BPC-157 clinical trials in people are almost nonexistent: a 2026 systematic review found just three published human studies with 30 participants in total, none with a control group, and rated the certainty of evidence “very low.”[1] One properly randomized, placebo-controlled trial is registered in the US, but it is not expected to start until January 2027.[8]
This page lists every human study and registered trial of BPC-157 we could verify, what each one actually measured, and what’s still missing. For the wider picture of injury-recovery peptides, see our healing peptides hub.
Bottom line
- Published human data: three small, uncontrolled studies (16, 12 and 2 people), all with the same first author and published in the same alternative-medicine journal.[1]
- Historical trials: Croatian bowel-disease trials from the 1990s and 2000s were described as safe but never fully published, and FDA’s 2026 review said the main efficacy trial did not clearly beat placebo.[5][6]
- Registered trials: one oral safety trial (2015, no results posted), one company-run gummy study (completed 2025, no results posted) and one randomized surgery trial (not yet recruiting).[7][9][8]
- Animal data: extensive. A 2025 review of BPC-157 for muscle, tendon, ligament and bone found 36 studies, 35 of them in animals.[11]
Every published human study
| Study | Design and size | What was done | Reported result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knee pain (2021) | Retrospective chart review, 16 patients | Injection into the knee joint | 14 of 16 said pain improved; no control group or validated scoring[2] |
| Interstitial cystitis (2024) | Retrospective pilot, 12 women | Single 10 mg injection into the bladder wall | 10 of 12 reported full symptom relief; no control group[3] |
| IV safety (2025) | Prospective pilot, 2 adults | 10 mg then 20 mg by IV on consecutive days | No meaningful changes in heart, liver, kidney, thyroid or blood sugar tests[4] |
| Nerve injury cases (2026) | 3 case reports | BPC-157 with other peptides, a steroid and local anesthetic | Sensation recovered, but authors say causality can’t be established[10] |
The 2026 systematic review searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov up to June 2026. It judged all three formal studies to be of poor methodological quality and concluded that BPC-157 should not be used clinically outside regulated, high-quality trials.[1]
The Croatian trials that were never fully published
BPC-157 was developed at the University of Zagreb and tested by the Croatian drugmaker Pliva under codes including PL-10, PLD-116 and PL 14736.[5] The originating group described it as “safe in clinical trials for inflammatory bowel disease,” but those trials appear mainly as conference abstracts rather than full peer-reviewed papers.[5]
FDA reviewed the available records for its July 2026 compounding advisory meeting. According to FDA’s presentation:[6]
- A phase 1 study in healthy volunteers using BPC-157 enemas reported headache and gas as the most common complaints.
- A randomized trial of PL 14736 enemas in 53 people with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis did not clearly outperform placebo over two weeks.
Because full data were never published, outside scientists can’t check the methods or results.
Registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov
| Trial | Sponsor | Design | Status (Oct 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NCT02637284: oral PCO-02 (Bepecin) tablets | PharmaCotherapia (Croatia) | Phase 1, randomized, placebo-controlled, 42 healthy volunteers; single doses then 3 mg every 8 hours for 2 weeks | Status unknown; last updated 2015; no results posted[7] |
| NCT07752381: peptide gummies | Parlay Wellness | Single-arm, open-label, 40 active adults; 500 mcg per serving for 8 weeks; measures CRP and IL-6 | Completed November 2025; no results posted[9] |
| NCT07803250: rotator cuff repair | University of Arkansas | Phase 1 pilot, randomized, quadruple-blind; daily injections vs saline for 90 days after surgery; MRI, strength, range of motion | Not yet recruiting; planned start January 2027[8] |
A few points about these:
- The oral trial is the only formal test of oral BPC-157 in people, and its results have never appeared.[7]
- The gummy study was run by the company selling the product, had no placebo group, and measures blood inflammation markers rather than healing.[9]
- The Arkansas trial is the first registered US trial with a placebo and blinding. Its own description notes that BPC-157 “has not yet been studied in formal human clinical trials.”[8]
We excluded one ClinicalTrials.gov record whose sponsor and details we could not independently verify.
Why there are so few human trials
BPC-157 has an unusual history for a compound this popular. It never went through the standard drug pipeline of phase 1, 2 and 3 trials, and no company has filed it for FDA approval. Several things explain the gap:
- One research group dominates. Most published work comes from the Zagreb team that first described the peptide, and most of it is in rats.[5][11]
- Early trials stalled. The Croatian bowel-disease program did not produce a full publication, and the 2015 oral tablet trial went quiet after registration.[6][7]
- Demand moved to the gray market. As online sales grew, there was little commercial reason to fund expensive trials when the peptide was already easy to buy.
- Regulators flagged it. FDA placed BPC-157 on its list of compounding substances with possible safety risks in 2023, which limited clinical use further. It removed BPC-157 from that list in 2026 after the nominations were withdrawn, which is not an approval.[13]
The result is a large gap between how widely BPC-157 is used and how little is known from controlled human research.
What’s established vs preliminary
Established:
- BPC-157 has strong, consistent results in rat and other animal injury models.[11]
- Human data are limited to about 30 people in uncontrolled studies.[1]
Preliminary or unknown:
- Whether it speeds tendon, ligament, muscle or gut healing in people.
- The right dose, route and treatment length.
- Long-term safety, including the theoretical concern that a blood-vessel-promoting compound could affect tumors.
- Whether results hold up outside the original Zagreb group, which produced most animal studies.
Limitations of the current evidence
- No control groups. Every published human study lacked one.[1]
- Retrospective designs. Two of three studies looked back at clinic records rather than following a plan set in advance.[2][3]
- Tiny numbers. With 2 to 16 people per study, uncommon side effects would almost certainly be missed.
- Mixed treatments. The 2026 nerve-injury cases combined BPC-157 with other drugs, so its specific effect is unknowable.[10]
- Unpublished data. The largest controlled trial, in ulcerative colitis, was never fully reported.[6]
What’s next
The University of Arkansas rotator cuff trial is the one to watch. If it runs as planned, it will be the first blinded human data on BPC-157 for musculoskeletal healing, with tendon healing checked by MRI.[8] Results would not be expected before late 2027 at the earliest.
On the regulatory side, BPC-157 remains unapproved. Our BPC-157 legal status guide tracks FDA’s July 2026 advisory committee vote and what has happened since. If you’re weighing BPC-157 against its common partner, our BPC-157 vs TB-500 comparison covers the evidence for TB-500, and the Wolverine stack guide explains why the combination is untested in people.
Anyone considering BPC-157 for an injury should discuss it with a clinician, who can talk through proven options and whether a registered trial might be a better route.
