Evidence record · ER-AOD9604-WEIGHT-015
Does AOD-9604 cause weight loss?
AOD-9604 produces clinically meaningful weight loss in adults with obesity
AOD-9604 did not produce convincing weight loss in its main 502-person obesity trial, whose primary endpoint was negative. Earlier biological rationale and smaller studies do not override that result. The claim is therefore unsupported for clinically meaningful weight loss, although this does not prove that every possible outcome has been tested.
Claim boundary
What this verdict covers
The verdict concerns meaningful body-weight reduction in adults with obesity, not a laboratory lipolysis signal, animal result or isolated subgroup finding.
- Compound
- AOD-9604
- Population
- Adults with obesity in a controlled programme
- Outcome
- Change in body weight
- Record ID
- ER-AOD9604-WEIGHT-015
Evidence synthesis
What the research can support
The FDA’s evidence review describes the OPTIONS trial, in which 502 participants were randomised and the primary weight-loss endpoint was not met. Development for obesity was discontinued. This is relevant negative human evidence, not merely absence of research.
Why the confidence is moderate
The negative trial addresses the defined weight-loss claim. It does not settle every potential pharmacological question, nor does it quantify risks of unlicensed products.
Decision boundary
What this record cannot tell you
This record cannot identify the contents, strength, purity, sterility or stability of a particular vial. It does not provide a dosing plan, administration instructions or a personal treatment recommendation. A supported narrow outcome cannot be transferred to a different route, population or product.
This publication has not independently tested a product for this record. Product evidence belongs to a named batch and method; clinical evidence belongs to the intervention actually studied.
From our work: how we checked this claim
ER-AOD9604-WEIGHT-015 addresses one bounded question: Does AOD-9604 cause weight loss?. Yianni Kiromitis checked the search record, source descriptions, study design, population, intervention identity, comparator and patient-important outcomes against the published evidence method. The source ledger contains 3 primary or official sources. Each was assigned only the proposition it can support; a regulatory document was not treated as a treatment trial, and an animal or laboratory finding was not presented as a dependable human outcome.
The recorded evidence basis is Relevant human, the verdict is Unsupported and confidence is Moderate. Eleni Kiromitis reviewed study design, biomedical evidence, laboratory context and analytical limits. Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou reviewed the clinical claim, adverse effects, contraindications, red flags and patient-facing safety wording. Both completed their assigned review on 10 August 2026. Yianni retained publication and correction responsibility. The review notes identify which source supports each material claim and which limitation must remain beside the conclusion.
No direct product testing, seller data, personal treatment experience or patient experience was used to set this verdict. The record cannot establish the contents, strength, purity, sterility or stability of a particular vial, and it does not provide dosing, administration or personalised treatment advice. A finding cannot be transferred to a different route, population, product or outcome without new evidence. We also checked the visible review date against the publication record and structured data. A new controlled study, regulator update, corrected source, analytical report or credible safety signal can trigger reassessment through the public correction route.
Source ledger
Evidence used for this verdict
Each source supports only the proposition stated beside it. Regulatory scope and study scope remain visible.
| Source | What it establishes | What it does not establish | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA AOD-9604 evidence review | The briefing describes the 502-person OPTIONS trial and negative primary endpoint. | It does not test every product sold as AOD-9604. | 10 August 2026 |
| Preclinical AOD-9604 research | The paper supplies biological and animal rationale for the fragment. | Preclinical activity cannot override a negative human primary endpoint. | 10 August 2026 |
| WADA 2026 Prohibited List | Growth-hormone fragments are prohibited at all times. | Sport status is independent of the weight-loss verdict. | 10 August 2026 |
Quick answers
Frequently asked questions
What is the verdict on AOD-9604 for this claim?
The verdict is unsupported for the precise claim stated on this page. It combines the evidence type, directness, consistency and study limits; it is not a rating of the compound as a whole. The confidence field shows how readily new evidence could change the conclusion.
What evidence supports this verdict?
The FDA’s evidence review describes the OPTIONS trial, in which 502 participants were randomised and the primary weight-loss endpoint was not met. Development for obesity was discontinued. This is relevant negative human evidence, not merely absence of research. The source ledger below links the primary or regulatory records used and states what each source cannot establish.
Does this evidence apply to a peptide vial sold online?
No. A study or authorisation applies to the exact material, formulation, route, population and controls that were evaluated. It cannot verify the identity, amount, purity, sterility, stability or delivery of a separate vial. Those are batch-specific product questions, not automatic extensions of an efficacy result.
Is AOD-9604 authorised in the UK for this use?
No UK marketing authorisation was identified for this use or for a medicine sold under this peptide name. The MHRA products database should be checked for the exact product and presentation. The boundary matters because evidence, authorisation and product quality answer different questions and should not be merged into one conclusion.
What should competitive athletes know?
Growth-hormone fragments, including AOD-9604, are prohibited at all times under the WADA S2 category. The boundary matters because evidence, authorisation and product quality answer different questions and should not be merged into one conclusion. Read the cited source and stated scope together before relying on it.
What could change this verdict?
A credible, independently replicated human trial showing clinically meaningful weight loss with prespecified positive primary outcomes and acceptable safety. Any update would be dated and recorded through the site correction and version process. The boundary matters because evidence, authorisation and product quality answer different questions and should not be merged into one conclusion.
Continue the investigation