Are there any registered clinical trials of P7C3‑A20 on ClinicalTrials.gov or EU Clinical Trials Register?

1. Preclinical efficacy: a long trail of animal studies that stop short of people

Multiple peer‑reviewed reports provided describe robust efficacy of P7C3‑A20 across rodent models of traumatic brain injury, ischemic stroke, Parkinson‑like toxin exposures and age‑related cognitive decline, and even improvement in primate hippocampal measures after prolonged dosing, establishing a substantive preclinical package that could justify translation to humans ^{[1] [7] [8] [9] [2] [3]}.

2. Safety and mechanistic cautions that slow clinical translation

At least one experimental study explicitly documents concentration‑dependent neurotoxicity of P7C3‑A20 in primary neuronal cultures and stresses the need to “better understand” that toxicity before designing human trials, signaling that safety and mechanism questions remain unresolved prior to first‑in‑human work ^[6]. Other mechanistic papers and reviews describe target‑agnostic NAD+‑stabilizing activity and emphasize further investigation is needed to establish translational relevance ^{[10] [3]}.

3. Registries examined in the reporting and their silence on P7C3‑A20

The supplied source set includes the homepage for ClinicalTrials.gov and a review of the EU Clinical Trials Register landscape but contains no trial records or registry entries claiming human trials for P7C3‑A20; the reporting instead focuses on animal and primate studies and registry metadata without documenting any ClinicalTrials.gov or EUCTR registration for this molecule ^{[4] [5] [1] [2]}. Therefore, based on these provided sources, there are no documented registered clinical trials of P7C3‑A20 on ClinicalTrials.gov or the EU Clinical Trials Register.

4. Alternative explanations and potential reporting gaps

It is possible that clinical registration exists outside the supplied materials or that early‑phase human work has been filed but not widely reported or audited; the EUCTR and ClinicalTrials.gov databases are large and have documented problems of delayed or inconsistent results reporting, as discussed in the EUCTR audit literature—meaning absence from the discussed sources is not definitive proof that no registration exists anywhere, only that none was presented in the provided reporting ^{[5] [4]}. The sources instead show investigators and institutions publicizing preclinical efficacy, which can create public expectation ahead of formal human trial registration ^{[11] [1]}.

5. Hidden agendas and incentives to watch for in translation narratives

Many institutional press pieces and advocacy outlets emphasize translational promise—headlines like “a pill that could reverse Alzheimer’s” or promotional summaries of primate data can accelerate hype that pressures rapid advancement, but the scholarly literature simultaneously flags mechanistic uncertainties and toxicities, highlighting an implicit tension between promotional narratives and cautious scientific appraisal ^{[12] [13] [6] [3]}.

6. Bottom line and what would settle the question

On the evidence provided, P7C3‑A20 remains in the domain of preclinical research with none of the supplied sources documenting a registered human clinical trial on ClinicalTrials.gov or the EU Clinical Trials Register ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}. To conclusively answer whether a registration now exists would require a fresh, live search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the EUCTR (which are cited here but not shown to contain any P7C3‑A20 study records in the supplied material) or confirmation from trial sponsors or regulatory filings—an action outside the supplied reporting and therefore beyond the scope of this article ^{[4] [5]}.