ARA-290 (cibinetide) is a synthetic 11-amino-acid peptide modeled on one surface of the hormone erythropoietin, and in its biggest trial, a 64-patient Phase 2b study, 4 mg a day for 28 days increased corneal nerve fiber area by 697 µm² more than placebo without relieving pain better than placebo did. Corneal nerve fiber area is the share of the cornea covered by fine sensory nerves, photographed with a confocal microscope, and it was that trial's main measure of nerve repair. No regulator has approved ARA-290 for any use, and no Phase 3 trial has been published as of September 2026.
ARA-290 was built to separate two effects of erythropoietin (EPO), the kidney hormone that drives red-blood-cell production: EPO protects stressed tissue in animal studies, but it also raises the red-cell count. A 2008 design paper, Nonerythropoietic, tissue-protective peptides derived from the tertiary structure of erythropoietin (Brines et al., 2008), described short peptides modeled on EPO's structure that kept the first effect without the second, and ARA-290 is the one that went on to human trials. Research vials are now sold online as research-use-only products, and Peptigrity holds 93 shop-published lab certificates for them on the ARA-290 lab tests page (verified September 2026). Forty-seven shops list the compound on the ARA-290 price comparison at $1.87–$10.76 per mg, a range that excludes shipping, taxes and customs (verified September 2026).
The short version
ARA-290 (cibinetide) is a lab-made 11-amino-acid peptide copied from one surface of the hormone erythropoietin (EPO), designed to keep EPO's tissue-protecting signal without raising the red-blood-cell count.
In its biggest trial, 64 people with nerve damage from sarcoidosis (an inflammatory disease) took 4 mg a day for 28 days, and the nerve fibers visible in their corneas increased more than on placebo, but their pain did not improve more than on placebo and the nerve gain began to fade once dosing stopped.
No regulator has approved ARA-290, no Phase 3 trial has been published, and the World Anti-Doping Agency prohibits it at all times, in and out of competition.
Side effects in the trials were mostly mild, one participant developed suicidal thoughts judged possibly related to the drug, and research vials cost $1.87–$10.76 per mg before shipping, taxes and customs (verified September 2026).
Peptigrity's 93 shop-published certificates give ARA-290 a purity index of 98.81, fifth-lowest of 64 indexed compounds, and only a mass-spectrometry result confirms that a vial holds cibinetide at all (verified September 2026).
What is ARA-290, and how is it related to EPO?
ARA-290 is an 11-amino-acid peptide, pGlu-Glu-Gln-Leu-Glu-Arg-Ala-Leu-Asn-Ser-Ser, built from the helix B surface of erythropoietin (EPO), and its PubChem formula gives it a molecular weight of 1,257.3 Da. EPO acts through two receptors, one that makes red blood cells and one that protects stressed tissue, and ARA-290 was engineered to reach only the second, a selectivity shown in animal and cell studies. A certificate for ARA-290 should report that sequence and mass, because a different mass means a different molecule.
Its PubChem record, Cibinetide | C51H84N16O21 | CID 91810664, carries the formula that mass follows from, and the European Medicines Agency's orphan-designation record spells out the same 11 residues. The first residue is pyroglutamate (pGlu), a glutamine whose side chain has closed into a ring, which is why the research literature also calls the peptide pHBSP, pyroglutamate helix B surface peptide. The PubChem mass is that of the free peptide: when a certificate reports a salt form such as acetate or trifluoroacetate (TFA), the counter-ion adds weight that is not ARA-290.
ARA-290 is the developer's code name, and cibinetide is its international nonproprietary name. The design came from Michael Brines and Anthony Cerami, and the clinical program was run by Araim Pharmaceuticals, a New York company in which both were officers, with trials published from Leiden University Medical Center, the Cleveland Clinic and Belfast between 2012 and 2020.
EPO itself is an approved prescription drug for anemia, sold as epoetin alfa (Epogen) and profiled on EPO (Erythropoietin), and its effect on red cells is the reason a tissue-protective version was worth building. The ARA-290 type 2 diabetes trial paper notes that EPO improves experimental diabetic neuropathy but that serious side effects limit its clinical use. The parent drug's record, including the trial that exposed its risks, is examined in EPO: The Drug That Works — and the Trial That Showed Why That Is the Problem, and ARA-290 exists because of that trade-off.
What have human trials of ARA-290 measured?
ARA-290 has been tested in four small placebo-controlled trials and one uncontrolled trial: three in nerve damage caused by sarcoidosis (22, 38 and 64 patients), one in type 2 diabetes with nerve pain, and one in diabetes-related swelling of the retina (9 patients). Its clearest result is objective: in the 64-patient Phase 2b trial (Human RCT), 4 mg a day increased corneal nerve fiber area by 697 µm² over placebo (P = 0.012). Pain intensity improved about as much on placebo in all three sarcoidosis trials.
That trial is reported in Cibinetide Improves Corneal Nerve Fiber Abundance in Patients With Sarcoidosis-Associated Small Nerve Fiber Loss and Neuropathic Pain (Culver et al., 2017), which randomized patients at Leiden and the Cleveland Clinic to 1, 4 or 8 mg a day or placebo, injected subcutaneously (SC, under the skin) for 28 days. All three sarcoidosis trials enrolled people with small-fiber neuropathy. Small-fiber neuropathy is damage to the thin nerve fibers that carry pain and temperature signals, and it causes burning pain and numbness. An initial open-label study in patients came before these trials, and a pharmacokinetic study in 10 healthy volunteers, which tracked how a dose moves through the body, set the subcutaneous dose.
Study | Type | n | Key finding | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Heij et al., 2012 — sarcoidosis; 2 mg intravenous, three times weekly, 4 weeks | Human RCT (pilot) | 22 | Symptom checklist improved 11.5 points vs 2.9 on placebo (p < 0.05) | Pain intensity improved equally in both groups; 4 weeks |
Dahan et al., 2013 — sarcoidosis; 4 mg SC daily, 28 days | Human, placebo-controlled | 38 | Corneal nerve fiber area up a median 14.5 % from baseline (p = 0.022); symptom checklist and pain interference beat placebo | Pain intensity fell about 9 % in both groups; skin-biopsy nerve counts unchanged; one site |
Culver et al., 2017 — sarcoidosis; 1, 4 or 8 mg SC daily, 28 days | Human RCT (Phase 2b) | 64 | 4 mg: corneal nerve fiber area +697 µm² vs placebo (P = 0.012); new skin nerve fibers up about 23 % (P = 0.035) | No patient-reported outcome beat placebo; 1 mg and 8 mg not significant; corneal gain faded after dosing |
Brines et al., 2015 — type 2 diabetes; 4 mg SC daily, 28 days | Human, placebo-controlled | Not stated in abstract | Long-term blood sugar (HbA1c) and blood lipids improved through day 56; neuropathic symptom score improved | One exploratory trial; nerve density rose only in those with the lowest baseline |
Lois et al., 2020 — diabetic macular edema; 4 mg SC daily, 12 weeks | Human, open-label | 9 (8 completed) | No improvement in visual acuity, retinal thickness or retinal sensitivity | No control group; the registry lists it as terminated |
Brines et al., 2008 — design study | Animal / in vitro | — | EPO-derived peptides protected tissue without stimulating red-cell production | Preclinical only |
What happened to nerve fibers in the ARA-290 trials?
Nerve fibers in the cornea increased on ARA-290 in both sarcoidosis trials that photographed them, while standard skin-biopsy counts did not change. The 38-patient trial, ARA 290 Improves Symptoms in Patients with Sarcoidosis-Associated Small Nerve Fiber Loss and Increases Corneal Nerve Fiber Density (Dahan et al., 2013), gave 4 mg or placebo daily for 28 days; corneal nerve fiber area rose by a median 14.5 % from baseline on ARA-290 (p = 0.022) and fell 5.3 % on placebo. In the 64-patient trial, only the 4 mg dose separated from placebo on that measure, and 1 mg and 8 mg did not. That trial also stained skin biopsies for GAP-43, a protein found in newly grown nerve fibers, and the 4 mg group's GAP-43-positive fiber length rose about 23 % from baseline (P = 0.035 against placebo).
What happened to pain in the ARA-290 trials?
Pain intensity improved on ARA-290 in every sarcoidosis trial, but it improved about as much on placebo, so no trial showed ARA-290 relieving pain better than placebo. The pilot trial, Safety and efficacy of ARA 290 in sarcoidosis patients with symptoms of small fiber neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind pilot study (Heij et al., 2012), gave 22 patients 2 mg intravenously three times a week or placebo for 4 weeks. Its main symptom questionnaire, the Small Fiber Neuropathy Screening List (SFNSL), improved by 11.5 points against 2.9 on placebo (p < 0.05). Scores on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a standard pain questionnaire, improved equivalently in both groups.
The 38-patient trial repeated the pattern. The SFNSL fell 12.2 points against 3.8 on placebo (p = 0.005), and the BPI's measure of how much pain interfered with daily life fell 36 % against 16 %, but BPI pain intensity dropped about 9 % in both arms. In the 64-patient trial every group improved on the questionnaires; among the 44 participants with moderate-to-severe pain, the 4 mg group's placebo-corrected reduction was 1.01 points (P = 0.157), which is not statistically significant.
What happened in type 2 diabetes?
In type 2 diabetes, ARA-290 improved blood-sugar and blood-fat markers over 56 days in one exploratory trial. The diabetes trial, ARA 290, a nonerythropoietic peptide engineered from erythropoietin, improves metabolic control and neuropathic symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes (Brines et al., 2015), had patients self-inject 4 mg or placebo daily for 28 days and followed them for a further month. HbA1c, a measure of average blood sugar over roughly three months, improved along with lipid profiles throughout the 56 days, and the PainDetect neuropathic-symptom questionnaire improved in the ARA-290 group. Corneal nerve fiber density rose only in participants whose baseline was more than one standard deviation below normal.
What happened in diabetic macular edema?
In diabetic macular edema, swelling of the central retina caused by diabetes, 12 weeks of ARA-290 did not improve vision or retinal swelling. The macular-edema trial, A Phase 2 Clinical Trial on the Use of Cibinetide for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema (Lois et al., 2020), enrolled 9 patients in Belfast, 8 of whom completed 4 mg a day by self-injection with no control group. Mean visual acuity changed by −2.9 letters, central retinal thickness by +10 µm and retinal sensitivity by −0.53 dB. A vision-related quality-of-life questionnaire rose 2.7 points, and some individuals improved, which the authors judged worth further study.
How is ARA-290 thought to work?
ARA-290 is thought to work by activating the innate repair receptor, a pairing of one EPO receptor subunit with one beta common receptor subunit (CD131) that appears on stressed or injured tissue and switches on anti-inflammatory and cell-survival signaling. Blood-forming cells respond to EPO through a different receptor pairing, which ARA-290 does not engage. This mechanism rests on animal and cell studies; the human trials measured outcomes rather than the receptor itself, so read it as a working explanation, not a demonstrated one.
The 64-patient trial's paper summarizes that preclinical work: the receptor signals through Janus kinase-2 (JAK2), an enzyme that relays the receptor's message inside the cell, and ARA-290 binds the receptor with high affinity and selectivity. The same paper reports that ARA-290 has a short plasma half-life yet produces sustained effects once its blood level clears the receptor's low-nanomolar threshold, which the 38-patient trial's paper puts at about 1 nmol/L. Preclinical studies have also reported that the peptide dampens TRPV1, an ion channel on pain-sensing nerves that becomes over-active in neuropathy.
The 2020 macular-edema paper adds that the receptor is upregulated by cellular stress, the basis for the idea that ARA-290 acts mainly where tissue is under strain. Because its target sits at the switch between inflammation and repair, Peptigrity files ARA-290 with the immune support & longevity peptides, alongside KPV and thymosin alpha-1.
What have the ARA-290 trials not shown?
ARA-290 has not shown that it relieves pain better than placebo, that its effects last, or that it works in a large trial. Its positive results are corneal nerve images, skin-stain counts and symptom questionnaires after 28 days of dosing in small trials, and in the 64-patient trial the corneal gain began to reverse within a month of stopping. No Phase 3 trial has been published as of September 2026, so treat every ARA-290 result as early-phase evidence.
The main objective endpoint, corneal nerve fiber area, is a surrogate: a picture of nerve structure that the 2017 authors argue can stand in for disease modification, not a measure of relief.
Standard skin-biopsy nerve counts did not change in either sarcoidosis trial that measured them.
Every published trial listed officers or employees of the developer, Araim Pharmaceuticals, among its authors, and Araim funded the 2020 trial in part.
No trial has compared ARA-290 with an approved neuropathic-pain drug, and none has dosed it for longer than 12 weeks.
Durability is mixed. In the 64-patient trial, corneal nerve fiber area trended back toward baseline after dosing ended; in the 38-patient trial, the symptom checklist still showed a small advantage over placebo nine months after the last dose, while pain interference and walking distance had returned to baseline. Peptigrity grades this body of evidence as moderate: randomized human data exist, but only from small, short trials run with the developer.
What side effects did the ARA-290 trials record?
ARA-290's trials recorded mostly mild side effects: in the 64-patient Phase 2b trial (Human RCT), the most frequent were injection-site pain, diarrhea, fatigue, headache and nausea, with no link to dose. One serious event there was judged possibly related to the drug, a participant on 8 mg a day who developed suicidal thoughts. The 38-patient trial found no medically significant changes in routine blood tests, and no exposure longer than 12 weeks has been studied. New low mood on ARA-290 is a reason to stop and seek help.
The other trials fit that picture. The 2012 pilot raised no safety concerns in clinical or laboratory checks. The 38-patient trial recorded no pain or irritation at injection sites and found no antibodies against the peptide. In the 12-week macular-edema trial, headache (4 of 9 patients), head colds (4 of 9) and nausea (2 of 9) were judged potentially related to the drug, with no serious adverse events and no antibodies.
The suicidal-thoughts case is the signal that matters most. The 2020 macular-edema paper, citing the 2017 trial, adds that the participant had a pre-existing history of depression and was one of more than 200 people treated with cibinetide by then; its own trial screened every patient with a suicide-risk rating scale, and none reported suicidal thoughts. New or worsening low mood, or any thought of self-harm, is a reason to stop and get help the same day: in the US, call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, and elsewhere call your local emergency number.
The trials also leave whole groups without data. The 2017 and 2020 trials excluded pregnant or breastfeeding women, and the 2017 trial also excluded people with a history of serious cancer, a body-mass index of 40 or more, or recent use of EPO or biologic anti-inflammatory drugs, so nothing is known about ARA-290 in those groups. Self-injecting a research-use vial adds risks the trials did not face, since their drug was manufactured for human studies.
Stop and seek care: swelling of the face or throat, difficulty breathing or hives after an injection are signs of a serious allergic reaction; spreading redness, warmth or pus at an injection site with fever is an infection; severe or persistent abdominal pain with vomiting on a GLP-1 drug can be pancreatitis; confusion, sweating or shaking on an IGF-1 or insulin-adjacent compound can be hypoglycaemia. Call your local emergency number (911 in the US, 112 in the EU, 999 in the UK, 000 in Australia) or go to an emergency department, and bring the vial and its label. Research-use vials are not approved products in any jurisdiction, even where a prescription product of the same molecule exists; no article on this site replaces a clinician who knows your history.
What doses did the ARA-290 trials use?
ARA-290 has no approved dose; the only doses on record are the ones its trials administered, reported here and not recommended. Most trials used 4 mg injected under the skin once a day for 28 days (human placebo-controlled trials), a dose chosen because it matched the drug exposure of the first trial's 2 mg intravenous dose given three times a week. In the dose-ranging trial, 1 mg and 8 mg a day did not beat placebo on the main nerve measure, and no course has run longer than 12 weeks.
Route | Dose (as stated by the source) | Frequency | Duration | Evidence level | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intravenous | 2 mg | Three times a week | 4 weeks | Human RCT (n = 22) | Heij et al., 2012 |
Subcutaneous | 4 mg | Once daily | 28 days | Human, placebo-controlled (n = 38) | Dahan et al., 2013 |
Subcutaneous | 1, 4 or 8 mg (only 4 mg beat placebo) | Once daily | 28 days | Human RCT (n = 64, four arms) | Culver et al., 2017 |
Subcutaneous | 4 mg | Once daily | 28 days, followed to day 56 | Human, placebo-controlled (n not stated in abstract) | Brines et al., 2015 |
Subcutaneous | 4 mg | Once daily | 12 weeks | Human, open-label (n = 9) | Lois et al., 2020 |
Oral, nasal or topical | None tested | — | — | No data | — |
Any route, beyond 12 weeks or repeated courses | None tested | — | — | No data | — |
The 4 mg choice came from the pharmacokinetic study in 10 healthy volunteers, described in the 38-patient trial's paper, which compared the drug exposure above the receptor's activation threshold produced by a 2 mg intravenous dose and by 2, 4 or 6 mg subcutaneous doses. Research vials are sized far above a single trial dose: 10 mg and 16 mg are the two most-tested sizes on Peptigrity's record, and listings run from 10 mg to 50 mg (verified September 2026). Converting a vial's milligrams and the water added into syringe units is arithmetic, which the Peptide Reconstitution Calculator performs for a figure you already have; it does not supply one. None of the trials tested repeated courses.
How does ARA-290 compare with EPO and BPC-157?
ARA-290 sits between an approved drug and a typical research peptide: it has small randomized human trials, which BPC-157 lacks, but none of the large trials an approval requires. EPO, its parent molecule, is an approved anemia drug whose side effects limit its use as a tissue protector, and BPC-157, a repair peptide buyers often weigh it against, has no published placebo-controlled efficacy trial. ARA-290 research vials cost $1.87–$10.76 per mg, median $5.00, excluding shipping, taxes and customs (verified September 2026).
Compound | Mechanism | Human evidence | Studied for | Availability | $/mg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ARA-290 (cibinetide) | Activates the innate repair receptor only; no red-cell effect | 4 small placebo-controlled trials and 1 uncontrolled trial; no Phase 3 | Small-fiber neuropathy, type 2 diabetes, diabetic macular edema | Research-use-only vials; not approved | $1.87–$10.76 (median $5.00; 48 offers) |
EPO (epoetin alfa) | Activates the red-cell receptor and the innate repair receptor | Approved drug | Anemia | Prescription only | n/a (prescription biologic) |
BPC-157 | Tissue-repair signaling proposed from animal studies | No published placebo-controlled efficacy trial | Tendon, gut and wound healing in animals | Research-use-only vials; not approved | Not read for this table |
Prices exclude shipping, taxes and customs, and the ARA-290 range comes from 48 comparable offers read on 25 September 2026. Buyers often compare ARA-290 with BPC-157 because both are sold as repair peptides, but the two records answer different questions: BPC-157's rests on animal healing studies, ARA-290's on small human nerve trials with objective endpoints. The live per-milligram range for that peptide, with the same exclusions, is kept on the BPC-157 price comparison and was not re-read for this table.
For a reader with diagnosed small-fiber neuropathy, neither peptide is a treatment. The 2017 trial authors note that no approved therapy targets the underlying nerve-fiber loss and that symptoms are managed with analgesic, anticonvulsant or antidepressant medicines. Those are prescribed after the cause of the neuropathy is found, and finding it, whether diabetes, sarcoidosis or another condition, is a clinician's first job.
How can you check what is in an ARA-290 vial?
ARA-290 vials are checked with three separate lab measurements, purity by HPLC, identity by mass spectrometry and net content, and each answers a different question. Across Peptigrity's 93 shop-published certificates, ARA-290 scores 98.81 on the Purity Index, fifth-lowest of 64 indexed compounds, and one vial tested 53.9 % pure (verified September 2026). Ask for a certificate that matches your lot number and reports a molecular mass matching 1,257.3 Da.
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) measures what share of the peptide material is the main compound. Mass spectrometry weighs the molecule itself, and it is the only one of the three that shows whether the main compound is cibinetide, because a peptide can show a clean purity peak and still be the wrong molecule. Reading that part of a certificate is covered step by step in Mass Spectrometry for Peptides, and for ARA-290 it matters more than the purity line does.
Net content is the milligrams actually in the vial against the label. ARA-290's measured content has a median of 104 % of the label, with 1 of 92 measured vials under 90 % and 12 over 120 % (verified September 2026), so the printed vial size is an estimate that the certificate should correct before any arithmetic. The gap between a 10 mg label and 10 mg of peptide is the subject of Peptide Net Content, the site's guide to reading that line of a certificate.
Most purity results bunch tightly: the median is 99.56 %, and 89 % of results reach 99 % or higher, against a composite of 99.51 across the index's 11,458 tests. Three of the 93 fell below 98 %, however, and only 26 certificates include an endotoxin result, a test for bacterial toxins that matters for anything injected. Endotoxin is reported in endotoxin units per mg (EU/mg) from the LAL (limulus amebocyte lysate) assay. Twenty-five of the 93 certificates were confirmed on the issuing lab's own portal (verified September 2026), and all 93 are ones shops chose to publish, a selection bias the lab-test page states openly.
Check | What it confirms | How to verify | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
Batch match | Whether the certificate describes your vial | A lot number on the certificate that matches the vial | No lot number, or one certificate shown for every batch |
HPLC purity | The share of peptide material that is the main compound | A purity figure with its chromatogram | Purity well below ARA-290's usual range (median 99.56 %; one vial 53.9 %) |
Mass spectrometry | Whether the main compound is cibinetide | A measured mass matching 1,257.3 Da | No mass result, or a mass that does not match |
Net content | The milligrams actually in the vial | Measured mg against labeled mg | A result under 95 % of label, or far over it (12 of 92 ARA-290 vials exceeded 120 %) |
Endotoxin | The bacterial toxin load of an injectable | An LAL result in EU/mg | No endotoxin line (67 of 93 ARA-290 certificates have none) |
Lab confirmation | Whether the certificate is genuine | The same certificate on the issuing lab's portal | A lab you cannot identify or contact |
If a certificate is missing or does not match your lot, the guide on how to test your peptides covers sending a sample for testing yourself.
Is ARA-290 approved, still in development, or banned in sport?
ARA-290 is not approved as a medicine by the FDA, the European Medicines Agency or any other regulator as of September 2026, and the World Anti-Doping Agency prohibits it at all times. No ARA-290 trial has been published since 2020, and the registry lists the last one, in diabetic macular edema, as terminated because its study drug expired with no replacement available. The European Commission's 2013 orphan designation for sarcoidosis marks ARA-290 as a rare-disease candidate, not an approved treatment.
Where does ARA-290's development stand?
ARA-290's development has produced no published trial since 2020, and the registry record for the last one shows that trial ended when its drug supply did. The registry entry The Use of ARA290 for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema lists the Belfast trial as terminated and gives the reason as "Expiry of study drug - no replacement available." The European Medicines Agency's record, EU/3/13/1191 - orphan designation for treatment of sarcoidosis, shows the designation granted on 7 October 2013 and its sponsorship transferred to Araim Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited in Ireland in April 2019; it states that the assumed benefit must be confirmed at marketing authorization for the orphan status to be kept.
Several peptide websites report that the developer has closed; Peptigrity found no primary record confirming it as of September 2026. In the US, ARA-290 has no approval and is not a component of any approved drug. Vials sold online carry a research-use-only label, which does not make them an approved product, and the grey market for peptides, where compounds are sold as research chemicals with nobody upstream answerable for a batch, is described on its own reference page.
Is ARA-290 banned in sport?
ARA-290 is banned in sport by class: the 2026 WADA Prohibited List prohibits innate repair receptor agonists at all times, in and out of competition, under section S2.1.5, and ARA-290 is an innate repair receptor agonist by design. The World Anti-Doping Agency's page The Prohibited List names asialo EPO and carbamylated EPO (CEPO) as examples rather than ARA-290 itself, and the section is open-ended. For athletes, ARA-290 is prohibited, not merely unapproved; WADA revises the list every year with effect from 1 January, so this is the 2026 position.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ARA-290 the same as cibinetide?
Yes. ARA-290 is the developer's code name and cibinetide the international nonproprietary name for the same 11-amino-acid peptide, which research papers also call helix B surface peptide (HBSP) or pHBSP. A product is that molecule only if its certificate shows the pGlu-EQLERALNSS sequence or a mass matching 1,257.3 Da.
Does ARA-290 raise red blood cells like EPO?
No red-cell effect has been reported: the 38-patient sarcoidosis trial found no medically significant changes in routine blood tests after 28 days of daily dosing. That is the design intent, since ARA-290 was built to leave alone the receptor that drives red-cell production, but no trial has run longer than 12 weeks.
How long did ARA-290 take to work in the trials?
The trials measured effects over 28-day courses. In the 38-patient trial, pain interference with daily life separated from placebo by the third week of dosing, and nerve fibers were measured at day 28; in the 64-patient trial, the corneal gain had begun to fade by day 58, a month after the last dose.
Can ARA-290 be taken by mouth or as a nasal spray?
No human data exist for oral, nasal or topical ARA-290. Every trial gave it by injection, into a vein in the 2012 pilot and under the skin in the rest, and none tested another route.
Is ARA-290 a steroid or a SARM?
No. ARA-290 is an 11-amino-acid peptide that acts on a tissue-repair receptor; it is not an anabolic steroid or a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM), and its trials measured nerve, pain and metabolic outcomes rather than muscle or hormones.
When should you talk to a clinician about ARA-290?
Talk to a clinician before considering ARA-290 if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, because the one serious event judged possibly related in its trials was suicidal ideation. The same applies if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, have had a serious cancer or have a body-mass index of 40 or more, since its biggest trial excluded those groups. Unexplained burning, numbness or nerve pain needs a diagnosis of its cause first, because small-fiber neuropathy is usually a symptom of another condition.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Peptides discussed may be investigational compounds not approved by the FDA (or equivalent regulators in your jurisdiction) for human use; research peptides are sold for laboratory use and are not manufactured, tested or labelled to pharmaceutical standards. Peptigrity does not recommend doses: every dose figure above is an approved-label value, a published-trial value or a community report, and is labelled as such — a community report is not a recommendation. Self-injection carries risks of infection, allergic reaction and dosing error; signs of a serious allergic reaction, an injection-site infection with fever, severe abdominal pain, or confusion and sweating on an IGF-1 or insulin-adjacent compound are medical emergencies — call your local emergency number. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before using any peptide or research compound. Peptigrity is an independent review platform and does not sell, endorse, or recommend specific products or vendors.
