Last Updated: May 2, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR MERIDIA


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for Meridia

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00234832 ↗ A Long Term Study of Sibutramine and the Role of Obesity Management in Relation to Cardiovascular Disease in Overweight and Obese Patients Completed Abbott Phase 3 2003-01-01 The purpose of the study was to determine the long-term effect of sibutramine treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in overweight and obese patients at risk of a cardiovascular event.
NCT00234988 ↗ A Phase IV, Multi-Center, Open-Label Trial of Sibutramine in Combination With a Hypocaloric Diet in Obese and Overweight Thai Subjects. Completed Abbott Phase 4 2004-06-01 The purpose of the study is to determine the safety and weight loss when sibutramine is used in overweight and obese subjects.
NCT00261911 ↗ A Study of Sibutramine in Overweight Adolescents to Assess Weight Loss and Safety. Completed Abbott Phase 3 2000-07-01 The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of sibutramine on weight loss, reduction in body size and improvement in metabolic risk factors and safety in obese adolescents.
NCT00402077 ↗ A Study to Examine the Safety, Tolerability, and Body Weight Effect of Pramlintide Alone and in Combination With Oral Antiobesity Agents in Overweight and Obese Subjects Completed AstraZeneca Phase 2 2006-11-01 This study will examine the safety, tolerability, and body weight effect of subcutaneous pramlintide alone and in various combinations with the oral antiobesity agents sibutramine or phentermine in overweight and obese subjects.
NCT00402584 ↗ A Study to Examine the Efficacy and Safety of Meridia® (Sibutramine Hydrochloride) in Binge-Eating Disorder Completed Abbott Phase 3 2000-08-01 The purpose of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of sibutramine in preventing binge eating episodes. Additionally the study aim is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sibutramine in reducing body weight in subjects with binge-eating disorder.
NCT00433641 ↗ Weight Loss in Response to Sibutramine (MERIDIA) is Influenced by the Inherited Genes Completed National Institutes of Health (NIH) Phase 4 2006-07-01 Control of food intake, size and frequency of meals are critical to the development of obesity. The stomach signals feelings of fullness after a meal and therefore plays a role in control of calorie intake. It is unclear whether the approved appetite reducing drug sibutramine changes the function of the stomach. Differences in the way individuals respond to treatment with the appetite suppressant sibutramine may also explain why some people lose weight while others do not. In a previous study of 48 overweight or obese participants, we preliminarily observed that variation in the gene for the promoter of the serotonin transporter protein was significantly associated with degree of weight loss. This new single center clinical study aims to evaluate the effects of the FDA-approved appetite suppressing medication, sibutramine (MERIDIA)on weight loss and stomach emptying in patients who are overweight or obese. The effect of individual differences in inherited genes that modify serrotonin and noradrenergic receptors on weight reduction with sibutramine will be tested.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for Meridia

Condition Name

Condition Name for Meridia
Intervention Trials
Obesity 13
Binge Eating 2
Binge Eating Disorder 1
Hypertension 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for Meridia
Intervention Trials
Obesity 5
Weight Loss 4
Bulimia 3
Binge-Eating Disorder 3
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for Meridia

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for Meridia
Location Trials
United States 31
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for Meridia
Location Trials
New York 3
Connecticut 2
Minnesota 2
Texas 2
Pennsylvania 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for Meridia

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for Meridia
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 4
Phase 3 6
Phase 2 2
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for Meridia
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 11
Terminated 2
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for Meridia

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for Meridia
Sponsor Trials
Abbott 7
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) 2
Yale University 2
[disabled in preview] 5
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for Meridia
Sponsor Trials
Industry 10
Other 4
NIH 4
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

MERIDIA (sibutramine): clinical-trial status, market reality check, and forward projections

Last updated: May 1, 2026

What is MERIDIA and how is it being treated commercially today?

MERIDIA is the brand name for sibutramine, an oral weight-loss drug (SNRI-type appetite suppressant). While it reached commercial use in multiple markets, sibutramine’s development and sales path changed after cardiovascular risk concerns tied to large outcomes studies.

Regulatory and commercial outcome (high level)

  • EU: Sibutramine was withdrawn from the market in the mid-to-late 2010s period following risk/benefit reassessment after outcomes data. (European Medicines Agency assessment and subsequent action for sibutramine; see EMA source in citations [1][2])
  • US: Sibutramine was removed from the US market in 2010 after FDA action following cardiovascular safety signals. (FDA action; see citations [3])
  • Net effect: MERIDIA is not a normal late-stage pipeline story. It is a legacy product whose “market projection” is effectively a decline-to-closure narrative because major regulators moved to restrict or discontinue use.

Implication for “clinical trials update”

Because MERIDIA is a legacy molecule with broad restrictions, new Phase 3 or late Phase 2 development is not the typical route investors expect. The actionable posture is to treat sibutramine as a closed commercialization case in most major jurisdictions, then map any remaining trials to niche scientific objectives (e.g., historical comparisons, mechanistic work, or derivatives) rather than a near-term relaunch pathway.


What do the pivotal clinical outcomes say about safety and efficacy?

Sibutramine’s risk profile drove the shift.

Efficacy (weight loss magnitude in typical use)

Across obesity pharmacotherapy history, sibutramine demonstrated modest weight loss versus placebo in clinical trials (exact effect sizes vary by study and baseline BMI). The key commercial lesson is that efficacy was not large enough to outweigh cardiovascular harm once outcomes evidence emerged.

Safety outcomes driving market withdrawal

A large outcomes study evaluated cardiovascular outcomes in higher-risk patients and found an increased risk signal that led regulators to conclude harm outweighed benefit.

Cardiovascular outcomes

  • SCOUT trial (high-risk populations): increased risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events for sibutramine users compared with placebo; this underpinned major regulator actions. (See FDA and review summaries citing SCOUT; citations [3] and EMA; [1])

This safety signal is the core driver behind the absence of sustained commercialization.


What is the current clinical-trials reality for sibutramine/MERIDIA?

No single “live global Phase 3 relaunch program” can be treated as the base case based on regulator withdrawals. The clinical picture is dominated by:

  • Post-marketing restrictions and pharmacovigilance
  • Historical study follow-ups and meta-analyses
  • Academic mechanistic studies (often without direct translation into an approved commercial obesity indication)

Because the topic request asks for “clinical trials update,” the most decision-grade conclusion is regulatory closure in major markets rather than a live pipeline acceleration.

Market-grade interpretation

For sibutramine, the clinical update is less about new efficacy signals and more about the continuing impact of outcomes evidence on patient access, prescribing practices, and regulatory acceptance.


What did regulators do, and when?

EU actions

  • The EMA reviewed sibutramine’s benefit-risk and linked the decision to cardiovascular risk signals that emerged from outcomes data.
  • The product’s authorization status was ultimately withdrawn, removing it from EU market availability. (EMA documentation; citations [1][2])

US actions

  • FDA requested/confirmed removal from the market in 2010, tied to cardiovascular safety issues reflected in the risk-benefit assessment after outcomes evidence. (FDA; citation [3])

Decision timeline (summary table)

Jurisdiction Action type Year Practical outcome for MERIDIA
US Market removal 2010 No US commercialization under MERIDIA/sibutramine
EU Marketing authorization withdrawal mid-to-late 2010s No EU commercialization under approved use

(US FDA source [3]; EMA source [1][2])


How big is the remaining market, and what share is realistic?

With US and EU discontinuation, the realistic market for MERIDIA depends on:

  • Access in jurisdictions where sibutramine was not fully withdrawn (some markets retain limited availability, others restrict)
  • Counterfeit and parallel-market dynamics (often more relevant for controlled substances and non-centrally authorized brands)
  • Competition from modern anti-obesity drugs (GLP-1 and dual agonists) that changed payer and clinician preferences

Given the regulatory removals in major high-income markets, the actionable market view is:

  • Primary market (US/EU): essentially closed for approved product
  • Secondary markets: any sales are likely small, uneven, and policy-dependent

Competitive displacement by modern anti-obesity therapy

Since 2021, anti-obesity markets have been reorganized around:

  • GLP-1 receptor agonists
  • Dual agonists (GLP-1/GIP)
  • Expanding class coverage via combinations and new agents

Even if sibutramine persisted in select geographies, it faces steep displacement due to payer coverage and perceived efficacy/safety profiles.


What market projections are defensible for MERIDIA?

Because the drug is removed in the largest markets, forward projection is a question of:

  • Whether any meaningful relaunch occurs (low base case)
  • Whether any remaining geographies sustain a residual market for a limited period (mid/low certainty)
  • Whether generics or unauthorized supply fill gaps (not a legitimate “forecastable” revenue story)

Base-case projection framework (decision grade)

  1. Approved US/EU revenue: 0 (no approved commercialization pathway)
  2. Residual international revenue: declines or remains flat at low levels depending on local policy
  3. Total industry “opportunity”: dominated by absence of approved use rather than growth

Projection table (directional, practical planning view)

Time window Approved major markets (US/EU) Residual access (select markets) Investment relevance
2026-2028 0 approved revenue low and policy-driven low for commercialization
2029-2031 0 approved revenue possible further contraction low to minimal
2032+ 0 approved revenue terminal residual tail de-prioritize

This is consistent with regulatory endpoints driven by outcomes safety data (US FDA [3], EMA [1][2]).


Could there be new clinical development or re-authorization?

A relaunch would require:

  • A new risk-benefit package that addresses cardiovascular outcomes
  • Evidence that a specific patient subset or modified dosing eliminates the risk signal
  • A regulator-ready clinical program

But the historical regulatory actions based on outcomes-level risk make this a high-friction pathway.

From a business perspective, MERIDIA is best treated as:

  • A legacy safety lesson
  • A near-term commercialization dead end in major geographies
  • A low-probability re-entry case absent a new, regulator-validated evidence package

What is the most actionable competitive context?

MERIDIA competes in obesity pharmacotherapy only in a historical sense. Current commercial dynamics:

  • Clinician and payer preference has shifted to newer therapies with more favorable risk perceptions and stronger efficacy
  • Any patient access to sibutramine in remaining markets is likely marginal and increasingly limited by prescriber comfort and policy restrictions

The net is simple: MERIDIA is not a candidate for a “market share capture” plan.


Regulatory sources and clinical evidence map

Key cited evidence and decisions

  • FDA market removal tied to cardiovascular safety concerns: citation [3]
  • EMA benefit-risk review and withdrawal pathway: citations [1][2]
  • Outcomes study signal (SCOUT referenced in regulatory discussions): citation [3] and EMA summary material [1]

Key Takeaways

  • MERIDIA (sibutramine) is a legacy obesity drug whose commercial future in US/EU is closed after regulator actions.
  • The clinical driver for discontinuation is cardiovascular risk signal from outcomes-level evidence (SCOUT referenced in FDA and EMA actions).
  • Forward-looking market projection is directional contraction with minimal legitimate revenue potential; approved major-market revenue is 0.
  • Any remaining “market” is policy-dependent residual access, not a basis for standard commercialization or investment-grade growth planning.

FAQs

1) Is MERIDIA still approved in the US or EU?
No. FDA removed sibutramine from the US market in 2010, and EMA actions led to withdrawal in the EU. [3][1][2]

2) What clinical trial most influenced withdrawal decisions?
The outcomes evidence tied to SCOUT cardiovascular risk findings is repeatedly cited in regulator actions. [3][1]

3) Does MERIDIA have an active late-stage development program?
The drug’s regulatory status in major jurisdictions makes a relaunch-grade Phase 2/3 program unlikely as a base case; the current update is dominated by legacy and restriction dynamics rather than new pivotal development. [3][1]

4) Could sibutramine come back via a new dosing strategy?
A re-authorization would require a regulator-accepted risk-benefit improvement supported by a new evidence package, which is not how regulators characterized the existing risk-benefit profile. [3][1]

5) What should investors treat as the realistic “market” for MERIDIA?
Primarily a residual, jurisdiction-dependent tail rather than a growth market, because approved US/EU commercialization is ended. [3][1][2]


References

[1] European Medicines Agency. (n.d.). Sibutramine: EPAR and assessment documents / benefit-risk review and withdrawal-related materials. EMA.
[2] European Medicines Agency. (n.d.). Community procedure referral outcomes for sibutramine (restrictions/withdrawal materials). EMA.
[3] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). FDA: Sibutramine (Meridia) drug safety communication and removal from the market. FDA.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.