Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Compound monograph · §3

Larazotide acetate — clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes with certainty ratings, contributing trials and the reasoning for each rating.

Document identifier
CEI-MN-035/3
Series
Compound monograph
Version
4.3
Published
07 May 2026
Last reviewed
07 May 2026
Next review
07 May 2028
Identifier
10.71829/cei.mono.35
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2026 Q2

§3Clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes for Larazotide acetatePoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.00.20.40.60.81.0Standardised direction and relative magnitude of the recorded effectIndicationEffect as recordedMucosal barrier2 trials · ModerateA phase 2b trial met its primary…
Moderate or high certaintyLow or very low certainty
Figure 3. Illustrative. Assessed outcomes plotted on a common standardised axis so that direction and relative magnitude can be compared at a glance. The estimates are not on a common natural scale and the intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the reported precision, not the published confidence intervals. Published intervals appear in the per-indication extracts and in the text below.

§3.1Inflammatory bowel disease and mucosal barrier disorders

Anchor outcome. Clinical remission.

Effect as recorded. A phase 2b trial met its primary endpoint on symptom scores at the 0.5 mg dose; the subsequent phase 3 trial was discontinued for futility at interim analysis; phase 2b positive; phase 3 futility.[1,2]

Certainty. Moderate certainty The Institute rates this moderate certainty for the conclusion that larazotide does not provide clinically meaningful benefit in coeliac disease at the doses studied. A positive phase 2b followed by a phase 3 futility stop is a textbook illustration of why phase 2 results should not be treated as conclusive, and the Institute cites this programme in its methodology documentation for that reason.

Contributing trials. CELIAC-PH2B · CELIAC-PH3-CEDLARA. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for inflammatory bowel disease and mucosal barrier disorders · Indication assessment

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. D’Hondt M, Bracke N, Taevernier L, Gevaert B, Verbeke F, Wynendaele E, De Spiegeleer B. Related impurities in peptide medicines. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2014;101:2–30. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2014.06.012 · PMID 25044089
  2. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · PMID 31462531

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.