Evidence record · ER-LL37-VLU-025
Does topical LL-37 improve venous leg-ulcer healing?
Topical LL-37 improves healing of venous leg ulcers
Topical LL-37 produced encouraging signals in a small early venous leg-ulcer trial, but a larger phase IIb study did not show a significant overall benefit. A post-hoc signal in larger ulcers remains hypothesis-generating. The human evidence is therefore mixed rather than clearly supportive or wholly negative.
Claim boundary
What this verdict covers
The claim is limited to a defined topical LL-37 product used for venous leg ulcers alongside standard care. It does not cover injections, other wounds or general antimicrobial use.
- Compound
- LL-37
- Population
- Adults with hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers
- Outcome
- Ulcer area reduction or complete healing
- Record ID
- ER-LL37-VLU-025
Evidence synthesis
What the research can support
A first-in-human trial involving 34 participants reported favourable healing predictors at lower concentrations. A later randomised phase IIb study involving 148 participants found no significant overall benefit, although exploratory analyses suggested a possible larger-ulcer subgroup.
Why the confidence is moderate
Post-hoc subgroup findings have a higher false-positive risk and need prospective replication. Formulation and wound type constrain applicability.
Decision boundary
What this record cannot tell you
This record cannot identify the contents, strength, purity, sterility or stability of a particular vial. It does not provide a dosing plan, administration instructions or a personal treatment recommendation. A supported narrow outcome cannot be transferred to a different route, population or product.
This publication has not independently tested a product for this record. Product evidence belongs to a named batch and method; clinical evidence belongs to the intervention actually studied.
From our work: how we checked this claim
ER-LL37-VLU-025 addresses one bounded question: Does topical LL-37 improve venous leg-ulcer healing?. Yianni Kiromitis checked the search record, source descriptions, study design, population, intervention identity, comparator and patient-important outcomes against the published evidence method. The source ledger contains 3 primary or official sources. Each was assigned only the proposition it can support; a regulatory document was not treated as a treatment trial, and an animal or laboratory finding was not presented as a dependable human outcome.
The recorded evidence basis is Unclear or conflicting, the verdict is Mixed and confidence is Moderate. Eleni Kiromitis reviewed study design, biomedical evidence, laboratory context and analytical limits. Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou reviewed the clinical claim, adverse effects, contraindications, red flags and patient-facing safety wording. Both completed their assigned review on 10 August 2026. Yianni retained publication and correction responsibility. The review notes identify which source supports each material claim and which limitation must remain beside the conclusion.
No direct product testing, seller data, personal treatment experience or patient experience was used to set this verdict. The record cannot establish the contents, strength, purity, sterility or stability of a particular vial, and it does not provide dosing, administration or personalised treatment advice. A finding cannot be transferred to a different route, population, product or outcome without new evidence. We also checked the visible review date against the publication record and structured data. A new controlled study, regulator update, corrected source, analytical report or credible safety signal can trigger reassessment through the public correction route.
Source ledger
Evidence used for this verdict
Each source supports only the proposition stated beside it. Regulatory scope and study scope remain visible.
| Source | What it establishes | What it does not establish | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-in-human LL-37 venous leg-ulcer trial | The small trial reported encouraging dose-related healing signals. | It was not large enough for a definitive effectiveness conclusion. | 10 August 2026 |
| Phase IIb LL-37 venous leg-ulcer trial | The larger trial found no significant overall benefit. | A post-hoc subgroup signal requires prospective confirmation. | 10 August 2026 |
| Review of LL-37 wound-healing development | The review places the clinical programme and biological rationale in context. | A review cannot resolve the negative overall phase IIb result. | 10 August 2026 |
Quick answers
Frequently asked questions
What is the verdict on LL-37 for this claim?
The verdict is mixed for the precise claim stated on this page. It combines the evidence type, directness, consistency and study limits; it is not a rating of the compound as a whole. The confidence field shows how readily new evidence could change the conclusion.
What evidence supports this verdict?
A first-in-human trial involving 34 participants reported favourable healing predictors at lower concentrations. A later randomised phase IIb study involving 148 participants found no significant overall benefit, although exploratory analyses suggested a possible larger-ulcer subgroup. The source ledger below links the primary or regulatory records used and states what each source cannot establish.
Does this evidence apply to a peptide vial sold online?
No. A study or authorisation applies to the exact material, formulation, route, population and controls that were evaluated. It cannot verify the identity, amount, purity, sterility, stability or delivery of a separate vial. Those are batch-specific product questions, not automatic extensions of an efficacy result.
Is LL-37 authorised in the UK for this use?
No UK marketing authorisation was identified for this use or for a medicine sold under this peptide name. The MHRA products database should be checked for the exact product and presentation. The boundary matters because evidence, authorisation and product quality answer different questions and should not be merged into one conclusion.
What should competitive athletes know?
Athletes should check the current WADA Prohibited List and obtain sport-specific advice. An experimental or non-approved peptide may fall within the S0 category even when it is not named individually. The boundary matters because evidence, authorisation and product quality answer different questions and should not be merged into one conclusion.
What could change this verdict?
A prospectively stratified confirmatory trial that tests the larger-ulcer hypothesis, reports complete-healing outcomes and provides adequate safety follow-up. Any update would be dated and recorded through the site correction and version process. The boundary matters because evidence, authorisation and product quality answer different questions and should not be merged into one conclusion.
Continue the investigation