Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00231

Safety, Tolerability, Efficacy of MTP-131 for Treatment of Mitochondrial Disease in Subjects From the MMPOWER Study

Other design · 30 participants enrolled

Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 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.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • Safety, Tolerability, Efficacy of MTP-131 for Treatment of Mitochondrial Disease in Subjects From the MMPOWER Studyregistry entry · NCT02805790 (COMPLETED, results posted, planned enrollment 30)

Design and participants

Design
Other design
Population
Subjects with primary mitochondrial disease drawn from the earlier MMPOWER study. Age range and other eligibility details are not stated in the record.
Conditions
Primary Mitochondrial Disease
Planned enrollment (registry)
30
Enrolled
30
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

  • Elamipretide (intervention) · elamipretide · Elamipretide (also listed as Bendavia / MTP-131) · Not reported assigned
  • Placebo (comparator) · Placebo · placebo · Not reported assigned

What the authors reported

As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

Safety and tolerability

unclear outcome · safety · Not specified in the record; named only in the study title

  • No results reported.

Efficacy

unclear outcome · patient-important · Not specified in the record; named only in the study title

  • No results reported.

Adverse events

None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

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

  • abstract only: Only the ClinicalTrials.gov registration is available. No outcome results, adverse event data or publication are included in the record.
  • small or imprecise: The registry reports an actual enrollment of only 30 participants, which limits precision for both efficacy and safety.
  • other: The record lists a placebo but does not state whether allocation was randomized or describe the design structure. Internal validity cannot be assessed.
  • selective reporting: The registry flags results as posted, but no outcome measures or result values appear in the record. This prevents checking which outcomes were reported.

No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

Claims this study informs

Where each value comes from

  • arms: NCT NCT02805790, registry (interventions) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • design: NCT NCT02805790, registry (study_type, phases, interventions) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • limitations: NCT NCT02805790, registry (has_results, enrollment) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • outcomes: NCT NCT02805790, title (title) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • participants: NCT NCT02805790, registry (enrollment, enrollment_type) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • population: NCT NCT02805790, title (title) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)

  • Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 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).