All information on this website is intended strictly for educational and research purposes only.
The content on OpenPep — including peptide profiles, clinical trial summaries, dosing information, and reconstitution calculators — must not be used for:
OpenPep aggregates publicly available clinical trial data and research. We do not sell, distribute, or recommend any substances. All AI-generated summaries are interpretations of published research and may contain errors.
12,218 studies indexed across all peptides
Showing 10457 matching results
2026-03-29
2026-03-29
This clinical trial was designed to study how the body absorbs and processes a vaginal insert called MVI 100, which contains a drug called misoprostol. Misoprostol is used to help prepare the cervix (the opening of the uterus) and start labor in pregnant women. The study planned to track the drug's levels in the blood at different time points over 24 hours to understand how it moves through the body. Only first-time mothers at 36 weeks or more of pregnancy were going to be included. However, this study was withdrawn before it ever enrolled a single participant. That means zero women took part, and no data was collected. The reason given was that the pharmacokinetic (drug absorption and processing) portion of the research would be folded into a future study instead. Because the study never ran, we have no results, no safety data, and no conclusions to draw from it. Since the trial was never completed, it cannot tell us anything useful about how MVI 100 works or whether it is safe. It is important for people reading about this study to know that a "withdrawn" trial is very different from one that showed positive or negative results — it simply never happened. Any questions about misoprostol vaginal inserts would need to be answered by other completed studies.
2026-03-29
This clinical trial tested whether adding a drug called thymalfasin to a common liver cancer treatment called TACE (trans arterial chemoembolization) works better than TACE alone. TACE is a procedure where doctors block blood flow to a tumor and deliver chemotherapy directly to it. Thymalfasin is a man-made version of a natural hormone that helps boost the immune system. The study enrolled adult patients with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC) that could not be removed by surgery. The trial was a Phase II study, meaning it was an early-to-middle stage test focused on checking both how well the treatment works and how safe it is. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group received TACE plus thymalfasin, and the other received TACE alone. The treatment period lasted about 6 months. Importantly, this trial did not publicly report its results in the clinical trial registry, which makes it harder for doctors and patients to know what was actually found. Because this study was funded by industry, did not go through peer review, did not report its sample size publicly, and has no published results available, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from it. While the study design — randomized and comparative — is a strength, the missing data and potential conflicts of interest lower how much we can trust the findings. More independent, larger, and fully published research would be needed before making any treatment decisions based on this trial alone.
2026-03-29
2016-12-01
This clinical trial was designed to compare two treatments for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: Cerebrolysin (a brain protein supplement given by injection) and Donepezil (a widely used Alzheimer's pill). The study was set up as a high-quality "double-blind" trial, meaning neither the patients, their caregivers, nor the doctors knew which treatment was being given. It was planned to measure how well each drug worked at improving memory, thinking, and daily functioning over 24 weeks. However, this study never actually took place. It was officially marked as "WITHDRAWN," meaning it was cancelled before a single patient was enrolled. Because of this, zero participants joined the trial, and no data was ever collected or published. We do not know the exact reason why the study was pulled, but withdrawn trials can result from funding issues, regulatory hurdles, or changes in research priorities. Since no research was conducted, there are no results to report. This summary is based entirely on the study's original plan. Readers should be aware that the questions this trial hoped to answer — whether Cerebrolysin works as well as Donepezil for Alzheimer's patients — remain unanswered by this particular study.
2027-09-01
This clinical trial is testing whether a drug called semaglutide — best known by brand names like Ozempic and Wegovy — can help protect the pancreas in people who have early-stage (Stage 1) Type 1 diabetes. In Type 1 diabetes, the body's immune system attacks special cells in the pancreas. Beta cells make insulin (which lowers blood sugar), and alpha cells make glucagon (which raises blood sugar). Researchers want to see if semaglutide can slow down the damage to beta cells and help alpha cells work more normally before full-blown diabetes develops. The study will randomly assign participants to receive either semaglutide or a placebo (a fake treatment) for 12 months. Neither the patients, their doctors, nor the researchers running the study will know who gets the real drug — this is called a triple-blind design, and it helps make the results more reliable. The main thing researchers will measure is a substance called C-peptide, which is a sign of how well beta cells are still making insulin. They will also look at glucagon levels and other hormones involved in blood sugar control. This trial has not started yet and is quite small, with only 15 participants planned. While the study design is strong — randomized, triple-blind, and independently funded — the tiny sample size means we should treat any results with caution. The trial is expected to begin in September 2027 and wrap up by January 2030, so results are still several years away.
2027-03-01
This clinical trial is studying the best way to help pregnant women go into labor when they need to be induced. Doctors sometimes use a small balloon-like device called a double-balloon catheter, which is placed in the cervix (the opening of the womb) to help it soften and open before labor begins. Right now, the standard practice is to leave this balloon in place for 12 hours. This study wants to find out if leaving it in for just 3 hours works just as well — or even better — at shortening the total time from the start of induction to when the baby is born. The trial will include 280 pregnant women across multiple hospitals. Women will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group gets the balloon for only 3 hours, followed immediately by active labor management no matter how ready the cervix looks; the other group follows the standard 12-hour balloon placement. Researchers will track how long labor takes, whether a C-section was needed, and how safe the process was for both mom and baby. The study is based in France, where about 1 in 4 pregnancies require labor induction. It is important to know that this study has not started yet — it is planned to begin in early 2027. Because there are no results yet, we cannot draw any conclusions from it. However, if the 3-hour approach works well, it could make the hospital experience shorter and more comfortable for many mothers, and help hospitals manage their resources more efficiently.
2027-01-01
This clinical trial, called "Promoting Healthy Children and Youth," is studying how to best treat obesity in teenagers. Specifically, it wants to find out whether intensive lifestyle coaching (26 or more hours of support around healthy habits) works better than a lighter, low-intensity version — especially when teens are also taking a new obesity medication called semaglutide (the active ingredient in drugs like Wegovy). The study plans to enroll about 1,020 young people and will run from 2027 to 2032. The study is what's called a Phase 4 randomized trial, meaning the medication has already been approved, and researchers are now trying to figure out the best way to use it in real-world care. Participants will be randomly assigned to different treatment approaches, and the main thing researchers will measure is change in BMI (a measure of body weight relative to height) over 24 months. They also want to see how teens' quality of life and heart health improve, and whether lifestyle programs help prevent any nutritional problems that can come with taking weight-loss medications. It's important to know that this trial has not started yet and has no results. It is not funded by the drug industry, which is a good sign for unbiased results. However, because it hasn't been peer reviewed yet and the results are years away, we should treat any future findings with cautious optimism. This research could be very important for doctors, families, and insurance companies trying to make smart decisions about teen obesity treatment.
Gut microbes 18 (1) :2649440 · 2026-12-31
This study looked at how stress during pregnancy (called prenatal stress) can affect the gut bacteria and social behavior of rat babies. Researchers found that when mother rats experienced stress while pregnant, their offspring had problems with socializing and also had imbalanced gut bacteria. When these baby rats were given a specific type of bacteria called Limosilactobacillus reuteri, their social behavior improved. This suggests that fixing the gut bacteria might help fix the brain-related problems caused by stress before birth. The scientists also discovered how this works in the body. The probiotic bacteria helped restore a hormone called oxytocin in a brain region called the paraventricular nucleus, and it also helped fix the brain's dopamine reward system. These two systems together seem to play a big role in normal social behavior. Importantly, when researchers blocked oxytocin signals or cut the vagus nerve (a nerve connecting the gut to the brain), the benefits of the bacteria disappeared — showing that the gut talks to the brain through this nerve pathway. This research is interesting because it suggests a possible explanation for why children born to mothers who experienced a lot of stress sometimes have social difficulties, and it points to gut bacteria as a potential target for treatment. However, because this study was done in rats, we don't yet know if the same thing happens in humans. More research is needed before any conclusions can be drawn for people.
The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians 39 (1) :2629687 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at whether switching from old-fashioned paper printout heart rate monitors for babies during labor to a new digital system — where doctors and nurses can watch the baby's heart rate on screens from different locations — made any difference in how healthy newborns were after birth. Researchers in Östersund, Sweden, looked back at records from 8,577 births across two time periods: one before the digital switch (2012–2015) and one after (2016–2019). The results showed that the two groups were nearly identical in the most important health outcomes. The rate of a serious condition called metabolic acidosis — where a baby's blood becomes dangerously acidic due to lack of oxygen — was 0.5% before the digital system and 0.6% after, a difference so small it could easily be due to chance. Other outcomes like low Apgar scores (a quick health check done right after birth), need for resuscitation, and emergency C-sections were also similar between the two groups. One positive note: the newer digital group had slightly fewer instrument-assisted vaginal deliveries done because of suspected oxygen problems in the baby. Overall, the study found no strong evidence that the digital central monitoring system improved or worsened baby health outcomes compared to the traditional paper-based system. While this doesn't mean the digital system is without benefits — it may help with staff convenience or documentation — this study suggests it didn't move the needle on the health outcomes that matter most for newborns.
Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing 13 :100943 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at the best ways to care for cancer patients who develop skin problems as a side effect of immunotherapy. These skin problems, called cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs), can happen when the immune system is activated by cancer treatments and starts to affect the skin. The researchers searched through a large number of medical databases and websites — both Chinese and English — to find the most reliable and up-to-date information on how nurses and doctors should handle these skin issues. After reviewing 24 high-quality articles including guidelines, expert opinions, and research reviews, the team came up with 25 recommendations covering five main areas: how to prevent skin problems, how to assess and grade their severity, what nursing care steps to take, how to educate patients, and how to follow up over time. Of these 25 recommendations, 17 were considered strong and 8 were considered weaker due to less supporting evidence. This type of study — called a systematic evidence review — is useful because it pulls together the best available knowledge into one place, making it easier for healthcare teams to follow consistent, proven steps when caring for patients with these skin side effects. While this study does not test a new treatment on patients directly, it gives nurses and clinicians a solid roadmap based on the current best evidence from two major medical literature traditions.
Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing 13 :100843 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at different types of exercise to see which ones work best for men with prostate cancer who are taking a treatment called androgen deprivation therapy, or ADT. ADT is a common prostate cancer treatment, but it can cause problems like weight gain, heart health issues, and extreme tiredness (called fatigue). Researchers reviewed 22 separate studies involving 1,579 patients to compare how different exercise programs affected these problems. The researchers found that exercise in general helps men on ADT feel better and stay healthier. Specifically, resistance exercise training (like lifting weights) was the best at reducing body fat, while a combination of home-based aerobic exercise (like walking or cycling at home) plus resistance training was most effective at fighting fatigue. The longer men stuck with resistance training, the more body fat they lost. However, the researchers were careful to note that the overall quality of the evidence is rated as very low. This means we should be cautious about drawing strong conclusions. More and better-designed studies are still needed to figure out the exact type, length, and frequency of exercise that works best for these patients. Still, the findings strongly suggest that some form of exercise, especially resistance training, can meaningfully improve quality of life for men undergoing ADT.
GM crops & food 17 (1) :2620886 · 2026-12-01
Scientists in South Korea wanted to find out if a genetically modified (GM) soybean plant — engineered to produce more omega-3 fatty acids — is safe and similar enough to regular soybeans to be considered "substantially equivalent." To do this, they ran field tests over three years at two different locations and used a powerful chemical analysis technique called non-targeted metabolomics, which scans for hundreds of different natural compounds in the soybean seeds at once. The results showed that where and when the soybeans were grown had a big impact on their chemical makeup — even more than whether the plant was genetically modified or not. Most of the chemical differences found in the GM soybeans fell within the natural range seen in regular, non-GM soybean varieties. The one consistent difference was a higher level of a compound called β-amyrin, which is a natural building block for certain plant chemicals called saponins. Researchers believe this change is a natural side effect of boosting omega-3 production, not a sign of danger. Overall, the study concludes that these omega-3-enriched GM soybeans are substantially equivalent to conventional soybeans, meaning they are chemically similar enough to be considered safe. The researchers also argue that non-targeted metabolomics is a useful tool to add to the standard safety testing process for GM crops, giving regulators a more complete picture of any chemical changes in the plant.
Journal of medical economics 29 (1) :1258-1278 · 2026-12-01
This study compared two popular weight loss drugs — tirzepatide (Mounjaro) and semaglutide (Wegovy) — to figure out which one gives people more health benefits for the money. Researchers used real patient data from a large head-to-head clinical trial called SURMOUNT-5, then ran a computer simulation to estimate long-term costs and health outcomes for people with obesity or overweight who do not have type 2 diabetes. The study looked at things like heart disease risk, sleep apnea, and overall quality of life over many years. The results suggested that tirzepatide is not only more effective but also less expensive in the long run compared to semaglutide. On average, patients treated with tirzepatide were estimated to save about $41,688 per person and gain roughly half a quality-adjusted life year (a measure of both length and quality of life). The model also predicted that for every 1,000 patients, tirzepatide would prevent 70 more cases of type 2 diabetes and 10 more cases of heart disease compared to semaglutide. While these findings are promising, it is important to understand that this study is based on a computer model, not direct long-term observation of patients. Models like this rely on many assumptions and may not perfectly reflect real-world outcomes. Still, the fact that it used data from a rigorous, real-world clinical trial and was published in a peer-reviewed journal adds credibility to the findings.
The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians 39 (1) :2610572 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at whether starting certain labor-induction steps — specifically breaking the water (amniotomy) and using a hormone called oxytocin — sooner or later makes a difference in how quickly a baby is born. The patients involved were all having their cervix (the opening of the uterus) softened first using a small balloon device called a cervical ripening balloon (CRB). Researchers compared women who had amniotomy and oxytocin started within 2 hours of balloon removal ("early" group) to those who had it started more than 2 hours after ("late" group). The results showed that women in the early group delivered significantly faster — about 9 hours after balloon removal compared to about 17 hours in the late group. Importantly, the rate of C-sections and any serious health problems for mothers and babies were similar between the two groups. This suggests that moving quickly to the next step of labor induction after the balloon is removed may help shorten the overall labor process without adding extra risk. However, this study has some important limitations to keep in mind. It was a secondary analysis, meaning the researchers went back and re-examined data from a previous study rather than designing a new one specifically for this question. The early group was also much smaller (only 34 patients) compared to the late group (163 patients), which can make it harder to trust the results fully. The authors themselves acknowledged that hidden factors could have influenced the findings, so larger, purpose-built studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.
Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing 13 :100937 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at what it means for cancer patients to be "prepared for death." The researchers didn't run a clinical trial — instead, they reviewed 21 published research articles and used a special method called Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis to break down and define the idea of death preparedness. Think of it like building a detailed dictionary definition backed by real research. The researchers found that being prepared for death involves five main parts: accepting that death will come, adjusting emotions, talking openly with others, sharing personal wishes, and making plans for end-of-life care. They also looked at what leads to death preparedness (like personal beliefs, family relationships, and social support) and what happens as a result (benefits for the patient, their family, and even society as a whole). This kind of study is important because it gives doctors and nurses a clearer picture of what death preparedness really means, which can help them have better conversations with patients and families. While it doesn't test a new treatment, it lays the groundwork for building tools and guidelines that can improve end-of-life care for people with cancer.
Scandinavian journal of primary health care 44 (1) :2636584 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at how people in a rural part of Denmark felt about using semaglutide (a medication also known as Ozempic or Wegovy) to lose weight. Researchers talked one-on-one with nine people — six women and three men between the ages of 33 and 65 — who had been taking the medication for at least two months. By listening to their stories, the researchers tried to understand both the good and the bad parts of using this drug in a small, close-knit community. The people in the study shared that while semaglutide helped them feel more energetic and lose weight, they also faced judgment from neighbors and community members who felt they were 'cheating' or taking 'the easy way out.' Many participants worried about what would happen when they stopped taking the medication, fearing the weight would come back. They also felt uncertain about possible long-term side effects of a relatively new drug, and some mentioned that the cost of the medication was a burden. This study gives us a window into the real-life experiences of people using weight loss medication in a rural setting. It shows that even when a medication works, social pressure and personal fears can make the experience complicated. The researchers suggest that future studies should look at more diverse groups of people and explore how doctors and patients communicate about this type of treatment.
Renal failure 48 (1) :2620155 · 2026-12-01
Researchers wanted to know if a group of diabetes medications called GLP-1 receptor agonists (like semaglutide and liraglutide) could help protect the heart and kidneys in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). To find out, they gathered and analyzed data from 9 different clinical trials that included over 21,700 patients. Most of these patients also had Type 2 diabetes. This type of study, called a meta-analysis, is powerful because it combines results from many studies to get a clearer picture of whether a treatment works. The results were encouraging. Patients who took GLP-1 receptor agonists were about 16% less likely to experience serious kidney problems, 16% less likely to have a major heart attack or stroke, and 17% less likely to die from any cause compared to those who didn't take these medications. The drugs also lowered a marker in the urine called albuminuria, which is a sign of kidney damage. These benefits were mostly seen in patients who had both CKD and Type 2 diabetes. However, the medications came with some notable side effects, mainly involving the stomach and digestive system. Patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists were about 4 times more likely to experience nausea, nearly 4 times more likely to have indigestion, and about 3 times more likely to experience vomiting or diarrhea. While these side effects can be uncomfortable, the overall findings suggest that these medications offer strong protective benefits for the heart and kidneys in people with CKD and Type 2 diabetes.
Journal of medical economics 29 (1) :242-248 · 2026-12-01
This study looked at two diabetes and heart disease medications — semaglutide (brand name Wegovy) and dulaglutide (brand name Trulicity) — to figure out how much it costs to prevent one bad health event, like a heart attack or stroke. Researchers used a math tool called "Number Needed to Treat" (NNT), which tells you how many patients need to take a drug to prevent one harmful event. The lower the NNT, the more effective the drug is. They also calculated the "Cost Per Event Avoided" (CPEA), which shows how much money it takes to prevent that one bad event. The key finding was that when researchers only looked at the main outcome from a clinical trial (like heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death), the drugs appeared less cost-effective than when they looked at a broader range of health outcomes — including kidney and metabolic problems. For semaglutide, the cost to prevent one event dropped from about $1.66 million (narrow measure) to just $190,000 (broad measure). For dulaglutide, it dropped from about $1.88 million to $608,000. This shows that how you measure a drug's benefit makes a huge difference in how valuable it seems. The researchers argue that judging a drug only by its primary trial endpoint gives an incomplete picture. When more health outcomes are included — especially ones affecting the heart, kidneys, and metabolism — these medications look much more valuable. The study encourages doctors, payers, and policymakers to use broader measures when deciding whether a treatment is worth its cost.