Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · Scoping review

Human evidence for BPC-157

What randomised human evidence exists for BPC-157 in any indication?

Document identifier
CEI-ES-014
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
3.0
Published
03 Nov 2025
Last reviewed
03 Jul 2026
Next review
03 Jan 2028
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.14
Certainty
Very low
Cycle
2025 Q4
Review type
Scoping review
Search executed
08 Aug 2025

§1Abstract

§1.1Review question

What randomised human evidence exists for BPC-157 in any indication?

§1.2PICO frame

Table 1. The registered PICO frame. Any change made after protocol registration is recorded in the amendment log at §5 and is identified there as post hoc.

ElementAs registered
PopulationHuman participants of any age in any indication.
InterventionBPC-157 by any route at any dose.
ComparatorAny comparator, including none.
OutcomesAny clinical outcome.

§1.3Method in brief

A structured map of the available evidence for a question where the Institute judges that a quantitative synthesis is not yet supportable. A scoping review states what would have to exist before an intervention review could be attempted. The protocol was registered with the Institute's secretariat before the search was executed. The search was run on 8 August 2025 across 8 sources and is reproduced in full at §2. Screening, extraction and certainty assessment were performed independently by two members of the secretariat with disagreement resolved by a third.

§1.4Conclusion

The Institute conducted a systematic search for randomised controlled trials of BPC-157 in any human population and indication and identified no trial that met inclusion criteria for which a peer-reviewed report or clinical trial registry record was retrievable. The preclinical literature is substantial, methodologically sound within its scope, and consistent in direction of effect across multiple model systems and research groups. Consistency within preclinical literature is not, however, evidence that an effect will transfer to human populations or that claimed mechanisms in animal tissue will operate identically in human physiology. The Institute therefore grades every human claim for BPC-157 as very low certainty and states explicitly that this grade reflects an absence of adequate human evidence rather than evidence of absence of effect. The compound may have beneficial effects; no randomised human trial has tested whether it does.

The conclusion rests on 1 contributing study, listed with their extracted data at §3 and summarised outcome by outcome at §4.

§1.5Limitations

§1.6Consultation

This review was released for public comment before ratification. Draft synthesis: Human evidence for BPC-157 received 4 submissions. Amendments arising are recorded in the amendment log and are traceable to a numbered submission.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.