Pain & neurology · Immune & inflammation
ARA-290
An 11-amino-acid EPO-derived peptide with real randomised human data in one narrow neuropathy setting.
- 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
Last reviewed 2026-09-06
A one-screen summary of what is known about this compound. Every field describes the evidence and legal status — not how safe or effective it is, and not a recommendation. The 0-100 figures are evidence-strength ratings, not percentages.
- Evidence level (type of study, not a quality rating)
- L3Early human studies
- How settled this rating is
- Low confidence in rating
- Human efficacy evidence
- 30 of 100 evidence strength
- Human safety evidence
- 25 of 100 evidence strength
- Regulatory status
- Not approved for this use
- Development
- Stalled
- Routes
- SC injection· unapproved
- Evidence base
- Includes human studies
- Furthest stage
- Phase II
- Source curation
- Sources fully curated
- How far human research has progressed
- Small randomised human studies in a narrow indication; no approval
Overview
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
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
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
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Development stopped here — a programme status, not a safety verdict.
Phase III
Approved
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.
- Related compound
LL-37
A human antimicrobial peptide studied topically for wound healing, now marketed for unrelated systemic uses.
- Compare
ARA-290 vs LL-37
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Context
Dark Peptides archive
Why development programmes stop — and why stopped does not automatically mean dangerous.
- Context
Safety Centre
What approved, investigational and unapproved actually mean for documented human safety.
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
Regulatory status
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
Small, short or uncontrolled studies in people. A hint worth following up, not a conclusion you can rely on.
What would change our rating?
- Larger randomised trials, especially outside sarcoidosis-associated neuropathy.
- Any regulatory submission or decision.
References and sources
- Peer-reviewedRandomised study of ARA-290 in sarcoidosis-associated small-fibre neuropathy (PubMed 24136731)
- Peer-reviewedRandomised study of ARA-290 with corneal nerve fibre and symptom outcomes (PubMed 28475703)
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.