Peptide library
Your guide to this compound.
The phase IIb venous-ulcer study did not show overall benefit. The favorable larger-ulcer subgroup was post hoc, and compression care was part of treatment. Another topical ulcer setting cannot validate systemic injection.
Selected full-text methods/results or correction sections assessed.
This assessment covers selected sources and sections. It is not a systematic review, formal risk-of-bias score, or clinician sign-off.
Editorial assessment · 2026-09-07
Source 1 · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Patients with hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers receiving topical LL-37 plus compression; separately, a topical-cream trial in mildly infected diabetic foot ulcers.
The phase IIb venous-ulcer trial found no significant overall healing benefit versus placebo. A favorable large-ulcer subgroup result was post hoc and needs confirmation.
Entire trial cohort versus exploratory post hoc subgroup.
U.S.: FDA lists this substance among withdrawn compounding nominations with safety concerns; this does not establish approval.
A separate diabetic-foot-ulcer study reported improved granulation but no significant reduction in the measured inflammatory markers or bacterial colonization. Different wounds and formulations cannot be pooled into a general treatment claim. Targeted source snapshot, not a full clinical review. Product stability, interactions and jurisdiction-specific authorization remain outstanding.
LL-37 is studied for local effects on wound repair and host defense. Biological antimicrobial activity alone does not demonstrate that a formulation treats an infection in patients.
LL-37 is studied for local effects on wound repair and host defense. Biological antimicrobial activity alone does not demonstrate that a formulation treats an infection in patients.
This catalog identifies human research. A trial can be early, small or negative; its existence does not establish approval or benefit for every proposed use. Check the study population and outcomes.
Nonclinical signals do not establish human causality or incidence.
This catalog identifies human research. A trial can be early, small or negative; its existence does not establish approval or benefit for every proposed use. Check the study population and outcomes.
Source 1 · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
LL-37 is a human cathelicidin peptide studied in immune biology and wound repair. Human trials have tested topical wound formulations; those trials do not validate injected LL-37 for infections.
Topical venous-ulcer trial; not systemic infection treatment.
The phase IIb venous-ulcer trial found no significant overall healing benefit versus placebo. A favorable large-ulcer subgroup result was post hoc and needs confirmation.
Entire trial cohort versus exploratory post hoc subgroup.
The phase IIb venous-ulcer trial found no significant overall healing benefit versus placebo. A favorable large-ulcer subgroup result was post hoc and needs confirmation.
Entire trial cohort versus exploratory post hoc subgroup.
A diabetic-foot-ulcer cream trial reported better granulation measures, without significant improvement in bacterial colonization or the measured inflammatory markers.
Topical cream for mildly infected diabetic foot ulcers; distinct formulation and population.
The venous-ulcer trial evaluated topical solutions at 0.5 or 1.6 mg/mL with compression. Concentration is not an injected dose; this does not establish a subcutaneous regimen.
Investigational topical formulation plus compression; not a self-use regimen.
FDA notes immunogenicity concerns and nonclinical reproductive and tumor-related signals; these are not quantified human risks.
Nonclinical signals do not establish human causality or incidence.
Evaluation of LL-37 in healing of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers: A multicentric prospective randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. 2021.
PMID: 34687253
Efficacy of LL-37 cream in enhancing healing of diabetic foot ulcer: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. 2023.
PMID: 37480520
FDA. Compounding substances with potential significant safety risks.
Catalog review date: Sep 7, 2026. This date alone does not establish independent clinical review.