Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide
An immune-system peptide studied for wounds, infections, and inflammation.
Evidence is explained by question. Dosing references show their own check dates.
60-second overview
Why people look into it, what studies found, and what is still unknown.
Educational information only. Evidence reviewed through July 31, 2026. Published studies, sponsor announcements, and trials without results are labeled separately. Evidence gaps apply to the specific finding beside them.
Research questions
Each label shows how much evidence supports that question.
What studies show
A randomized topical venous leg ulcer study reported dose-dependent wound-healing signals over four weeks.
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.
Risks & unknowns
Local reactions and the peptide’s concentration-dependent inflammatory or cytotoxic biology require indication- and formulation-specific study; systemic safety is not established.
Controlled human evidenceReported events depend on population, formulation, route, exposure, comparator, and study size.
Open sourceThe available information does not reliably show how often particular side effects occur.
Evidence boundaryUnder-detected or under-reported events must not be described as rare.
Relay has not verified which side effects led people to stop treatment in studies.
Evidence boundaryThis is an evidence gap, not proof that discontinuations did not occur.
Relay has not verified a compound-specific warning summary for this profile.
Evidence boundaryInvestigational; no FDA-approved LL-37 product. Whether benefits reproduce in larger trials and how pro-inflammatory, cytotoxic, or context-dependent tumor-biology signals affect safety.
This profile does not contain verified, product-specific emergency instructions.
Evidence boundaryRelay does not infer emergency guidance from study discontinuations, mechanism, or incomplete adverse-event reporting.
Dosing references
Each table labels its source and applies only to the named route, product, or study. An online example or community report is not an approved dose.
Amounts reported in a human study. A studied amount is not automatically an approved dose or a recommendation for an individual.
A 34-person trial studied hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers after a placebo run-in.
| Stage / period | Amount in source | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 4 treatment weeks | 0.5, 1.6, or 3.2 mg/mL concentrations | Twice weekly |
These are solution concentrations, not injected amounts. The highest concentration did not improve healing versus placebo. The study does not establish a systemic antimicrobial injection regimen.
LL-37 · randomized topical venous-leg-ulcer trial Primary article · Methods / interventionThis reference checked Oct 20, 2026. The full-profile review date is shown at the top.This source does not establish a mixing volume or storage period for independently sourced powder. Use formulation-specific instructions; the study amount alone is not a reconstitution recipe.
Starting dose: the amount used at the beginning of the named label schedule or trial.
Maintenance: the ongoing amount described by that product label.
Trial target: the amount assigned to a study group. Different groups may stop increasing at different targets.
A randomized, blinded study investigated topical LL-37 in adults with hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers, comparing several study concentrations with placebo.
Population: Adults with hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers
Design: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study
Mechanisms
LL-37 interacts with microbial membranes and host immune and repair pathways. A topical venous-leg-ulcer study provides narrow human evidence; cancer, infection, and systemic-use questions remain unresolved.
A plausible mechanism can explain why a study was attempted. It does not prove that the compound improves a human outcome.
Research reference
A reference for the studies, populations, and routes behind this profile.
Early controlled human evidence in topical wound research; broader systemic claims remain preclinical.
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 trials and how pro-inflammatory, cytotoxic, or context-dependent tumor-biology signals affect safety.
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, topical, and limited to one difficult-to-heal wound population. It cannot establish infection treatment, systemic safety, cancer effects, or outcomes with injectable or other formulations. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
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 study
Adults with hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers
Topical LL-37 was tested for four weeks in hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers, with dose-dependent healing signals.
Study administration: Topical LL-37 at multiple doses versus placebo
Limitations: Small, short, topical, indication-specific study.
Early translational clinical study
Adults with melanoma
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
Early intratumoral research explored immune effects in melanoma.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Does not establish general anticancer efficacy or systemic safety.
Laboratory and animal wound models
Population not stated.
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
Preclinical models support repair signaling hypotheses.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Preclinical effects do not establish clinical benefit.
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 25041740
PMID 29665030
PMID 21693141