Compound reference

BPC-157 dosage: what the research tested, source by source

By the Decadewise team Education only The evidence page, not the tool Last updated 9 August 2026 15 cited sources

Short answer

The pentadecapeptide: BPC-157, also written BPC 157 and bpc157, is a synthetic fifteen-residue peptide built from a fragment of a human gastric protein, studied almost entirely in rodents.

The human record, as FDA catalogued it in July 2026: five studies, 116 people between them, no validated dosing regimen. The rat work cited here ran from 10 picograms to 500 micrograms per kilogram.

Two of the five were randomized and placebo controlled: both by rectal enema, both meeting abstracts only. Nothing published has tested an injection under the skin.

The internet has a number anyway: community posts cluster around 250 to 500 micrograms a day, with no trial behind any of it.

Three scales in one sentence: posts quote micrograms, vials come in 5mg and 10mg, and syringes read in units.

Where it stands with the FDA: not approved as of July 2026. Its compounding advisory committee voted on 23 July 2026 to recommend the 503A list, against FDA staff's own proposal. No agency decision is published.

Is there a BPC-157 dosage chart?

There is a chart, and it is this one: every amount a named source has administered, in one table, with the source in its own column. What is not here is a beginner, standard and advanced ladder, because no document exists to build one from. A review searching the literature to April 2026 states plainly that there is no approved formulation and no validated dosing regimen (Mateescu et al., 2026).

That review also reported no completed phase 2 trial, and the regulator's file disagrees: FDA's July 2026 briefing document catalogues five human studies, two of them randomized and placebo controlled, including a 53-subject phase 2 in ulcerative colitis run in 2005. Both randomized reports exist only as conference abstracts, which is the likeliest reason a database search to April 2026 missed them, and neither used an injection.

The last column is the one that settles it: a study administering an amount is not a study establishing one. Four of the eight rows below are single-arm, uncontrolled or preclinical, two are placebo-controlled enema studies published as abstracts, one is a registry entry with no results yet, and one is the community pattern, which is not a study at all.

Source-reported amounts, not a schedule. Every row names the document it came from

Source	Evidence class	Population or model	Route	Amount administered	What it does not establish
Staresinic 2003, PMID 14554208	animal study	rats, Achilles tendon transected 5mm above the calcaneal insertion	intraperitoneal	10mcg, 10ng or 10pg per kg body weight, once daily	any human figure. The three arms span a millionfold and all three are reported as effective
Veljaca 2002 and 2003, as catalogued by FDA, July 2026	placebo-controlled phase 1	32 healthy subjects randomized, 24 of them given BPC-157	rectal enema	0.25, 0.5, 1 or 2mg per kg, a single dose then seven daily doses	anything about injection. It is a tolerability study, reported only as two conference abstracts, and BPC-157 was not detected in plasma
Ruenzi 2005, as catalogued by FDA, July 2026	randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2	53 with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis randomized, 46 completed	rectal enema	80mg once daily for 2 weeks	an injected amount, and an effect: the between-group difference was 1.6 points on a composite index, confidence interval crossing zero
Lee and Padgett 2021, PMID 34324435	retrospective chart review	17 patients at one clinic, 16 reached by phone	intra-articular, knee	2cc, which the paper states as 4mg at a compounded concentration of 2,000mcg per mL; the 4 patients also given TB4 received 2 to 4mg of BPC-157	efficacy, because there was no control group and no standardized outcome tools
Lee, Walker and Ayadi 2024, PMID 39325560	uncontrolled pilot	12 women aged 39 to 76 who had not responded to pentosan polysulfate	injected around the area of bladder inflammation during cystoscopy	10mg total, in a single procedure	a repeating schedule. It was one procedure, in 12 people, with no control arm
Lee and Burgess 2025, PMID 40131143	uncontrolled safety pilot	2 adults, both of whom had received it before	intravenous, in 250cc of normal saline over one hour	10mg on day 1 and 20mg on day 2	anything about subcutaneous use, and any safety conclusion beyond 2 people across 2 days
NCT02637284, ClinicalTrials.gov	randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1	42 planned, healthy volunteers	oral tablet	a single dose of 1, 3 or 6 tablets of 1mg, then 3 tablets every 8 hours for two weeks in the second part	anything. No results are posted, and the record has been marked unknown since its last update in December 2015
community posts	not a study	unknown, self-selected, unverified	described as subcutaneous	the cluster is recorded in the reported-use section below, and is deliberately not restated as a chart row	anything at all. No control group, no dose verification, no outcome measurement

Source column verified against each record's own abstract or registry entry, and the two enema rows against the previous-human-experience appendix of FDA's July 2026 briefing document, re-pulled 29 July 2026. The knee row's amount comes from the full paper, retrieved 30 July 2026, HTTP 200, which prints it in both its Procedure and its Results section. Until that date this row said the report stated no amount, which was wrong: the abstract omits it, the paper does not.

What the chart cannot give you, and why not: a per-kilogram figure that transfers. The only weight-scaled amounts in the whole record are the rat arms, and nothing published converts them into a human equivalent, which is why no row on this page carries a body-weight column.

The units converter on this page

Four inputs, three outputs: a vial size, a water amount, a syringe type and a dose go in; the concentration, the volume and the reading in units on the barrel come back.

The fuller tool lives elsewhere: this widget is here so nobody has to leave the evidence mid-read. For preset vial sizes, both conversion directions and a worked table, the BPC-157 dosage calculator is the tool page; this page is the evidence record behind it.

Units converter

Converts the numbers you type. It does not recommend a dose.

Vial amount mg Bacteriostatic water mL Syringe type Barrel size Dose you want to convert mg

Concentration2.5 mg per mL

Volume to drawenter a dose

Reads as

Arithmetic only. This is arithmetic on the numbers entered. It has no knowledge of any real vial, reconstitution, or syringe.

On this page

Short answer Is there a dosage chart? Units converter Reported use What does the research show? Research vs internet dose How the units math works 5mg and 10mg vials How many units is 500mcg? What's not known yet? The safety picture Around this page How this page is sourced The disclaimer

Community reports, not a protocol

What do users report running?

The background: nothing published has put a subcutaneous injection of BPC-157 into a person, so every number below comes from community pages and protocol blogs. Not from research.

The cluster: posts converge on 250 to 500 micrograms a day, usually described as a once-daily subcutaneous injection.

The two sizes the posts assume: 5mg and 10mg vials, which is why the arithmetic further down is worked for those two.

The cycles: on and off blocks show up repeatedly, most often described as several weeks on followed by a break.

The compound named alongside it: TB-500 turns up in the same threads more than anything else does.

The folklore: many posts describe injecting near the injury. The published work used other routes: intraperitoneal in the rat studies, intra-articular in the one human chart review.

None of it verified: no control groups, no dose verification, no outcome measurement. This is a record of what people say they do, not evidence of what BPC-157 does.

Why it's here: anyone searching for a BPC-157 dose will meet these numbers anyway. Seeing them labeled correctly beats pretending they came out of a trial.

Peer-reviewed research

What does the research show?

What the 2026 review states plainly: no approved formulation and no validated dosing regimen (Mateescu et al., Pharmaceutics, 2026). Its "fewer than 30 subjects across three uncontrolled pilot studies" is the count we printed here until 29 July 2026, and it is incomplete, so the paragraph below replaces it. A second 2025 narrative review lands on the same three pilots, in knee pain, interstitial cystitis and intravenous safety, and describes human data as extremely limited while calling the compound investigational (McGuire et al., Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2025). Two independent reviews reaching the same short count is why the regulator's catalogue below matters: it is the only source here that found the two randomized enema studies.

The human record, from the regulator's own catalogue: FDA's July 2026 briefing document lists five studies with 116 people enrolled or randomized across them: 32 healthy subjects in a placebo-controlled phase 1 enema study, 53 randomized in a placebo-controlled phase 2 enema study in ulcerative colitis, 17 in the intra-articular knee chart review, 12 in the interstitial cystitis pilot, and 2 in the intravenous pilot. Fewer than 116 actually received BPC-157, because two of the five had placebo arms.

What that record does not contain: a subcutaneous injection. FDA states it found no study administering BPC-157 to humans by the oral, subcutaneous, nasal or transdermal route, which is every route the withdrawn compounding nominations proposed.

One registration sits beside that and does not contradict it: NCT02637284 registered an oral phase 1 of BPC-157 in 2015, in 42 planned healthy volunteers. It posted no results, its status has read unknown since its last update in December 2015, and a registration that never reported is not a study a regulator can catalogue. It sits in the chart above as a registry entry, not as evidence.

The best-known human paper: a 2021 retrospective chart review of knee pain injections (Lee and Padgett). Sixteen of 17 patients were reached by phone, and 11 of the 12 who received BPC-157 alone reported improvement, on a single 2cc intra-articular injection the paper states as 4mg.

The fine print: no control group and no standardized tools to measure improvement. The authors themselves said future studies are needed.

Study	Design	People	What it found
tolerability and pharmacokinetics, 2002 and 2003	placebo-controlled phase 1, rectal enema	32 randomized, 24 given BPC-157	no significant adverse events attributed to it; not detected in plasma
ulcerative colitis, 2005	randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2, rectal enema	53 randomized, 46 completed	1.6-point between-group difference on a composite index, confidence interval crossing zero
knee pain injections, 2021	retrospective chart review, no control group	16 of 17 followed up	87.5% reported relief; no standardized outcome tools
interstitial cystitis pilot	uncontrolled pilot, 12 women	12 treated, none withdrew	no adverse effects reported
IV safety and pharmacokinetics pilot	uncontrolled pilot, 2 participants	2 treated across 2 days	no adverse effects reported
oral safety and pharmacokinetics, NCT02637284	randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1, oral tablet	42 planned	registered 2015, no results posted, status unknown since December 2015

The five human studies in FDA's July 2026 catalogue, plus the one registered trial that is not among them. The first two are conference abstracts, and every figure in their rows is quoted from that FDA document rather than from the abstracts themselves. FDA briefing document, Lee and Padgett 2021, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02637284.

The rodent record: this is where the volume lives. The classic study (Staresinic et al., Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2003) transected the Achilles tendon in rats, then gave BPC-157 at 10 micrograms, 10 nanograms, or 10 picograms per kilogram, once daily, and reported improved healing across biomechanical, functional, microscopic, and macroscopic measures.

Why that is not the ceiling: the 2003 arms are the ones this page quotes most, and they are not the largest per-kilogram amounts on record. A 2022 rat incisional-pain study gave 10, 20 or 40 micrograms per kilogram intraperitoneally (Jung et al., Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 2022), and a 2022 pharmacokinetic study in rats and dogs gave 20, 100 or 500 micrograms per kilogram intramuscularly, plus 20 micrograms per kilogram intravenously (He et al., Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2022). Until 30 July 2026 this page called 10 micrograms per kilogram the top of the published rodent range, and both papers above were already published when it said so.

What a second review found, and what it added: an independent review (Gwyer et al., Cell and Tissue Research, 2019) found consistently positive and prompt healing effects across injury types, then stated the caveat that matters: the majority of it is small rodent work, and efficacy is yet to be confirmed in humans.

The spelling does not split the literature: the 2026 review ran its database search on BPC-157 and BPC157 together, alongside body protection compound 157 and the peptide's own sequence, so the hyphenated form, the spaced form and the closed-up form all point at one molecule and one body of work.

The concentration problem: only a handful of research groups have run the in-depth studies (Gwyer et al., 2019). The two older animal papers cited here come from the same Zagreb pharmacology group; the two 2022 papers above do not.

The time capsule: the 2003 paper describes BPC-157 as currently in clinical trials for inflammatory bowel disease. Those trials are the two enema abstracts above, and two decades on nothing has followed them into a journal.

The pharmacology wrinkle: plasma half-life runs under 30 minutes, with intramuscular bioavailability of 14 to 51 percent depending on species, yet reported effects last hours to days (Mateescu et al., 2026). The review calls that disconnect a direct problem for dosing strategy.

The stability quirk: BPC-157 is unusually stable in gastric juice, and the preclinical work showed activity by oral, parenteral, and topical routes (Mateescu et al., 2026).

Nothing is running: ClinicalTrials.gov, searched through its own API on 2 August 2026 for BPC-157 and for the spaced form BPC 157, returns two records. One is NCT02637284, an oral phase 1 registered in 2015 whose status has read unknown since December 2015 and which has posted no results. The other is a registration for the injected route, and it was removed from this page on the same date, for the reason set out at the bottom. So the registry is not empty and we are not claiming it is. What it does not hold is a trial of the injected route we can stand behind, which leaves the honest answer to every dosing question below as the research does not have one.

human studies in FDA's July 2026 catalogue, 116 people enrolled or randomized across them

of those five randomized and placebo controlled, both rectal enema, both conference abstracts

studies administering it under the skin, and no validated human dosing regimen

10pg to 500mcg/kg

the span of per-kilogram amounts across the three rat studies cited on this page, a fifty-millionfold spread

222

papers indexed on PubMed, almost entirely preclinical

FDA briefing document, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, July 2026; Mateescu et al., Pharmaceutics 2026; Staresinic et al., J Orthop Res 2003; Jung et al., J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2022; He et al., Front Pharmacol 2022; PubMed searched for BPC-157 across all fields on 29 July 2026, esearch HTTP 200, 222 records returned. The same query run again returns the same count until PubMed indexes another paper.

Does the research match the internet dose?

The mismatch this section is about: the human amounts on record went into a rectum, a knee, a bladder wall and a vein, and the internet has a subcutaneous number anyway. Both columns below are printed, both are labeled, and nothing joins them, because nothing published joins them either.

What the research can support

The question the rat studies were built to answer: whether the peptide does anything at all, across doses from picograms to micrograms per kilogram. They were never designed to set a human schedule.

What that amounts to: a signal worth a real trial, which nobody has run on the injected route. Not a dosing recommendation.

What the posts show

The posted shape of it: 250 to 500 micrograms a day, subcutaneous, in on-and-off cycles, often alongside TB-500. None of it comes out of a controlled setting.

Where that number was born: community convention, not a validated method. No published study has ever derived a human dose from the rodent work.

The rat work ran from picograms to micrograms per kilogram. The forum number is a flat 250 to 500 micrograms, and nothing published connects the two.

What this page can and cannot settle: the whole human record is five studies, none of them an injection under the skin, and the division between a milligram on a vial and a mark on a barrel is arithmetic anyone can rerun. What none of that supplies is a subcutaneous amount, because the record contains no subcutaneous study to take one from.

How does the units math work?

Why a BPC-157 vial needs this at all: the posts talk in micrograms, the vial is printed in milligrams, and the barrel is printed in units. Three scales, one draw. The arithmetic below is worked in general terms, with no dose attached to anyone.

The common setup first: a 5mg vial reconstituted with 2mL of bacteriostatic water sits at 2.5mg per mL, or 2500mcg per mL.

What one U-100 unit is worth there: the barrel carries 100 units to the milliliter, so a unit is a hundredth of a milliliter, which at this concentration holds 25mcg, or 0.025mg. From there: 250mcg is 10 units, 500mcg is 20 units.

The same vial at 1mL: with half as much water the concentration sits at 5mg per mL, twice what it was, and the powder has not changed at all.

Every mark doubles in value: one now holds 50mcg rather than 25mcg, so the identical 250mcg amount reads as 5 units, not 10.

The 10mg vial lands on the second row: 10mg in 2mL gives the same 5000mcg per mL, so its unit counts match the 1mL row above rather than the 2mL one it looks like.

Why a quoted unit count means nothing on its own: a "10 units" copied off a forum is 250mcg at one of those concentrations and 500mcg at the other.

Same 5mg vial, two reconstitutions, on a U-100 syringe

Water added	Concentration	1 unit equals	What the article works out
2mL	2.5mg per mL (2500mcg per mL)	25mcg (0.025mg)	250mcg is 10 units, 500mcg is 20 units
1mL	5mg per mL (5000mcg per mL)	50mcg	250mcg is 5 units, 500mcg is 10 units

Syringe scale, before any concentration math

Syringe	Units per mL	1 unit equals
U-100	100 units per mL	0.01mL
U-40	40 units per mL	0.025mL

Both rows are definitions, not measurements: the name of a syringe states its units per mL. The reconstitution table in the next section prints a column for each of them.

The barrel is the second variable: nothing above involved the syringe at all, and it reads in units at two scales, independent of concentration.

U-100 against U-40: 100 units per mL puts a unit at 0.01mL; 40 units per mL puts it at 0.025mL.

What the wrong barrel costs: counting in U-100 units on a U-40 makes every unit 2.5 times the volume the arithmetic promised. The vial is the same, the concentration is the same, and the barrel still reads 10 units.

Which is why the reconstitution table in the next section prints both columns: the U-40 figures in it are not an alternative recommendation, they are the same milligram amounts landing on a different mark because the barrel was printed to a different scale.

How does reconstitution work for a 5mg or 10mg vial?

Why those two sizes: 5mg and 10mg are the vial sizes the posts and the product listings are written around, so they are the two the arithmetic below is worked for. The table is division on stated inputs, nothing more. It picks no amount and no water volume, and there is no approved BPC-157 label anywhere that specifies either.

The one equation: vial milligrams divided by water milliliters gives milligrams per milliliter, and multiplying that by a thousand restates it in micrograms per milliliter. From there a U-100 mark is one hundredth of a milliliter and a U-40 mark is one fortieth, so dividing the concentration by 100 or by 40 gives the micrograms sitting inside one mark.

5mg and 10mg vials, three water volumes, both syringe scales

Vial	Water	Concentration	In mcg per mL	One U-100 mark	One U-40 mark
5mg	1mL	5mg per mL	5,000mcg per mL	50mcg	125mcg
5mg	2mL	2.5mg per mL	2,500mcg per mL	25mcg	62.5mcg
5mg	3mL	1.67mg per mL	1,667mcg per mL	16.7mcg	41.7mcg
10mg	1mL	10mg per mL	10,000mcg per mL	100mcg	250mcg
10mg	2mL	5mg per mL	5,000mcg per mL	50mcg	125mcg
10mg	3mL	3.33mg per mL	3,333mcg per mL	33.3mcg	83.3mcg

Arithmetic on the stated vial and water figures only, rounded to one decimal place where the division does not terminate. Source: this page's own division, not a label, because no approved BPC-157 label exists to reproduce.

The row that catches people: a 10mg vial in 2mL and a 5mg vial in 1mL land on the identical 5,000mcg per mL, so the same mark on the same barrel means the same thing in both. Vial size on its own settles nothing; the pair of numbers does.

What the milligram figure has to survive first: the FDA evaluation of BPC-157 as a bulk substance reports that the free base and the acetate salt are distinct active ingredients sold under one common name, and that most certificates of analysis found for the free base carry purity results only. Part of a weighed acetate salt is acetate rather than peptide, so a milligram number settles the division only once it is clear which substance it describes.

How many units is 500mcg of BPC-157?

Two concentrations, two answers: at 2500mcg per mL (a 5mg vial plus 2mL of water), 500mcg reads as 20 units on a U-100 syringe. At 5000mcg per mL (a 5mg vial plus 1mL, or a 10mg vial plus 2mL), the same 500mcg reads as 10 units.

The order the arithmetic has to run in: no microgram amount maps to one units number universally. Concentration first, syringe type second, then the arithmetic, or run the numbers above.

What's not known yet?

No approval, anywhere: BPC-157 is not approved for human clinical use by any regulatory authority. Not FDA approved as of July 2026.

The compounding line: FDA listed BPC-157 among the bulk substances that may present significant safety risks in compounding, citing immunogenicity risk, impurity concerns, and insufficient information to judge harm. The nomination was withdrawn in 2026, and BPC-157 went back before the advisory committee on 23 July 2026 for an ulcerative colitis use.

What the committee did with it, and what that is worth: the question in FDA's own meeting materials was whether BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate should be placed on the 503A bulks list. FDA staff proposed no. The committee voted yes, reported by the Associated Press and NBC News on 23 July 2026 as 8 in favor, 6 against and 1 abstention. That vote advises and does not bind, the agency decides by rulemaking, and as of 29 July 2026 the meeting page publishes an agenda, briefing documents and slides, with no minutes and no agency decision.

The sports line: WADA prohibits it outright under S0, the catch-all category for unapproved substances (USADA, checked 19 July 2026).

No live trial: the registry search above returns one other BPC-157 record, NCT02637284, an oral phase 1 registered in 2015 that has posted no results and has been marked unknown since December 2015. The route people actually use has no controlled human result at all. The one registration that would produce one is the record we cut on 2 August 2026, for the reason set out at the bottom of this page, and a registration we cannot stand behind is not a result and not a study we can count.

Three holes, none of them small:

No validated human dosing regimen, at any dose, for any condition.
No characterized human pharmacokinetics beyond a two-subject pilot; the half-life figure comes from animal work.
No verified data on the community patterns that dominate online discussion: the 250 to 500 microgram days, the cycles, the TB-500 stacks. None of it has been studied in any controlled trial.

Those three holes are the reason there is no schedule anywhere on this page.

Ahead of every number on this page: nothing independent has tested the specific vial in front of anyone, and the pooled testing that does exist is not reassuring. A 2026 analysis of 6,441 gray-market peptide samples across fourteen compounds, BPC-157 among them, found 41.6 to 71.1 percent failing basic quality criteria depending on which standard was applied, and measurable endotoxin in 15 percent (Mendias and Awan, 2026, preprint, not peer reviewed).

The list you are trusting: identity, purity, sterility, and the vial's real labeled strength.

Where a failing vial lands on the arithmetic: every conversion in the units section takes the printed milligram figure as given, and that figure is the one input the division has no way to test.

What we would want answered before any dose figure: whether the powder in the vial is BPC-157 at the strength printed on it. That is a sourcing question, and no arithmetic on this page reaches it.

Around this page

The neighboring reads: four pages from the library we maintain, each carrying a piece this one leans on.

mcg vs mg: the thousandfold step behind every number in the vial table above, taken apart on its own.
What is a unit: where the barrel mark came from, and what it can and cannot report.
Injection sites in the trials: the routes and regions named in approved labels and published trials, which is the sourced version of the near-the-injury question.
TB-500 dosage guide: the compound most often named alongside this one in the same posts, with its own evidence record.
The Decadewise briefing: one compound read like this, in your inbox once a week.

How this page is sourced

Straight off the abstracts: every figure in the research record above was read from the cited paper itself, never from someone else's summary of it.

What is labeled as what: community numbers are marked as community reports, and the regulatory status was checked live against the FDA, USADA, and ClinicalTrials.gov pages on 19 July 2026 and re-pulled on 29 July 2026. The registry was searched again through its own API on 2 August 2026.

The fifteen sources: printed below with their DOIs and PubMed IDs. Each is listed below with its identifier, and every figure on this page traces back to one of them. One is a preprint and one is news reporting, and both are labeled as such in the list.

What we got wrong until 29 July 2026, stated plainly: this page said the human record was 30 people across three uncontrolled pilots and that no randomized human trial existed. It was carrying a 2026 review's count, which we did not check against the regulator's file. FDA's July 2026 briefing document lists five studies and 116 people, two of them randomized and placebo controlled. The count, the tables, the statistics block and the answer box were all corrected, and the reason it went wrong is on the record here rather than quietly patched.

Every row of the chart was re-read on 29 July 2026: the amount, route, population and design in each row come from that record's own abstract, registry entry, or the FDA appendix that catalogues it.

What we got wrong until 30 July 2026, stated plainly: that re-read stopped at the abstracts, and on the knee row the abstract is where the number is missing. We printed "not stated in the report" for a paper whose Procedure section states 2cc at a compounded 2,000mcg per mL and whose Results section states 4mg. The full text is open, we did not open it, and the empty cell was defended in a caption as honesty. The row, the caption and the paragraph above it are corrected. In the same pass we dropped the claim that 10 micrograms per kilogram was the top of the published rodent range: two 2022 rat papers reaching 40 and 500 micrograms per kilogram are now cited beside the 2003 study.

What we cut on 2 August 2026, stated plainly: this page carried registry record NCT07437547 as a live, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 of subcutaneous BPC-157 in acute hamstring strain, with 120 participants planned. It appeared in the chart, in the evidence table, in the reference list and twice in prose. All of it is gone. The sponsor named on that record has eight studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, and two of them describe themselves as specimens in their own summaries, one of which opens "This fictional study is an example of a ClinicalTrials.gov-style record". All eight list one facility and one pair of contact addresses between them, on an email domain that does not match the sponsor's name, and one carries a study identifier prefixed EX. We are not calling NCT07437547 a fabrication, because we cannot show that. We are saying it cannot carry the sentence it was carrying, which was that the injected route is finally being tested. Our rule is that a claim resting on a source we cannot stand behind is cut rather than softened, so it is cut. NCT02637284 takes its place in the chart because it is the only other record the registry returns for this compound.

Where the rules behind that list are written down: our methodology page carries the sourcing and citation-verification standard, and a correction to any number above is logged there before it is made here.

Last reviewed: 28 July 2026.

1
Mateescu DM, Gavrilescu DM, Constantinescu FE, et al. BPC-157 as an Investigational Peptide Therapeutic: Biopharmaceutical Challenges, Formulation Strategies, and Translational Development Barriers. Pharmaceutics. 2026;18(5):625. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics18050625. PMID 42198317.
2
McGuire FP, Martinez R, Lenz A, Skinner L, Cushman DM. Regeneration or Risk? A Narrative Review of BPC-157 for Musculoskeletal Healing. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2025;18(12):611-619. doi:10.1007/s12178-025-09990-7. PMID 40789979.
3
Lee E, Padgett B. Intra-Articular Injection of BPC 157 for Multiple Types of Knee Pain. Altern Ther Health Med. 2021;27(4):8-13. PMID 34324435.
4
Staresinic M, Sebecic B, Patrlj L, et al. Gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 accelerates healing of transected rat Achilles tendon and in vitro stimulates tendocytes growth. J Orthop Res. 2003;21(6):976-983. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00110-4. PMID 14554208.
5
Jung YH, Kim H, Kim H, Kim E, Baik J, Kang H. The anti-nociceptive effect of BPC-157 on the incisional pain model in rats. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2022;22(2):97-105. The 10, 20 and 40 microgram per kilogram intraperitoneal arms are in its Methods and in Table 1. doi:10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.2.97. PMID 35449779. Full text read on PubMed Central, 30 July 2026, HTTP 200; record and pagination confirmed through CrossRef the same day, HTTP 200.
6
He L, Feng D, Guo H, et al. Pharmacokinetics, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of body-protective compound 157, a potential drug for treating various wounds, in rats and dogs. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:1026182. The 20, 100 and 500 microgram per kilogram intramuscular doses and the 20 microgram per kilogram intravenous dose are in its Results. doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1026182. PMID 36588717. Full text read on PubMed Central, 30 July 2026, HTTP 200; record confirmed through CrossRef the same day, HTTP 200.
7
Gwyer D, Wragg NM, Wilson SL. Gastric pentadecapeptide body protection compound BPC 157 and its role in accelerating musculoskeletal soft tissue healing. Cell Tissue Res. 2019;377(2):153-159. doi:10.1007/s00441-019-03016-8. PMID 30915550.
8
Seiwerth S, Milavic M, Vukojevic J, et al. Stable Gastric Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 and Wound Healing. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:627533. doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.627533. PMID 34267654.
9
Lee E, Walker C, Ayadi B. Effect of BPC-157 on Symptoms in Patients with Interstitial Cystitis: A Pilot Study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2024;30(10):12-17. PMID 39325560.
10
Lee E, Burgess K. Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2025;31(5):20-24. PMID 40131143.
11
ClinicalTrials.gov. PCO-02, Safety and Pharmacokinetics Trial. Identifier NCT02637284, phase 1, randomized, quadruple-masked, 42 participants estimated, oral tablets whose active ingredient the official title gives as BPC-157. First posted 22 December 2015, last updated 17 December 2015, overall status unknown with a last known status of active and not recruiting, no results posted. Record and the two searches behind the absence claim above, for BPC-157 and for BPC 157, pulled through the registry API on 2 August 2026, HTTP 200, two records returned on each. Registry record.
12
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee Meeting, 23 to 24 July 2026: Evaluation of BPC-157-Related Bulk Drug Substances (BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate). Appendix 1, previous human experience with BPC-157, is the source of the five-study record and of the Veljaca 2002 and 2003 and Ruenzi 2005 figures; the human safety and effectiveness sections carry the route, plasma and disease-activity findings. Retrieved 29 July 2026, HTTP 200. Briefing document. The voting questions put to the committee are in the separate meeting questions document, retrieved the same day, HTTP 200.
13
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. BPC-157: Experimental Peptide Prohibited, on the S0 unapproved substances category. usada.org. Agency page.
14
News reporting of the committee vote, not an FDA record. Perrone M. FDA reviews BPC-157, TB-500 and other peptides favored by RFK Jr. Associated Press, 23 July 2026, reporting 8 to 6 with one abstention in favor across the votes. apnews.com. NBC News, 23 July 2026, giving the same breakdown for BPC-157, KPV and TB-500. nbcnews.com. Both retrieved 29 July 2026, HTTP 200. FDA has published no minutes or vote record of its own.
15
Preprint, not peer reviewed. Mendias CL, Awan TM. Evaluation of Research Grade Peptides Marketed Directly to Consumers Reveals Extensive Variability in Purity and Measured Abundance. Preprints.org, posted 24 April 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202604.1748.v1. Record confirmed through CrossRef on 30 July 2026, HTTP 200, which gives posted, issued and published as 24 April 2026; the publisher page returned HTTP 403 to an automated request. This page carried 27 April until 30 July 2026, which is the date CrossRef records for depositing the DOI, not the date the manuscript went up.

The disclaimer

Every page is reviewed by medical professionals before it ships, and written with longtime biohackers who were doing this before it was a trend. Reviewed still does not mean prescribed: nothing here is medical advice.

It is research, trial data, and reported use, with the numbers intact so you can check them. For decisions about your body, see a doctor who can look at your labs.