📚 Wiki Antimicrobial & Immune Pexiganan

Pexiganan

◉ Phase 3 (completed; failed primary endpoint 1999)
Pexiganan (MSI-78)
Also known as: MSI-78, Locilex, Magainin analog
Brand names: Locilex (NDA rejected)
Page last reviewed

Quick Summary

Pexiganan (MSI-78) is a synthetic analog of magainin-2, optimized for enhanced broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and reduced hemolytic toxicity. It was developed by Magainin Pharmaceuticals (later Genaera) as a topical treatment for mildly infected diabetic foot ulcers.

Antimicrobial Peptide Phase 3 (Failed 1999)
Pexiganan (MSI-78) is a synthetic analog of magainin-2, optimized for enhanced broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and reduced hemolytic toxicity. It was developed by Magainin Pharmaceuticals (later Genaera) as a topical treatment for mildly infected diabetic foot ulcers. Pexiganan completed Phase 3 trials in 1999 and was submitted to the FDA as Locilex cream, but the FDA advisory panel concluded the trial design did not demonstrate superiority over vehicle. This rejection is frequently cited in discussions of challenges in AMP clinical development and regulatory requirements for superiority versus non-inferiority trial designs.
Storage Stability
Lyophilized
~1 year
Reconstituted
~30 days (2–8°C)
Room temp
Stable (dry)

Mechanism of Action

Amphipathic Helix Membrane Disruption

Pexiganan is an all-L-amino acid synthetic derivative of magainin-2 with enhanced cationic charge and optimized amphipathicity. It disrupts bacterial membranes through the carpet-model mechanism at low concentrations and toroidal pore formation at higher concentrations, identical to the parent magainin mechanism. The optimized sequence was selected for maximum broad-spectrum activity with minimal mammalian cell toxicity. Unlike systemic AMPs, topical application concentrations far exceed systemic MIC values, minimizing resistance selection pressure.

Resistance Resistance

In vitro serial passage studies demonstrated markedly slower resistance development to pexiganan versus standard antibiotics. The fundamental membrane-targeting mechanism means bacteria cannot develop simple target mutations, resistance requires wholesale changes in membrane lipid composition, which carries significant fitness costs. Reduced propensity for resistance is a key claimed advantage for AMPs in wound care settings.


Research Summary

Phase 3 Trials and FDA Rejection (1999)

Phase 3 (Failed)

Two Phase 3 trials (n=835 total) comparing 0.8% pexiganan cream to placebo vehicle in mildly infected diabetic foot ulcers showed clinical cure rates of ~76% for pexiganan versus ~71% for vehicle. The FDA advisory committee (1999) voted 11-2 that the trials did not demonstrate superiority over vehicle, noting high vehicle response rates and questioning whether the trial design adequately differentiated drug effect from standard wound care. The trials compared pexiganan to vehicle rather than to an active antibiotic comparator, which the FDA considered a design flaw.

Locilex Re-Development

Phase 3 (Ongoing)

Dipexium Pharmaceuticals acquired pexiganan rights and redesigned Phase 3 trials comparing pexiganan cream to oral linezolid for mildly infected diabetic foot ulcers. The active comparator design addresses the FDA concerns from the 1999 rejection. New trials aim to demonstrate non-inferiority to linezolid, which could support FDA approval under a different evidentiary standard. Phase 3 results are expected to inform whether topical AMPs can achieve regulatory approval.


Calculate your Pexiganan dose Vial strength, BAC water, exact syringe draw in IU. Free, no signup. Open Calc →

Research Protocols

GoalDoseFrequencyRoute
Diabetic foot ulcer (clinical)0.8% cream applied topicallyTwice daily x 14-28 daysTopical
In vitro antimicrobial1-10 ug/mL MICSingle exposureDirect application

Not approved. New Phase 3 vs linezolid ongoing by Dipexium. Original FDA rejection was 1999.


Interactions

Parent compound
Magainin-2
Pexiganan is optimized synthetic analog with improved therapeutic index
Potentially comparable
Topical antibiotics (mupirocin, etc.)
Phase 3 seeks non-inferiority vs linezolid; mupirocin resistance is driving need for alternatives

Safety Profile

Phase 3 confirmed excellent local tolerability at 0.8% cream concentration. Minimal systemic absorption from topical application. Low hemolytic activity in vitro distinguishes pexiganan from related AMPs. The original Phase 3 failure was not due to safety issues but trial design. No resistance development observed in Phase 3 trial isolates, supporting the resistance-resistant mechanism.


References

  • [1]Ge Y, et al. (1999). In vitro susceptibility to pexiganan of bacteria isolated from infected diabetic foot ulcers. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 35(1), 45-53.
  • [2]Zasloff M. (2002). Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature, 415(6870), 389-395.
Ready to dose Pexiganan?
Get the exact syringe draw
You have read the research. Now run the math. Pick your vial size and BAC water volume, get IU draw in seconds.
Open the Calculator →
Verified Scientific Data Last audited:
Data Sources & External References
Source: peer-reviewed literature  ·  Domain: ascendpeptide.org

Suggest a Change

Pexiganan · wiki page