Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00232

A Study to Evaluate the Effects of 4 Weeks Treatment With Subcutaneous Elamipretide on Left Ventricular Function in Subjects With Stable Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Other design · 46 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.

  • A Study to Evaluate the Effects of 4 Weeks Treatment With Subcutaneous Elamipretide on Left Ventricular Function in Subjects With Stable Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fractionregistry entry · NCT02814097 (COMPLETED, no results posted, planned enrollment 46)

Design and participants

Design
Other design
Population
Adults with stable heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (registered condition: chronic heart failure).
Conditions
Chronic Heart Failure, Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Planned enrollment (registry)
46
Enrolled
46
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 MTP-131, Bendavia) · subcutaneous · 4 weeks · 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.

Left ventricular function

unclear outcome · surrogate · After 4 weeks of treatment · Left ventricular function; method not stated in the record

  • 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

  • other: The record does not state the allocation method or blinding, so it cannot be confirmed whether participants were randomized to placebo.
  • small or imprecise: Actual enrollment was 46 participants across both arms, which is small for a phase 2 efficacy assessment.
  • inappropriate endpoint: Going by the title, the outcome of interest is left ventricular function, a surrogate imaging/physiological measure rather than a patient-felt outcome.
  • short follow up: Treatment duration is 4 weeks per the title, too short to assess lasting clinical effects or longer-term safety.

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

Claims this study informs

Where each value comes from

  • arms: NCT NCT02814097, registry (interventions field) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • design: NCT NCT02814097, registry (study_type, phases, interventions fields) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • limitations: NCT NCT02814097, registry (has_results and status fields) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • outcomes: NCT NCT02814097, title (study title (left ventricular function, 4 weeks)) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • participants: NCT NCT02814097, registry (enrollment and enrollment_type fields) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
  • population: NCT NCT02814097, title (study 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).