Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Pain & neurology · Immune & inflammation

ARA-290

An 11-amino-acid EPO-derived peptide with real randomised human data in one narrow neuropathy setting.

L3Early human studiesNot approved for this useStalled
How settled this rating is:
low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Not established · Subcutaneous injection (marketed but never approved)
Also known as:
cibinetide, innate repair receptor peptide
Last reviewed:
2026-09-06
Jump to section

Evidence passport

ARA-290

A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.

Reviewed 2026-09-06
Evidence level
L3Early human studies
Confidence
Low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Not approved for this use
Development status
Stalled

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence30 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Human safety evidence25 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.

Evidence base
Includes human studies
Furthest established stage
Phase II
Human research maturity
Small randomised human studies in a narrow indication; no approval
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection· unapproved

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength30 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength55 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength25 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Small randomised human studies in a narrow indication; no approval

Routes & formulations

Marketed / research routes — never approved

SC injection· unapproved

Clinical studies used subcutaneous injection. There is no approved formulation.

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

    Development stopped here — a programme status, not a safety verdict.

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

Stalled

Early human randomised work was completed in sarcoidosis-associated small-fibre neuropathy. Our curated record does not establish an ongoing late-stage programme.

Last documented development: Randomised early-phase studies published 2013 and 2017

What it is

A short peptide derived from a region of erythropoietin, designed to trigger tissue-protective signalling without erythropoietin's blood-cell effects.

What people claim

  • Repairs damaged nerves
  • Reduces neuropathic pain
  • General anti-inflammatory and recovery agent

What the evidence actually says

Unusually for a research-market peptide, this one has genuine randomised human studies behind it — but they are small, early, and in sarcoidosis-associated small-fibre neuropathy specifically. Reported improvements in symptom scores and corneal nerve measures are a legitimate signal in that population. They are not a licence to describe it as a nerve-repair or recovery peptide in general.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Randomised early-phase study in sarcoidosis-associated small-fibre neuropathy (2013).
  • Later randomised study in the same population reporting symptom and corneal nerve fibre measures (2017).
  • No adequate human evidence in diabetic neuropathy, injury recovery, general pain or performance contexts.

Preclinical evidence

  • Tissue-protective and anti-inflammatory signalling via the innate repair receptor in animal models.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Selective activation of a tissue-protective receptor complex, separated from erythropoiesis.
  • Modulation of innate immune and repair signalling in damaged tissue.

Safety and unknowns

  • Short randomised studies reported it was generally tolerated; the total human exposure dataset is small.
  • Long-term safety is unknown, and no regulator has reviewed it for general use.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

Theoretical / mechanistic concern only

EPO-pathway biology raises theoretical questions about tissue growth signalling, but no human cancer signal has been established for this peptide.

Regulatory status

Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.

Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.

Not an approved medicine in any major region. Its human evidence comes from small randomised studies in small-fibre neuropathy associated with sarcoidosis — a specific condition, not general nerve pain, recovery or neuroprotection.

Evidence grade

L3Early human studiesLow confidence in rating

Preliminary human outcome research, including small or observational studies. Descriptive exposure studies alone do not demonstrate therapeutic benefit.

What would change our rating?

  • Larger randomised trials, especially outside sarcoidosis-associated neuropathy.
  • Any regulatory submission or decision.

References and sources

Source transparency

A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.

Sources fully curated
Last editorial review
2026-09-06
Recently reviewed · 45 days ago
Linked curated sources
2
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Peer-reviewed: 2

Review provenance

Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.

Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-09-06.