after the weight trials.
Later program entries: A head-to-head comparison against another incretin-based obesity therapy, regional studies in populations such as Japan, and studies of alternative dosing approaches.
Established Fact

REDEFINE 1 randomized roughly 3,400 adults across four arms over 68 weeks, and every arm including placebo received background diet and physical activity counseling, so the reported differences measure what the drug added on top of behavioral intervention rather than drug versus nothing.

What percentage of body weight did participants lose in REDEFINE 1 compared with the individual agents and placebo?

The single figure quoted from REDEFINE 1 is a mean reduction of about 20 percent at week 68, but the arm-by-arm breakdown carries more information than the headline does. It shows the combination outperformed its own GLP-1 component by roughly five percentage points, and that the two effects are not additive, since 15 plus 11 does not arrive at 26, which fits overlapping appetite pathways rather than two independent mechanisms. The roughly 20 percent also landed below the 25 percent many analysts had anticipated, and that expectation gap, not any signal of failure, is what drove the negative market reaction when the results were first released.

Trial arm, REDEFINE 1 at week 68 Mean body weight reduction
Cagrilintide 2.4 mg plus semaglutide 2.4 mg About 20 percent
Semaglutide 2.4 mg alone About 15 percent
Cagrilintide 2.4 mg alone About 11 to 12 percent
Placebo About 3 percent
Expert Note

Roughly 60 percent of participants in the combination arm reached a body weight reduction of 20 percent or more, a threshold almost no placebo participant reached, while the prespecified analysis assuming participants stayed on the intended dose put the mean nearer 22 to 23 percent.

How did results differ for participants who also had type 2 diabetes in REDEFINE 2?

Weight loss was smaller in REDEFINE 2 than in REDEFINE 1, and the literature treats that as expected rather than disappointing. People with type 2 diabetes consistently lose several percentage points less on incretin-based therapy, a pattern documented across the whole drug class and attributed to insulin and sulfonylurea use, altered energy balance once glucose stops spilling into the urine, and differences in underlying appetite regulation. That degree of glucose lowering alongside heavy weight loss also created a practical trial-management issue, since participants on insulin or insulin secretagogues can become over-treated as insulin sensitivity improves, which put background medication adjustment and hypoglycemia monitoring into the protocol.

Measure at week 68 REDEFINE 1, no diabetes REDEFINE 2, type 2 diabetes
Participants randomized About 3,400 About 1,200
Mean weight reduction, combination About 20 percent About 14 percent
Mean weight reduction, placebo About 3 percent About 3 percent
HbA1c at or below 6.5 percent Not applicable About 74 percent, against about 16 percent on placebo
What Separates Them

Participants in REDEFINE 2 entered with a mean HbA1c near 8.0 percent, and roughly 74 percent of those on the combination finished at or below 6.5 percent against about 16 percent on placebo, so the glycemic result outran the smaller 14 percent weight effect.

What changes were seen in blood sugar control, blood pressure, lipids and other cardiometabolic markers?

Beyond the scale, the trials tracked the cluster of measurements clinicians actually use to judge cardiometabolic risk, and each moved in the same direction as the weight in the combination arms relative to placebo. The honest interpretive caveat is that most of these improvements travel with the weight loss rather than representing separate drug effects.

  • Waist circumference: Fell substantially, the measure that tracks visceral fat rather than total body mass.
  • Systolic blood pressure: Dropped several millimetres of mercury, the range typically seen with double-digit weight loss.
  • Lipid panel: Triglycerides improved clearly, while LDL cholesterol changes with this class are generally modest.
  • Glucose and inflammation: Many participants with prediabetes returned to normal glucose regulation, and C-reactive protein declined.
Expert Insight

Blood pressure, lipids and HbA1c are surrogate endpoints rather than outcomes, and whether these improvements translate into fewer heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular deaths is exactly what the program's dedicated event-driven cardiovascular trial was built to test.

How did the flexible dosing design affect the size of the weight loss that was reported?

Dose flexibility turned out to be the most contested design feature of REDEFINE 1. The protocol permitted participants to remain at a lower dose or step down rather than requiring escalation to and maintenance of the top dose, so the population feeding the week 68 average mixed full-dose and reduced-dose participants. Where response is dose-dependent, an average that includes under-dosed participants has to sit below what the full dose alone would produce.

Treatment policy estimand: Counts every participant as randomized regardless of what happened to the dose; this conservative, regulatorily favored view produced the roughly 20 percent figure.
Trial product estimand: Estimates the effect had participants remained on the intended treatment; this prespecified analysis produced a figure near 22 to 23 percent.
Cross-trial reading: Competing obesity trials used different dosing rules, so a flexible-dose average set against a fixed-dose average is not a like-for-like comparison, whatever the ranked lists suggest.
The Lay of the Land

REDEFINE 1 reported two estimands for the same arm, roughly 20 percent under the treatment policy view and roughly 22 to 23 percent under the analysis assuming participants stayed on the intended dose, so any quoted percentage depends on which question it answers.

What side effects and tolerability problems were reported across the REDEFINE trials?

Tolerability in REDEFINE looked much like tolerability across the incretin class, which is to say dominated by the gut. Discontinuation attributable to adverse events sat at about 6 percent in the REDEFINE 1 combination arm and about 8 percent in REDEFINE 2, against roughly 3 percent on placebo in both, higher than placebo but short of a level that would mark the regimen as broadly intolerable.

Most frequent, concentrated during dose escalation: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and constipation, characterized predominantly as mild to moderate and clustered while the dose was being raised rather than spread evenly across 68 weeks.
The four-arm design indicates the combination is somewhat harder on the gut than semaglutide alone without introducing a distinct new class of problem.
Associated with the class and with rapid weight loss: Gallbladder-related events that rise with the speed and magnitude of weight loss, rare reports of pancreatitis, injection site reactions, and loss of lean mass.
Lean mass loss accompanies any large reduction in body weight, which is why protein intake and resistance exercise appear in the clinical literature on this class.
Not yet characterized: Rare events need far larger and longer exposure to surface than 68 weeks provides, and the ongoing cardiovascular outcomes trial will contribute considerably more safety data than the weight trials could.
The Real Risk

Adverse-event discontinuation reached about 6 percent in the REDEFINE 1 combination arm and about 8 percent in REDEFINE 2 against roughly 3 percent on placebo, and 68 weeks of exposure in a few thousand participants cannot rule out rare or long-term harms.

How do the REDEFINE results compare with trials of other incretin-based obesity treatments?

Placed next to published trials of other incretin-based obesity therapies, the roughly 20 percent from REDEFINE 1 sits in the same broad territory as the best results reported for dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonism without clearly exceeding them. Reading trials side by side that way is not reliable evidence, because separate studies differ in baseline body weight, demographics, duration, intensity of background lifestyle intervention, dosing rules and which estimand gets quoted, and any one of those can shift a reported percentage by more than the gap being argued over. The program included the only design that settles a comparison of this kind, an open-label 84-week randomized head-to-head under one protocol and one set of rules.

Head-to-head trial, 84 weeks Cagrilintide plus semaglutide Tirzepatide 15 mg
Mean weight reduction About 23 percent About 25.5 percent
Primary endpoint, non-inferiority Not met Comparator arm
Mechanism added to GLP-1 Amylin analogue: hindbrain satiety signaling, gastric emptying GIP agonism: adipose tissue, nausea signaling
Evidence status Headline results reported, peer-reviewed publication pending Previously published
The Trade-Off

The open-label 84-week head-to-head trial did not meet its primary endpoint of non-inferiority, with the combination producing about 23 percent weight reduction against about 25.5 percent for tirzepatide 15 mg, which places it as competitive rather than superior on weight reduction.

What do the REDEFINE trials still leave unanswered about durability and long-term outcomes?

The most consequential gap is durability. Obesity behaves as a chronic relapsing condition, and the consistent finding across this drug class is substantial regain in the year after treatment stops, which implies the combination would need to be taken indefinitely to hold its effect.

  • Duration and plateau: Both efficacy trials ran 68 weeks, and the combination weight curve had not clearly flattened.
  • Outcomes versus markers: No claim of reduced cardiovascular events holds until the event-driven trial reads out.
  • Body composition and rare harms: Multi-year lean mass loss and uncommon adverse effects sit outside these trials' reach.
  • Generalizability: Screened and monitored trial participants typically show better adherence than patients in routine care.
Built to Last

REDEFINE 1 and REDEFINE 2 each ran 68 weeks against a condition treated over decades, and across this drug class stopping treatment is followed by substantial weight regain within the following year.

What is the regulatory status of the treatment studied in REDEFINE and what does that mean for availability?

Trial results and market availability are two different things, and the distinction carries real weight here. CagriSema was submitted for regulatory review on the strength of the REDEFINE data and remains investigational, which means it is not a product a person can ask a clinician to prescribe the way an approved obesity medication can be prescribed.

  1. Submission: The REDEFINE package was filed with the U.S. FDA in December 2025, with a decision anticipated in late 2026.
  2. Scope of review: Regulators assess the full safety database, the manufacturing and quality package, the proposed labeling and the dosing instructions, not the headline weight percentage.
  3. Indication and jurisdiction: An approved indication is often narrower than the population a trial enrolled, and approval in one region does not imply approval in another.
  4. Legitimate access during review: Enrollment in an ongoing clinical trial is the established route to an investigational therapy, arranged through a treating clinician who knows the individual's history.
  5. Grey market exposure: The gap between publicized results and actual availability is what compounded and unapproved copies exploit, and regulators have repeatedly warned about dosing accuracy, sterility and ingredient identity in those products.
Code Requirement

CagriSema is investigational and approved in no major market, having been submitted to the U.S. FDA in December 2025 with a decision anticipated in late 2026, so it cannot be lawfully dispensed as an approved obesity therapy while that review is pending.

Educational use only. This article describes what the published scientific and clinical literature reports about CagriSema. It is not medical advice, and it does not recommend, prescribe, or tell anyone to use anything described here. The regulatory status shown at the top of this page reflects what the record showed on the date given there and can change. mdpep.com does not sell any substance described here, does not endorse human use of it, and does not direct anyone to obtain it.

This is not guidance for your situation. Nothing here accounts for your medical history, your current medications, or anything else specific to you, and none of it should be used to make a decision about your own health.

Affiliate disclosure. Some links on this site are affiliate links, and mdpep.com may earn a commission when they are used. That never affects what is written here, it is not an endorsement of any vendor, and it is not a statement that anything described on this page is available to buy.

Daniel Zengel
Written by Daniel Zengel
Medical Writer
Daniel Zengel is the principal owner of MD PEP and PRP Labs and a medical writer focused on neutral, primary‑source‑driven coverage of the peptide market. He draws on more than a decade in pharmaceutical and medical device roles, with a focus on regenerative medicine and platelet‑rich plasma (PRP) systems for US‑based clinics.

Need more help?

Have a question about this peptide? Send a note and we'll point you in the right direction.

Why you can trust this page

Every claim here ties to a named primary source and a date, written as plain documentation with nothing for sale. That is how MD PEP covers the whole peptide market.