Which clinical trials are currently recruiting participants for gelatide therapies?
Executive summary
There is active clinical and preclinical interest in gelatin-derived therapies—especially gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels and other gelatin-based biomaterials—but available sources show few clearly labeled, currently recruiting clinical trials described as “gelatide” therapies; most reporting is preclinical or about gelatin solutions used for fluid replacement (e.g., succinylated gelatin) rather than novel GelMA therapeutic implants or nanocarriers [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. “Gelatide” is not a standard clinical term — reporting mixes gelatin types and uses
The literature and registries in the provided results do not define “gelatide” as a distinct, widely recognized therapeutic class. Sources discuss gelatin-derived materials in several contexts: injectable hydrogels for osteoarthritis and tissue engineering (including GelMA), gelatin-based nanoparticles for oncology, and conventional gelatin solutions used as plasma expanders [1] [4] [5]. That means searches for trials using the single keyword “gelatide” will likely miss studies labeled under GelMA, gelatin nanoparticles, succinylated gelatin, Gelofusine/Gelaspan, or other trade/chemical names [1] [5] [4].
2. Most activity remains preclinical or early translational — few recruiting interventional GelMA trials identified
Multiple recent reviews and translational papers emphasize preclinical promise but call for more clinical trials. Frontiers and review articles describe broad therapeutic potential (osteosarcoma delivery, nanocarriers, wound healing) and explicitly state that clinical application is rare or not yet routine, and that multi-center clinical studies are needed [3] [6] [4]. A systematic review of injectable hydrogels similarly states that “more high-quality clinical trials are needed” to translate promising animal data to humans [1]. These sources imply that most GelMA/gelatin biomaterial work is still in preclinical or early-phase translational stages rather than widespread recruiting clinical trials [1] [3].
3. Clinical trials exist for clinical-grade gelatin products — but they are different from GelMA therapeutics
Clinical registries and clinical-trial-focused pages show trials of gelatin solutions and succinylated gelatin for fluid replacement or perioperative uses (e.g., succinylated gelatin infusions in chemotherapy patients; Gelofusine/Gelaspan solutions) [2] [5]. These are established uses and registered trials, but they represent conventional gelatin solutions, not crosslinked GelMA implants, nanoparticle drug carriers, or gel-based microneedle oncolytic platforms discussed in experimental papers [2] [5] [7].
4. Industry and investigator reports note early clinical testing of recombinant gelatin products
Company communications and investor pages (e.g., FibroGen announcement) reference clinical testing of recombinant human gelatin products, including “positive results from first clinical trial” statements, but the provided snippet lacks trial identifiers or recruiting-status details in these search results [8]. The content indicates industry movement toward clinical evaluation, but the specific trials and current recruitment status are not detailed in the available excerpts [8].
5. Examples of advanced preclinical platforms that may enter trials next
High-profile experimental platforms described in the sources include GelMA microneedles delivering oncolytic viruses and GelMA/PEGDA patches for wound healing; reviews highlight gelatin nanoparticles improving drug delivery and preclinical efficacy in multiple cancer models [7] [4]. Authors and reviewers consistently call for standardization, in vivo mechanism work, and multi-center clinical studies before these approaches become routine clinical trials [7] [4] [3].
6. What a precise search should target to find recruiting trials
Because the term “gelatide” is uncommon in the sources, search strategies should target: GelMA, gelatin methacryloyl, gelatin-based nanoparticles (GNPs), Gelofusine/Gelaspan, succinylated gelatin, and company product names [1] [5] [4] [8]. ClinicalTrials.gov and national registries will list recruiting studies under those specific compounds or commercial product names rather than under a broad “gelatide” tag [2] [5].
7. Limitations and next steps — what the available reporting does not show
Available sources do not list a catalogue of currently recruiting clinical trials explicitly labeled as “gelatide” therapies; they do not provide trial identifiers, recruitment status, locations, or enrollment criteria for novel GelMA implants or gelatin-based nanocarrier human trials in the excerpts provided (not found in current reporting). To obtain an up-to-date list of recruiting trials, query ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, or national registries for the specific terms above and for company press releases that name trial IDs [2] [5] [8].
Summary judgement: there is clear scientific momentum for gelatin-derived therapeutics and some registered clinical work with conventional gelatin solutions, but the sources supplied show mostly preclinical work and reviews urging clinical translation rather than a visible set of actively recruiting “gelatide” trials under that name [1] [3] [4] [2].