Human study PLS-00033

Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study.

Uncontrolled pilot study · 2 participants enrolled

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study.primary · Alternative therapies in health and medicine · 2025-09-01 · PMID 40131143

Design and participants

Design: Uncontrolled pilot study
Population: Two adults described as healthy, a 58-year-old Asian man and a 68-year-old Caucasian woman, each of whom had received intravenous BPC-157 before the study.
Conditions: Healthy volunteers (safety assessment)
Setting: Private clinic in Florida; IRB-approved pilot study. (United States)
Planned enrollment (registry): Not reported
Enrolled: 2
Randomized: Not reported
Completed follow-up: Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

Intravenous BPC-157 (intervention) · bpc-157 · BPC-157 diluted in normal saline and infused intravenously over one hour; the second-day infusion was at a higher amount than the first. · intravenous · Two one-hour infusions on consecutive days (day 1 and day 2), with blood work and vital signs repeated through day 3. · 2 assigned

What the authors reported

As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

Blood biomarkers of heart, liver, kidney, thyroid function and blood glucose

unclear outcome · surrogate · Days 1, 2 and 3 · Baseline and fasting blood work before and after each infusion

Intravenous BPC-157: narrative — Infusions produced no measurable effects on the tested heart, liver, kidney, thyroid or glucose biomarkers.

Vital signs

unclear outcome · surrogate · Days 1, 2 and 3 · Vital signs recorded before and after each infusion

No results reported.

Side effects / tolerability

unclear outcome · safety · Each appointment, days 1 to 3 · Participants questioned about side effects at each appointment

Intravenous BPC-157: narrative — Infusions were tolerated and no side effects were reported.

Adverse events

None reported. That is not evidence of safety.

Monitoring: Baseline and fasting blood work (cardiac, hepatic, renal, thyroid, glucose markers) and vital signs before and after each infusion. Participants were questioned about side effects at each appointment through day 3.

The authors concluded (paraphrased): Authors concluded that intravenous BPC-157 infusion in two healthy adults showed no adverse effects and was well tolerated, indicating safety in humans, while noting that further studies are needed to confirm intravenous safety.

Peptide Library’s assessment

An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

Limitations

no control group: Single group of two participants with no placebo or comparison group, so effects cannot be attributed to the infusion.
small or imprecise: Only two participants were studied, far too few to detect uncommon or even moderately common adverse events.
selection bias: Both participants had already received intravenous BPC-157 before the trial, selecting people who had previously tolerated it.
short follow up: Monitoring lasted only through day 3 after two infusions, so delayed or long-term harms were not assessed.
inappropriate population: Two healthy older adults at a private clinic do not represent patients with injuries or other conditions for whom use is claimed.
abstract only: Only the abstract is available. No numeric biomarker data, specific tests or analysis details are reported.
funding or conflicts: Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported for a study run at a private clinic offering the infusion.
inappropriate endpoint: Outcomes are laboratory biomarkers and self-reported side effects with no efficacy outcomes.

Blood biomarkers of heart, liver, kidney, thyroid function and blood glucose: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control group	Serious concern	No comparison group; only before-after measurements in two participants are described in the abstract.
Selection of participants	Serious concern	Both participants had previously received IV BPC-157, a selected group of prior tolerant users.
Confounding	Serious concern	No control for day-to-day variation, fasting state differences or other factors affecting lab values.
Follow-up and attrition	Some concern	Labs were repeated only through day 3; completion of all measurements is not explicitly reported.
Outcome measurement	Some concern	Specific biomarkers, assays and thresholds for 'measurable effects' are not described in the abstract.
Completeness of reporting	Some concern	Results are given only narratively, with no numeric values for any biomarker in the abstract.
Precision	Serious concern	With two participants, no meaningful precision is possible for any biomarker change.
Funding and conflicts of interest	Not reported	Funding and conflicts of interest are not stated in the available abstract record.

Two prior-user participants, no control, narrative reporting only and very short follow-up give serious concerns.

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Side effects / tolerability: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control group	Serious concern	No comparison group, so the background rate of symptoms cannot be distinguished from infusion effects.
Selection of participants	Serious concern	Participants had previously received IV BPC-157, likely selecting those who already tolerated it.
Confounding	Serious concern	Uncontrolled design with no adjustment; prior exposure may influence reporting of side effects.
Follow-up and attrition	Some concern	Side effects were queried only at appointments through day 3, missing any delayed events.
Outcome measurement	Some concern	Side effects were elicited by unstructured questioning of unblinded participants, with no standardized tool described.
Completeness of reporting	Some concern	Abstract reports only that no side effects occurred, with no detail on events queried.
Precision	Serious concern	Absence of events in two people cannot exclude even common adverse effects.
Funding and conflicts of interest	Not reported	No funding or conflict-of-interest information is given in the record.

An uncontrolled design, two selected prior users, unstructured self-report and three days of follow-up give serious concerns.

Claims this study informs

Reduces knee pain: not eligible (wrong population) for “Knee pain intensity”
Supports tendon injury recovery: not eligible (wrong population) for “Function and return to activity”
Improves muscle injury recovery: not eligible (wrong population) for “Time to return to activity”
Improves gastrointestinal conditions: not eligible (wrong population) for “Clinical response or remission”
Is safe for human administration: eligible for “Adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations”, direct evidence

Insufficient information to assess Adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations

Where each value comes from

adverse_events: PMID 40131143, abstract (Results, sentence 12) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
arms: PMID 40131143, abstract (Methods, sentences 5-6) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
author_conclusion: PMID 40131143, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 13-15) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
design: PMID 40131143, abstract (Methods, sentences 4-8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
limitations: PMID 40131143, abstract (Participants and Setting, sentences 9-10) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
outcomes: PMID 40131143, abstract (Methods, sentences 4 and 8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
participants: PMID 40131143, abstract (Participants, sentence 10) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
population: PMID 40131143, abstract (Participants, sentence 10) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
results: PMID 40131143, abstract (Results, sentences 11-12) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).