Every human study of ARA-290, also called cibinetide, that reached the published literature delivered the peptide by injection, most often as a once daily subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, 4 mg, or 8 mg across a course of roughly four weeks. Those figures describe what a small number of phase 2 protocols administered to screened, consenting participants under medical supervision. ARA-290 carries no regulatory approval in any jurisdiction, so there is no approved labeling, no established therapeutic dose, and no standard of care built on any of these numbers.
The published human record for ARA-290 covers once daily subcutaneous doses of 1 mg, 4 mg, and 8 mg plus an earlier 2 mg intravenous regimen given three times weekly, each across roughly four weeks, for a compound that holds no approved dose anywhere.
The human record is almost entirely subcutaneous, with intravenous dosing sitting at the earlier end of the timeline rather than alongside it. That narrowness is not a matter of investigator preference, since an eleven amino acid peptide drawn from the erythropoietin helix B region is cleaved by digestive enzymes and crosses the gut wall poorly. Route claims that fall outside this list are the ones worth checking against the primary publication or registry entry rather than a secondhand summary.
Every published human trial of ARA-290 delivered the peptide by injection, subcutaneously in the phase 2 neuropathy studies and intravenously in the earlier four week sarcoidosis pilot.
The reported levels sit in a narrow low milligram band, and the schedules behind them are flatter than most readers expect: no loading dose, no titration through the first week, no taper at the end. Nothing was weight adjusted either, so a participant calculated nothing from body mass and everyone in a given arm received the same quantity from an identically prepared study supply.
The published once daily subcutaneous levels for ARA-290 are 1 mg, 4 mg, and 8 mg, all fixed rather than weight adjusted, with 4 mg the amount most frequently reported in the small fiber neuropathy trials.
Four weeks is the recurring figure, and the follow up mattered as much as the course. Investigators kept watching for some weeks past the final injection on the reasoning that a compound argued to promote tissue repair, rather than to mask a symptom while it circulates, should show something after it has cleared.
The published human exposure record for ARA-290 covers roughly 28 days of daily dosing plus a post-treatment observation window, with no meaningful evidence base for administration beyond one month.
Peptides are food to the digestive system. An eleven amino acid chain swallowed as a tablet meets stomach acid and then a battery of intestinal proteases and is cut into fragments before it can cross the intestinal wall intact, and whatever survives permeates the epithelium poorly because molecules of this size and polarity do not diffuse the way small drugs do. Expected oral bioavailability for an unprotected peptide of this class is effectively negligible, which is why injection was the only route that could deliver a known quantity.
An unprotected eleven amino acid peptide such as ARA-290 has effectively negligible oral bioavailability, and no published record describes a validated oral, sublingual, or capsule form of the compound.
The numbers look mismatched to the schedule, which is where most casual readers lose the thread. Reported plasma half-life in humans runs to minutes rather than hours, so on a conventional exposure model a once daily injection of something that clears that fast would make little sense at all.
ARA-290 clears from human plasma with a reported half-life measured in minutes, and the once daily schedule rests on a proposed receptor mediated mechanism rather than on sustained circulating exposure.
The regimens converge rather than diverge. Both the sarcoidosis associated and the type 2 diabetes small fiber neuropathy programs used daily subcutaneous dosing in the same low milligram range across about four weeks, even though one underlying disease is inflammatory and granulomatous and the other metabolic. That shared schedule reflects a shared hypothesis, aimed at damage to small unmyelinated nerve fibers rather than at either disease itself.
| Criteria | Sarcoidosis neuropathy trial | Diabetic neuropathy trial |
|---|---|---|
| Route and schedule | Subcutaneous, once daily | Subcutaneous, once daily |
| Reported dose levels | 1 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg | 4 mg |
| Course length | About 4 weeks | About 4 weeks |
| Outcome focus | Corneal nerve fiber measures | Nerve fiber plus symptom scores |
| Enrolled scale | Tens of participants | Tens of participants |
The sarcoidosis and type 2 diabetes programs ran the same daily subcutaneous regimen centered on 4 mg across roughly four weeks, and neither has been followed by published phase 3 confirmation.
A regimen is more than a dose and a schedule. In these trials the amount was considered acceptable because of the screening that preceded it and the observation that surrounded it, and none of that apparatus travels with the number when the number is quoted secondhand.
In every published ARA-290 trial the dose was administered only after defined eligibility screening and alongside scheduled clinical and laboratory monitoring, including hemoglobin and hematocrit checks, under ethics committee or institutional review board approval.
Approved labeling is the artifact that actually establishes a dose, and ARA-290 has none. No regulator, the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency included, has approved cibinetide for any indication, so nothing exists that sets an amount, a patient group, contraindications, and monitoring as a reviewed conclusion. A phase 2 paper reports what one protocol did with a small, deliberately narrow group, and positive phase 2 signals fail to replicate at a high rate across drug development generally.
| Criteria | Approved drug labeling | Phase 2 publication |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewed by | A regulator, across the full development program | Peer review, on one protocol's reported results |
| Underlying data | Includes submitted data never published | Only what the report contains |
| Population covered | A defined approved patient group | The small screened cohort enrolled |
| Standing of the figure | An established therapeutic dose | A historical fact about one study |
ARA-290 has no approved labeling from the United States Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, or any comparable regulator, so no figure in a published protocol carries the standing of an established therapeutic dose.
Dose selection for ARA-290 was never resolved, only bracketed. A handful of fixed levels tested against placebo in small populations is a starting point rather than an answer, and the gaps around frequency, duration, and untested populations are wider still. Material obtained outside a controlled supply chain compounds the problem, since identity, purity, and actual content are unverified there, which makes matching any published amount illusory in the first place.
Essentially the entire published human safety record for ARA-290 covers about four weeks of exposure, leaving cumulative effects, delayed toxicity, immunogenicity, and use in special populations uncharacterized.
Educational use only. This article describes what the published scientific and clinical literature reports about ARA-290. It is not medical advice, and it does not recommend, prescribe, or tell anyone to use anything described here. The regulatory status shown at the top of this page reflects what the record showed on the date given there and can change. mdpep.com does not sell any substance described here, does not endorse human use of it, and does not direct anyone to obtain it.
This is not guidance for your situation. Nothing here accounts for your medical history, your current medications, or anything else specific to you, and none of it should be used to make a decision about your own health.
Affiliate disclosure. Some links on this site are affiliate links, and mdpep.com may earn a commission when they are used. That never affects what is written here, it is not an endorsement of any vendor, and it is not a statement that anything described on this page is available to buy.
Every claim here ties to a named primary source and a date, written as plain documentation with nothing for sale. That is how MD PEP covers the whole peptide market.
