LL-37 (Ropocamptide)
LL-37 is a 37-residue human antimicrobial peptide. Its INN is Ropocamptide. (GSRS; read 25 Aug 2026). A 34-person trial found faster early wound healing in two lower trial groups (PMID 25041740; read 25 Aug 2026). A later trial had 148 people. It found no clear healing gain in the full group (PMID 34687253; read 25 Aug 2026). Positive findings came from a post hoc large-wound group. That result was not the planned main test.
Which names and identifiers belong to LL-37?
GSRS uses ROPOCAMPTIDE as the display name (GSRS; read 25 Aug 2026). It marks that name as the INN. It lists LL-37 and Cathelicidin LL-37 for the same substance. The UNII is 3DD771JO2H. The CAS is 154947-66-7.
The GSRS record gives a chain of 37 amino-acid residues. LL-37 comes from cleavage of the human cathelicidin protein hCAP-18.
What did the first controlled human study find?
The first human trial had 34 people (PMID 25041740; read 25 Aug 2026). They had hard-to-heal leg ulcers. The study used a random draw and a placebo group. The open source is the PubMed abstract. The full paper was not open in the reviewed set.
Lipopeptide AB supplied money or material for the linked EU trial (EudraCT 2012-002100-41; read 25 Aug 2026).
| Four-week result | First lower trial group | Second lower trial group | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healing-rate constant versus placebo | About sixfold | About threefold | PMID 25041740 |
| Statistical result | p = 0.003 | p = 0.088 | PMID 25041740 |
| Mean ulcer-area fall | 68% | 50% | PMID 25041740 |
The highest trial group did not differ from placebo (PMID 25041740; read 25 Aug 2026). The abstract reported no local or body-wide safety concern. It did not publish a full adverse-event table.
What did the later 148-person trial find overall?
The later phase 2b study used a random draw (PMID 34687253; read 25 Aug 2026). It was double blind. It used placebo. Promore Pharma AB paid for the work (full paper; read 25 Aug 2026).
| Main result in the full cohort | First LL-37 arm | Second LL-37 arm | Placebo | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Confirmed complete wound closure | 26.5% | 24.7% | 25.3% | EudraCT 2018-000536-10 |
| Mean healing rate per day | 0.0261 | 0.0112 | 0.0204 | PMID 34687253 |
| Mean wound-area fall | 35.63% | 4.02% | 51.69% | PMID 34687253 |
The planned main test found no significant LL-37 effect versus placebo. The first odds-ratio test had p = 0.4453 (EudraCT results; read 25 Aug 2026). The second had p = 0.5274. No other full-group healing result was clear.
What did the post hoc large-wound subgroup show?
The paper later split the data by wound size. It did not plan this check before the trial. The check was post hoc. The trial was not built to test these small groups. Each arm had 21 to 24 people (PMCID PMC9298190; read 25 Aug 2026).
The subgroup with wounds of at least 10 cm² had these results:
| Post hoc result | First LL-37 arm | Second LL-37 arm | Placebo | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Confirmed complete wound closure | 28.1% | 19.6% | 8.1% | PMC9298190 |
| Mean healing rate per day | 0.0367 | 0.0159 | 0.0093 | PMC9298190 |
| At least 50% area reduction | 61.9% | 38.2% | 33.3% | PMC9298190 |
| At least 70% area reduction | 47.2% | 39.0% | 16.2% | PMC9298190 |
For the first LL-37 arm, the wound-closure odds ratio was 4.454 versus placebo. That result had p = 0.0458 (PMC9298190; read 25 Aug 2026). Its healing-rate result had p = 0.0439. The paper found no LL-37 gain in the group with wounds below 10 cm².
What safety findings did the later trial record?
The safety set had 148 people. Sixty-four people (43.2%) reported at least one adverse event (PMC9298190; read 25 Aug 2026).
| Safety finding across the study | People | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Redness at the target ulcer | 63 (42.6%) | PMC9298190 |
| Oedema at the target ulcer | 58 (39.2%) | PMC9298190 |
| Raised heat at the target ulcer | 30 (20.3%) | PMC9298190 |
| Redness on nearby skin | 80 (54.1%) | PMC9298190 |
| Scaling on nearby skin | 78 (52.7%) | PMC9298190 |
| Severe adverse events | 8 (5.4%) | PMC9298190 |
The study recorded 122 adverse events. Six events occurred in four people. They were judged possibly linked to the trial product. No event was judged probably linked (PMC9298190; read 25 Aug 2026).
The six possibly related events were wound infection, dermatitis, swelling and deep phlebitis. The deep-phlebitis event occurred with placebo. The other five occurred in LL-37 arms.
The study reported no deaths. It reported 12 nonfatal serious events in 11 people. None was judged linked to the study drug. Five people left treatment or the study after adverse or serious events. The study team judged all five events unlikely to be linked (PMC9298190; read 25 Aug 2026).
Who funded the later trial?
Promore Pharma AB financed the study (PMC9298190; read 25 Aug 2026). Margit Mahlapuu, Jakob Björk and Jonas Ekblom worked at Promore during the trial. Jonas Ekblom was a minority shareholder. The paper says Promore was developing LL-37 under the name Ropocamptide.
What EU trial status is established?
EudraCT records two completed EU trials of LL-37. The first is 2012-002100-41. The second is 2018-000536-10 (read 25 Aug 2026). The records say the trial product had no sale approval at the time.
These past trial records support the register's investigational field. Trial approval is not sale approval. The records do not settle current EU sale approval.
EudraCT pages change a time stamp and anti-bot token on each fetch. A filed hash proves the dated capture. A new fetch will have different bytes.
What did the original forum account say?
An original Reddit thread says LL-37 had been received on 5 September 2019. It has a day-two self-report dated 6 September 2019 (original thread; archive checked 25 Aug 2026). These dates support first_observed: 2019-09 as a source by-date. They do not show when LL-37 first existed.
The account is self-reported, self-selected and free of anyone's money. The author wrote:
“So I am on day 2 of mine. Day 1 I had nothing noticable until later at night when I started having goop in my eyes to the point it sort of occluded my vision until I used artifical tears to rinse them out.
So I have been dealing with dry eyes for a while now. The last month or so if I rub my eyes they sting afterwords because I am knocking dried up residue into them. (its not like I got super crusty eyes, but you get what I mean). Well I think the ll-37 boosting my immune system literally triggered my eyes to produce more liquid to clear out the allergens or whatever it is drying my eyes out.”
The claim about the cause is the author's own. The trials above did not test this eye account.
What does evidence tier B mean here?
Controlled human trials exist. One small trial reported early positive healing measures. The larger study missed its full-cohort endpoint. The register remains tier B (field checked 24 Aug 2026).
What does this register entry cover?
This entry covers identity, human results, harms, funding, EU trial status and one labelled forum account. It does not show what is in a given vial.