liraglutide vs MET-097i

NCT00781937 · Phase 3 · completed

The trial randomly assigned 212 participants to liraglutide and 210 to placebo in a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, with objective body-weight outcomes assessed at week 56. All three prespecified primary comparisons favored liraglutide and were statistically significant (each p<0.0001), supporting a strong evidence grade.

NCT06712836 · Phase 2 · completed

The study randomized 239 participants to MET097 or placebo and used quadruple masking of participants, care providers, investigators, and outcome assessors. Its primary endpoint was the clinical outcome of body-weight change at Week 28. Registry results were not posted at the time of grading; the key result shown was recovered from the cited external source.

Caveat: this result is taken from a company announcement or a news report of one, not from the trial registry or a peer-reviewed publication. Treat the figures as the sponsor's own statement, not as independently verified evidence.

NCT00318461 · Phase 3 · completed

This was a large (n=1091), randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial with both a placebo-controlled comparison (liraglutide + metformin vs metformin + liraglutide placebo) and an active-controlled comparison (glimepiride + metformin). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at week 26, a hard, regulator-accepted outcome for type 2 diabetes. The prespecified primary comparisons for liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg/day were met: both were significantly superior to metformin alone (p<0.0001) and non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin within the 0.4% margin. The 0.6 mg dose was superior to metformin but did not meet non-inferiority against glimepiride + metformin, which does not negate the positive results for the clinically relevant doses.

NCT06897202 · Phase 2 · completed

The trial randomly assigned 133 participants to MET097 or placebo and was double-blinded, with percent change in body weight as the primary clinical endpoint. However, because no primary efficacy results are available, it is not possible to determine whether the endpoint was met.

Figures from conference coverage of the ADA 2026 presentation; weight change is from baseline, not placebo-adjusted, and no significance testing was reported for the weight endpoint. Caveat: this result is taken from a company announcement or a news report of one, not from the trial registry or a peer-reviewed publication. Treat the figures as the sponsor's own statement, not as independently verified evidence.