Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Erythropoietin-derived tissue-protective peptide
Cibinetide, formerly ARA-290, is an EPO-derived peptide designed to activate tissue-protective signaling without stimulating red-blood-cell production.
60-Second Overview
Start with what it is, why it matters, what research has shown, and what remains unknown. The science follows after the orientation.
Start here. These four answers explain why the compound matters before the page introduces the deeper science.
Cibinetide, formerly called ARA-290, is an investigational peptide derived from part of erythropoietin. It was designed to explore tissue-protective signaling without stimulating red-blood-cell production.
Researchers have tested whether that signaling can affect nerve injury, pain, inflammation, or eye disease. Small-fiber neuropathy has been the clearest human research setting so far.
Several randomized Phase 2 studies in sarcoidosis-associated small-fiber neuropathy reported symptom, functional, or corneal nerve-fiber signals over about four weeks. A separate controlled eye study explored diabetic macular edema. The trials were small, short, and used specialized outcomes.
Whether the findings reproduce in larger and longer trials, translate into durable patient-important benefit, and support a favorable safety profile remains unknown. Results in sarcoidosis-associated neuropathy cannot establish effects in unrelated pain or recovery settings.
The research depth, routes, studies, and primary sources below explain how Relay knows—and where the evidence stops.
Research context
Published research has investigated this compound using the following study designs.
These records explain what researchers did. They are not instructions, recommendations, or a transferable protocol.
A randomized, blinded trial investigated cibinetide in adults with sarcoidosis-associated small-fiber neuropathy, measuring symptoms and function over a short treatment window.
Reported study administration—not a recommendation.
Research at a glance
Evidence depth, confidence, and route context explain how Relay knows—not what anyone should do.
Controlled early human research in small-fiber neuropathy and related tissue-injury questions.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
Whether benefits reproduce in larger, longer trials with clinically decisive endpoints and a fully characterized safety profile.
Confidence describes how reliable and consistent the conclusions are. It can be high for one outcome and low for another.
The strongest evidence type shows what the best-supported conclusions are actually based on.
Human findings are more directly relevant than animal or laboratory results, but they still apply only to the populations and outcomes studied.
Route-specific record
These are exposures used in cited research for a specific route and population—not an instruction for an individual.
Half-life describes how long it takes the measured amount in the body to fall by half. It is not a dosing recommendation.
Evidence can change by administration method. Findings from one route should not automatically be applied to another.
Evidence boundary: The study was small, short, and limited to a specialized neuropathy population. Signals in symptoms or nerve measures require larger confirmation and do not establish effects for unrelated pain, injury, or recovery questions. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
Detailed evidence
Start with the strongest supported conclusion and its main uncertainty. Claim-level records below show how the evidence changes by question, population, route, formulation, and study design.
Randomized Phase 2 studies in sarcoidosis-associated small-fiber neuropathy reported nerve-fiber and symptom findings over approximately four weeks.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Whether benefits reproduce in larger, longer trials with clinically decisive endpoints and a fully characterized safety profile.
Keeping the main uncertainty visible prevents an early or promising finding from looking more settled than it is.
Questions people bring to the evidence
Research questions—not promises of benefit.
This is the strongest human-evidence boundary in the current record.
Mechanistic findings explain biological plausibility; they do not establish a human outcome.
Relay keeps this uncertainty visible rather than converting it into a prediction.
The safety snapshot reflects the studied record and its limitations.
Regulatory and identity status determine how the evidence should be interpreted.
Mechanisms
The 11-amino-acid peptide targets the innate repair receptor complex proposed to include EPOR and CD131. Small controlled studies report corneal-nerve and symptom signals in selected neuropathy populations.
A plausible mechanism can explain why a study was attempted. It does not prove that the compound improves a human outcome.
Studies
Study arms are reported for transparency. They describe what researchers did in a defined record and do not transfer across identities, routes, formulations, or populations.
A later trial phase can ask a more mature question, but it does not guarantee a positive result, regulatory approval, or relevance outside the studied population.
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial
Adults with sarcoidosis-associated small-fiber neuropathy
A randomized placebo-controlled study reported symptom and functional signals in sarcoidosis-associated small-fiber neuropathy.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Small, short, indication-specific study.
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled dose-ranging trial
Adults with painful sarcoid neuropathy
A dose-ranging randomized study reported corneal nerve-fiber changes and symptom associations.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Short study and specialized surrogate endpoint; requires larger confirmation.
Randomized controlled trial
Adults with diabetic macular edema
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
A 12-week controlled study explored ocular and systemic outcomes.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Exploratory findings across multiple endpoints.
Safety snapshot
Small trials did not identify erythropoietic effects expected from full EPO, but study size and duration are insufficient for uncommon or longer-term risks.
Controlled human evidenceReported events depend on population, formulation, route, exposure, comparator, and study size.
Open sourceSmall trials did not identify erythropoietic effects expected from full EPO, but study size and duration are insufficient for uncommon or longer-term risks.
Controlled human evidenceLow-frequency estimates are sensitive to sample size, follow-up, ascertainment, formulation, and population.
Open sourceNo source-qualified compound-specific warning or contraindication is encoded in the current record.
Evidence boundaryInvestigational; no FDA-approved cibinetide product. Whether benefits reproduce in larger, longer trials with clinically decisive endpoints and a fully characterized safety profile.
The current record does not identify a reliable compound-specific pattern of events that caused study discontinuation.
Evidence boundaryThis is an evidence gap, not proof that discontinuations did not occur.
No compound-specific patient-facing urgent-action threshold is established in the current Relay record.
Evidence boundaryRelay does not infer emergency guidance from study discontinuations, mechanism, or incomplete adverse-event reporting.
Community
Built by the community
Every structured report adds useful context about research setup, outcomes, and unwanted effects as the community dataset grows.
Publicly anonymous by default. Your account keeps reports editable and helps reduce duplicate submissions.Sources
PMID 24136731
PMID 27965214
PMID 32587976