A small dry-eye trial published in 2015 reported favorable findings at selected checks. A separate trial of 72 people with dry eye missed both main goals, although some other measurements favored the peptide. A main goal is the result chosen in advance to judge the trial.
As of October 6, 2026, the ARISE-3 trial record includes results first posted on August 28, 2026. That later dry-eye trial enrolled 700 people and also missed its main goals. Favorable findings on other measures do not erase that result.
An 18-person trial examined neurotrophic keratopathy, an eye-surface condition involving damaged nerves. Its main wound-closure comparison was not statistically clear, meaning the study did not meet its planned test for a difference. A later check favored the peptide. These registered eye-trial results concern an eye preparation, not general recovery.
Skin studies also have limits. A 73-person trial of a topical gel, applied to skin, examined venous ulcers: leg wounds linked to poor vein circulation. Its report described an exploratory wound-closure signal. A trial in 72 people examined pressure ulcers, wounds caused by prolonged pressure on skin. The registry combines the peptide groups' closure results, which did not establish an advantage over placebo, a comparison gel without the peptide.
That trial's registry also recorded serious medical events in both groups. The record does not establish that the peptide caused them.
A 30-person gel trial examined epidermolysis bullosa, an inherited condition that makes skin fragile. It stopped early and found no statistically clear wound-closure advantage. The registered main goals of these pressure-ulcer and fragile-skin trials concerned safety; wound closure was an additional question.
A 2010 study in 40 healthy volunteers gave the full peptide into a vein to examine early safety. It reported mild or moderate unwanted effects and no serious adverse events. That short study does not establish long-term safety or an injury-recovery benefit.