Human study PLS-00035

Effect of BPC-157 on Symptoms in Patients with Interstitial Cystitis: A Pilot Study.

Uncontrolled pilot study · 12 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.

Effect of BPC-157 on Symptoms in Patients with Interstitial Cystitis: A Pilot Study.primary · Alternative therapies in health and medicine · 2024-10-01 · PMID 39325560

Design and participants

Design: Uncontrolled pilot study
Population: Women aged 39 to 76 years (mean 58.3) with moderate to severe interstitial cystitis (bladder pain syndrome) who had not responded to pentosan polysulfate; 10 White, one Asian, one Latina.
Conditions: Interstitial cystitis, Bladder pain syndrome
Setting: Private clinic
Planned enrollment (registry): Not reported
Enrolled: 12
Randomized: Not reported
Completed follow-up: 12
Funding: Not stated
Authors’ conflicts: Not stated

Intervention and comparator

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

BPC-157 intravesical injection (intervention) · bpc-157 · BPC-157 peptide made by a 503A compounding pharmacy, injected around the area of bladder inflammation during cystoscopy · Injection into the bladder wall around the inflamed area (intravesical) during cystoscopy · Single procedure · 12 assigned

What the authors reported

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

Global Response Assessment

primary outcome · patient-important · After one treatment (timepoint not stated) · Global Response Assessment questionnaire, scored out of 5

BPC-157 intravesical injection: narrative — All 12 patients scored 5/5 on the Global Response Assessment

Patient-rated symptom resolution

secondary outcome · patient-important · After one treatment (timepoint not stated) · Patient self-rated percentage success or symptom resolution

BPC-157 intravesical injection: narrative — 10 of 12 reported complete resolution (rated 100%); 2 of 12 rated success at 80% with some symptoms lingering

Adverse events and dropouts

unclear outcome · safety · Not stated · Reported adverse events and study withdrawals

BPC-157 intravesical injection: narrative — No one dropped out and no adverse events were reported

Adverse events

None reported. That is not evidence of safety.

Monitoring: Not described beyond the statement that no adverse events were reported.

The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors present this as the first report of intravesical BPC-157 injection helping patients with moderate to severe interstitial cystitis unresponsive to pentosan polysulfate, describing the therapy as successful.

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 with no placebo or comparator, so improvement cannot be separated from placebo effect, natural fluctuation or the cystoscopy procedure itself.
small or imprecise: Only 12 participants were treated, which is too few to estimate efficacy precisely or to detect uncommon adverse events.
inadequate blinding: Open-label treatment with subjective, patient-rated global response outcomes is highly prone to expectation bias.
short follow up: The follow-up duration is not stated; results describe the response after a single treatment, with no long-term data on durability or safety.
abstract only: Only the abstract is available; the methods, adverse-event monitoring, funding and conflicts of interest cannot be verified.
inappropriate endpoint: The abstract's statements are inconsistent: all patients scored 5/5 on the Global Response Assessment, yet 2 of 12 reported lingering symptoms.
funding or conflicts: Funding and conflict of interest are not stated in the abstract; the compounded product is unapproved.

Global Response Assessment: 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	There is no control or comparator group; all 12 women received BPC-157 injections.
Selection of participants	Some concern	Participants came from a single private clinic, and the abstract does not describe recruitment or eligibility criteria.
Confounding	Serious concern	Cystoscopy, co-treatments and placebo effects could explain the response; none were controlled for.
Follow-up and attrition	Some concern	No dropouts were reported, but the length of follow-up and the assessment timepoint are not stated.
Outcome measurement	Serious concern	The patient-rated Global Response Assessment was collected in an open-label setting, making it prone to expectation bias.
Completeness of reporting	Some concern	Abstract only; the success claim is internally inconsistent with 2 patients reporting lingering symptoms.
Precision	Serious concern	With only 12 participants and no confidence intervals or statistics reported, the estimates are very imprecise.
Funding and conflicts of interest	Not reported	The abstract does not report funding sources or conflicts of interest.

An uncontrolled, open-label, abstract-only pilot of 12 patients with a subjective outcome carries serious risk of bias.

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.

Patient-rated symptom resolution: 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	Single-group design with no comparator, so attribution of symptom resolution to BPC-157 is not possible.
Selection of participants	Some concern	Single private clinic; the recruitment process and eligibility criteria are not described in the abstract.
Confounding	Serious concern	Placebo effects, the procedure itself and natural symptom fluctuation in interstitial cystitis were not controlled.
Follow-up and attrition	Some concern	All participants completed the study, but the timing of the symptom assessment is not reported.
Outcome measurement	Serious concern	Self-rated percentage success is subjective and was obtained without blinding.
Completeness of reporting	Some concern	Only the abstract is available; no validated symptom score results are reported.
Precision	Serious concern	Very small sample of 12, with no measures of uncertainty reported.
Funding and conflicts of interest	Not reported	Funding and conflicts of interest are not mentioned in the abstract.

Lack of a control group, an unblinded subjective outcome and a tiny sample produce serious concerns.

Adverse events and dropouts: 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	There is no comparator group against which adverse event rates could be compared.
Selection of participants	Some concern	Single-clinic sample with unclear recruitment, as described in the abstract.
Confounding	Some concern	Without a comparator, procedure-related and drug-related events cannot be distinguished.
Follow-up and attrition	Some concern	No dropouts were reported, but the safety follow-up duration is not stated.
Outcome measurement	Serious concern	The abstract does not describe how or when adverse events were collected.
Completeness of reporting	Some concern	The abstract only states that no adverse events were reported, without detail on monitoring or definitions.
Precision	Serious concern	Twelve participants are far too few to detect uncommon adverse events.
Funding and conflicts of interest	Not reported	The abstract gives no information on funding or conflicts of interest.

An absence of reported adverse events in 12 uncontrolled patients with undescribed monitoring is weak safety evidence.

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”, indirect evidence

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

Where each value comes from

adverse_events: PMID 39325560, abstract (Results section, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
arms: PMID 39325560, abstract (Objective section, sentence 1; Methods section, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
author_conclusion: PMID 39325560, abstract (Conclusion section, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
design: PMID 39325560, title (Title: 'A Pilot Study') · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
limitations: PMID 39325560, abstract (Methods and Results sections) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
outcomes: PMID 39325560, abstract (Methods section, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
participants: PMID 39325560, abstract (Participants section, sentence 1; Results section, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
population: PMID 39325560, abstract (Participants section, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
results: PMID 39325560, abstract (Results section, sentences 1, 2 and 4) · 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).