Human study PLS-00114
Phase 1 Clinical Trial of Elamipretide in Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Noncentral Geographic Atrophy: ReCLAIM NCGA Study.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.
Reports of this study
Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.
- Phase 1 Clinical Trial of Elamipretide in Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Noncentral Geographic Atrophy: ReCLAIM NCGA Study.primary · Ophthalmology science · 2021-11-27 · PMID 36246181 · DOI
Design and participants
- Design
- Single-arm trial
- Population
- Adults aged 55 years or older with dry age-related macular degeneration and noncentral geographic atrophy
- Conditions
- Dry age-related macular degeneration, Noncentral geographic atrophy
- Setting
- Single-center, open-label phase 1 clinical trial with 24 weeks of treatment
- Planned enrollment (registry)
- Not reported
- Enrolled
- 19
- Randomized
- 0
- Completed follow-up
- 15
Intervention and comparator
What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.
- Elamipretide (intervention) · elamipretide · Elamipretide (mitochondria-targeted peptide) given daily by subcutaneous administration · subcutaneous · 24 weeks · 19 assigned
What the authors reported
As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.
Safety and tolerability (adverse events)
primary outcome · safety · Throughout 24 weeks · Adverse events assessed throughout the study, graded by severity
- Elamipretide: narrative — All 19 participants had at least one nonocular AE; all AEs were mild or moderate, and no serious AEs occurred
- Elamipretide: proportion — AEs were mild in 73.7%
- Elamipretide: proportion — AEs were moderate in 26.3%
Normal-luminance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)
exploratory outcome · patient-important · Week 24 · Letters read, change from baseline
- Elamipretide: change from baseline 4.6, p = 0.0032 — Mean change of +4.6 (SD 5.1) letters from baseline to week 24 among completers
Low-luminance best-corrected visual acuity (LLBCVA)
exploratory outcome · patient-important · Week 24 · Letters read under low luminance, change from baseline
- Elamipretide: change from baseline 5.4, p = 0.0245 — Mean change of +5.4 (SD 7.9) letters among completers
Low-luminance binocular reading acuity (LLBRA)
exploratory outcome · patient-important · Week 24 · logMAR units, change from baseline
- Elamipretide: change from baseline -0.52, p = 0.005 — Mean change of -0.52 (SD 0.75) logMAR; the abstract labels this value LLBCVA although it is given in logMAR units in the reading-acuity sentence
Normal-luminance binocular reading acuity (NLBRA)
exploratory outcome · patient-important · Week 24 · Reading acuity, change from baseline
- Elamipretide: narrative — Minimal change in NLBRA
Geographic atrophy area
exploratory outcome · surrogate · Week 24 · Square-root-transformed GA area by fundus autofluorescence and by spectral-domain OCT
- Elamipretide: change from baseline 0.14 — Mean change of 0.14 (SD 0.08) mm by FAF
- Elamipretide: change from baseline 0.13 — Mean change of 0.13 (SD 0.14) mm by OCT
Low-luminance questionnaire (LLQ) self-reported function
exploratory outcome · patient-important · Week 24 · Patient-reported low-luminance questionnaire
- Elamipretide: narrative — Improvement observed in the dim light reading and general dim light vision domains
Adverse events
- Any nonocular adverse event · Elamipretide: 19 participants
- Serious adverse events (serious) · Elamipretide: 0 participants
- Conversion to neovascular AMD leading to study exit · Elamipretide: 1 participants
- Intolerable injection site reaction leading to study exit · Elamipretide: 1 participants
Monitoring: Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the 24-week study. Adverse events were graded by severity (mild or moderate) and serious adverse events were recorded.
The authors concluded (paraphrased): Elamipretide appeared well tolerated without serious adverse events in dry AMD with noncentral GA. Exploratory analyses suggested a possible positive effect on visual function, especially under low luminance, and a phase 2b trial is underway.
Peptide Library’s assessment
An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.
Limitations
- no control group: Single-arm open-label design with no placebo group, so visual changes cannot be attributed to elamipretide rather than learning, regression or natural variation.
- inadequate blinding: Open-label study; visual acuity, reading tests and questionnaires were assessed with participants and staff aware of treatment.
- small or imprecise: Only 19 participants treated and 15 analyzed for efficacy outcomes, giving imprecise estimates.
- incomplete follow up: Four of 19 participants left the study, and efficacy analyses were restricted to completers.
- short follow up: Treatment and follow-up lasted only 24 weeks, which is short for a progressive atrophic disease.
- abstract only: Only the abstract was available; funding, conflicts and full methods could not be checked.
- other: The abstract appears to mislabel the low-luminance reading acuity result as LLBCVA, which creates ambiguity about that outcome.
- inappropriate population: Participants had dry AMD with noncentral GA, not Barth syndrome or mitochondrial myopathy.
Safety and tolerability (adverse events): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No placebo or comparator arm, so background adverse event rates in this elderly population are unknown. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | The abstract does not describe how the 19 participants were recruited or screened. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Without a comparison group, AEs cannot be separated from comorbidity or disease progression. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Four of 19 stopped early, though safety was reported for all 19. |
| Outcome measurement | Some concern | The open-label design and unstated AE ascertainment methods in the abstract limit confidence. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | The abstract gives only aggregate AE severity, not specific AE terms or frequencies. |
| Precision | Serious concern | With only 19 participants, uncommon adverse events could easily be missed. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Uncontrolled, small open-label study reported only as an abstract; worst domains are serious concerns.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Normal-luminance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No comparator arm; visual acuity gains could reflect test learning or regression to the mean. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility details beyond age and diagnosis are not given in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | No control for practice effects or other changes over the 24 weeks in a single group. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Only 15 of 19 treated completed; one discontinued for perceived lack of efficacy and was excluded. |
| Outcome measurement | Serious concern | Open-label, effort-dependent acuity testing is vulnerable to expectation effects. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | Multiple exploratory visual endpoints were tested without stated multiplicity handling. |
| Precision | Serious concern | With 15 completers and no confidence interval reported, the estimate is imprecise. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Exploratory single-arm completer analysis in an open-label setting carries serious risk of bias.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Low-luminance best-corrected visual acuity (LLBCVA): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No comparator arm to account for natural or learning-related change in low-luminance acuity. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility details beyond age and diagnosis are not given in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Single-group pre-post comparison cannot control time-varying factors. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Completer-only analysis of 15 of 19 treated participants. |
| Outcome measurement | Serious concern | Unmasked, effort-dependent low-luminance testing is open to expectation bias. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | One of several exploratory endpoints, with no multiplicity adjustment described. |
| Precision | Serious concern | Small sample, wide SD and no confidence interval reported. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Uncontrolled, unmasked exploratory analysis in a small completer sample.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Low-luminance binocular reading acuity (LLBRA): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No comparator arm to account for practice effects on reading tests. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility details beyond age and diagnosis are not given in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Single-group pre-post design cannot address confounding by time or learning. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Completer-only analysis of 15 of 19 treated participants. |
| Outcome measurement | Serious concern | Unmasked reading acuity testing, and the abstract mislabels the outcome as LLBCVA. |
| Completeness of reporting | Serious concern | Ambiguous outcome labeling in the abstract makes the reported result uncertain. |
| Precision | Serious concern | Small sample and no confidence interval reported. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Uncontrolled exploratory result with labeling ambiguity in the abstract.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Normal-luminance binocular reading acuity (NLBRA): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No comparator arm in this single-group open-label study. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility details beyond age and diagnosis are not given in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Pre-post design without control for time-related changes. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Completer-only analysis of 15 of 19 treated participants. |
| Outcome measurement | Serious concern | Unmasked reading acuity assessment in an open-label trial. |
| Completeness of reporting | Serious concern | Only described narratively as minimal change, with no numbers given. |
| Precision | Not reported | No estimate or variability is reported for NLBRA in the abstract. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Narratively reported exploratory outcome from an uncontrolled study.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Geographic atrophy area: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No comparator to judge whether GA growth differed from natural progression. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility details beyond age and diagnosis are not given in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | A single-group design cannot separate treatment effect from expected disease course. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Completer-only analysis of 15 of 19 treated participants. |
| Outcome measurement | Some concern | Imaging measures are objective, but grader masking is not described in the abstract. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | Change reported without p-value or interval, and without comparison to a reference rate. |
| Precision | Serious concern | Small sample and short follow-up for a slowly progressing lesion. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Uncontrolled surrogate imaging outcome in a small completer sample.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Low-luminance questionnaire (LLQ) self-reported function: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)
For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.
| Control group | Serious concern | No comparator arm for a subjective patient-reported outcome. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility details beyond age and diagnosis are not given in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Pre-post change cannot be separated from placebo or expectation effects. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Some concern | Completer-only analysis of 15 of 19 treated participants. |
| Outcome measurement | Serious concern | Self-reported outcome from participants who knew they were receiving the drug. |
| Completeness of reporting | Serious concern | Only selected LLQ domains reported narratively, without numbers. |
| Precision | Not reported | No estimates or variability are reported for the LLQ in the abstract. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the available abstract. |
Unblinded subjective outcome with selective narrative reporting in an uncontrolled study.
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
Claims this study informs
- Improves function in Barth syndrome: not eligible (wrong population) for “Muscle strength, exercise capacity and fatigue”
- Improves exercise capacity in primary mitochondrial myopathy: not eligible (wrong population) for “Six-minute walk distance and fatigue”
- Is safe for human administration: eligible for “Adverse events, including injection-site reactions, and discontinuations”, indirect evidence
- Insufficient information to assess Adverse events, including injection-site reactions, and discontinuations
Where each value comes from
- adverse_events: PMID 36246181, abstract (Results, sentences 2-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- arms: PMID 36246181, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- author_conclusion: PMID 36246181, abstract (Conclusions paragraph) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- design: PMID 36246181, abstract (Design paragraph) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- limitations: PMID 36246181, abstract (Design paragraph and Results, sentences 3-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- outcomes: PMID 36246181, abstract (Methods sentence 2 and Main outcome measures paragraph) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- participants: PMID 36246181, abstract (Results, sentences 2-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- population: PMID 36246181, abstract (Participants paragraph) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- results: PMID 36246181, abstract (Results, sentences 4-7) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.
These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).