BPC-157 in inflammatory bowel disease and mucosal barrier disorders — evidence extract
The Institute's graded assessment of BPC-157 for inflammatory bowel disease and mucosal barrier disorders, with the contributing trials and the domain-by-domain certainty reasoning.
§1Evidence extract: Inflammatory bowel disease and mucosal barrier disorders
§1.1Question and anchor outcome
- Population
- Chronic immune-mediated inflammation of the intestinal tract, or disorders of intestinal permeability including coeliac disease.
- Intervention
- BPC-157, subcutaneous, intraperitoneal or oral in preclinical studies; subcutaneous or oral in research contexts
- Comparator
- As used in each contributing trial; reported per trial rather than pooled across comparator types
- Anchor outcome
- Clinical remission
Additional outcomes the Institute extracts for this indication: Endoscopic healing; Faecal calprotectin; Intestinal permeability by lactulose–mannitol ratio.
§1.2Contributing trials
Table 1. Trials contributing to the assessment of BPC-157 in inflammatory bowel disease and mucosal barrier disorders.
| Trial | Phase | Design | Randomised | Duration | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BPC-PH2-UC | 2 | Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled | — | Not recorded | — |
§1.3Certainty assessment
Table 2. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain.
| Domain | Rating | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of bias | Serious | Differential attrition exceeded the pre-specified threshold in one arm. |
| Inconsistency | Serious | Too few contributing studies to assess consistency formally. |
| Indirectness | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Imprecision | Serious | The event count falls below the optimal information size. |
| Publication bias | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Overall rating: Very low certainty. The Institute has very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate. In this series a very low rating most often reflects an absence of controlled human evidence rather than conflicting evidence. | ||
§1.4What this extract does not establish
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.
- Sikiric P, Seiwerth S, Rucman R, Turkovic B, Rokotov DS, Brcic L, Sever M, Klicek R, Radic B, Drmic D, Ilic S, Kolenc D, Aralica G, Stupnisek M, Suran J, Barisic I, Dzidic S, Prkacin I. Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157: novel therapy in gastrointestinal tract. Current Pharmaceutical Design 2011;17(16):1612–1632. doi:10.2174/138161211796196954 · PMID 21548867
- Bhattacharyya S, Wang J, Kaplan RM. Quality of peptide products obtained from unregulated online suppliers: an analytical survey. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2024;113(4):1102–1110. doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2023.11.021 Cited by the Institute as an indicative analytical survey; sample frame was not random.
- Carvalho M, Dinis-Oliveira RJ. Analytical and forensic aspects of counterfeit peptide hormones. Drug Testing and Analysis 2023;15(1):5–19. doi:10.1002/dta.3379
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.