BPC-157

BPC-157 is a peptide fifteen amino acids long, written GEPPPGKPADDAGLV. It is described in the primary literature as a partial sequence of a larger peptide the originating laboratory reported isolating from human gastric juice, and the fragment has been studied since the early 1990s, first for stomach and gut injury and later for tendon, muscle and ligament repair [2] [3] [32]. It is the highest-volume compound in this category outside the metabolic peptides, and it has the largest research file of anything on this site.

What people research it for tracks the way that file grew. Tendon and muscle recovery is the dominant interest and the reason most readers arrive: the underlying work is rat models in which a tendon was cut through or a muscle crushed, measured by load to failure, walking recovery and histology [4] [7] [8]. Gut inflammation is the older interest and the one the compound was actually developed for, and it is the only use a regulator has ever formally evaluated [32]. Joint pain, gut health and general recovery circulate in community and vendor sources, and every one of those claims is graded below.

The human record is small, specific, and worth reading before anything else on this page. Three studies are published in journals, all uncontrolled, all from one clinician's Florida practices, covering 31 patients in total [26] [27] [28]. Two more exist that were randomized against placebo, both from the original commercial development programme, neither published beyond a conference abstract, and the efficacy one did not separate from placebo [32]. The reference list runs to 43 numbered sources, every PubMed identifier fetched from its live NCBI record and every agency, registry and anti-doping document opened and read. The regulatory section is current to 8 August 2026.

Key takeaways

• BPC-157 has been randomized against placebo in people, twice, and both studies come from the original commercial programme in the early 2000s. The efficacy one, in 53 patients with ulcerative colitis, reported a between-group difference whose confidence interval crossed zero, and neither has ever been published in full. [Human RCT] [32]
• Everything published about BPC-157 in a journal in people is uncontrolled: a retrospective knee-pain chart review, a single-arm bladder study, and an infusion report in two patients. All three share a first author and all three appeared in the same journal. [Human open-label] [26] [27] [28]
• Subcutaneous injection is how the retail market sells this compound, and FDA reported finding no study administering BPC-157 to a person by that route. No published animal efficacy study used it either. [Anecdote] [33]
• The tendon, muscle and ligament results come from rats in which the tissue was cut through, detached from bone or crushed on purpose, measured over 14 to 90 days by load to failure, walking recovery and histology. [Animal] [4] [5] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
• FDA's own reviewers proposed that BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate not be added to the 503A Bulks List, and wrote that a balancing of the criteria weighs against both. The advisory committee took the question up on 23 July 2026, and FDA has published no minutes, transcript or vote record.
• BPC-157 is named on the face of the WADA S0 class, so it is prohibited at all times for a tested athlete, and the Department of Defense lists it as a prohibited dietary supplement ingredient for Service Members.
• The plasma half-life measured in rats and dogs is under half an hour, and a 2026 review names the gap between that figure and the effect durations reported for the compound as an unexplained pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic mismatch. [Animal] [24] [31]
• Twenty-eight days of intramuscular dosing in rats and dogs produced changes in clotting time in both species and in triglycerides, liver enzymes and glucose in female rats, and FDA records that no longer study exists to say whether those signals persist. [Animal] [25] [33]
• Of the 25 preclinical and identity papers cited here, 17 carry the same senior author, and a second author appears on every one of those 17. This is a fact about how the literature was produced, not a judgement about any of it.

Who researches BPC-157?

Four groups arrive at this compound from different directions, and the published work meets them very unevenly.

The largest is reading about a musculoskeletal injury: a strained hamstring, a sore Achilles, a shoulder that has not come back. The rodent work speaks to that interest more directly than most compounds in this catalog manage, and the distance is still large. Every tendon and ligament study on this page created the injury with a scalpel, in a young healthy rat, and read the answer out at a fixed day.

The second is reading about the gut, usually after a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease or after encountering the intestinal-permeability literature. This is the oldest interest and the one with the only randomized human result in the whole file, which is set out in the human record section below.

The third is reading about a joint, most often a knee, and often after finding the one published account of injection into a knee. That account is a retrospective chart review, and what it did and did not measure is worth knowing before it is weighed.

The fourth is reading about recovery in general: training volume, soft-tissue niggles, getting back sooner. Nothing in the published record was built to answer that question in a person, and the matrix below grades those claims as what they are.

What is BPC-157?

Plain-English version: a chain of fifteen amino acids, cut from a larger peptide that one laboratory reported finding in human gastric juice.

In 1992 a group in Zagreb described what it called body protection compound, or BPC, as a newly and partially characterized gastric juice peptide [2]. Two years later the same group reported a fifteen residue fragment of it, coded BPC 157, and tested it against restraint stress, cysteamine and ethanol lesions in rats alongside famotidine, cimetidine, somatostatin and half a dozen other reference agents [3]. That is the origin of the compound and of its name.

Two facts follow from that origin and they matter more than they look. The parent peptide has never been fully characterized: the 1992 paper says partially characterized, and FDA said the same in 2026 [2] [32]. And BPC-157 is a common name rather than a USAN, INN or IUPAC name, which is why the agency had to evaluate a free base and an acetate salt as two separate substances, and why it recorded that inconsistent naming contributes to the substance being not well-characterized [32].

The sequence itself is not in dispute. GEPPPGKPADDAGLV, fifteen residues, C62H98N16O22, 1419.5 g/mol for the free base, and FDA writes it out residue by residue in its own review [1] [32]. What sits under the name is where the ambiguity lives, and the aliases in the record show the history: PL-10, PLD-116, PL 14736 and Bepecin are all development codes from the commercial programmes that carried it, and BPC15 and Body Protection Compound-157 are the older forms of the name itself.

GEPPPGKPADDAGLV · C62H98N16O22, 1419.5 g/mol

How strong is the evidence, claim by claim?

Every claim area this compound is discussed for gets a row, including the ones with the weakest support. The tier records what the row rests on, and the last column states what that work can and cannot show. Each tier links to its definition on the methodology page.

Rolled up, that puts BPC-157 at evidence grade B Human data, endpoint missed . Human evidence for the marketed use has read out, and it did not separate from control: the one randomized trial that tested it missed the primary endpoint. The grade describes how much and how good the research is, not which way it came out, so a compound that has been tested and beaten grades above one nobody has tested at all. A grade describes the quality of the research, not whether something works and not whether anyone should use it. The derivation is published.

How BPC-157 is thought to work

Mechanism work on BPC-157 has an unusual shape. There is a large and internally consistent body of reported effects, and there is no identified target. Those two facts are usually presented together in a way that lets the first stand in for the second, so the subsections below run in order of how well each one is supported and say plainly where each stops.

What we do not know

The target is the largest gap and it is not narrowing. FDA states that the molecular targets have not been identified and the mechanisms of action are unknown, which is a reading of the whole published corpus rather than of any one paper [33].

Exposure in a person is unknown on every route. The only human plasma measurements ever attempted are the two unpublished rectal studies, and the compound was not detected in either [32]. Nothing converts a rodent figure into a human one, and the rodent figure itself is a half-life of minutes [24].

Whether the compound survives to act is genuinely open. The rat and dog work reports rapid cleavage to short fragments and then to free amino acids, which is what a fifteen residue peptide would be expected to do, and the reported durations of effect are much longer than that clearance allows [24] [31].

Route makes a difference and the literature says so from inside its own experiments. In the 1995 colitis study the intraperitoneal arm reduced necrosis and colonic myeloperoxidase in a dose-dependent way while the intracolonic arm did not significantly reduce either [12]. A compound whose effect depends on how it arrives cannot have its route treated as an incidental detail.

Has BPC-157 been tested in humans?

Five studies have given BPC-157 to a person under a written protocol, and the table below carries all five with the design, the number of people and what was reported. Three are published in journals and two are not.

The table also carries the three registry records a search returns and one row about a limit on this page's own sourcing. Counting only the arms that received the compound, about 80 people have been given BPC-157 in those five studies, and 40 more took a supplement stated to contain it in the completed registration below. A table is the only honest way to show how they divide.

Why we are not calling this proof

Two randomized placebo-controlled studies is more human testing than most compounds in this catalog have had, and being exact about what that buys is the whole point of the table above.

It buys one efficacy answer, in a condition almost nobody buys this compound for, from a study nobody can read. The 2005 abstract reports a between-group difference whose confidence interval runs through zero, and twenty-one years later there is no full paper behind it. FDA read it and wrote that the data presented are inadequate to support efficacy or safety for that use. A result nobody can check, which did not separate, is neither a verdict against the compound nor evidence for it.

It buys a tolerability description in 24 healthy volunteers and a null pharmacokinetic result, both from abstracts. The null is the more interesting half: the only two attempts to measure this compound in human plasma did not find it.

The three published studies buy something narrower again. 31 patients, no control arm anywhere, one recalled baseline, one single-visit questionnaire, and one report in two people. Each is a record of what a clinic observed. None of them is designed to tell a change caused by the compound apart from a change that would have happened anyway.

One structural fact belongs beside the count rather than inside it. All three published human studies share a first author, all three were conducted at Florida clinics, and all three appeared in the same journal. Both randomized studies come from the same commercial development programme. That is not an accusation about anyone's work and it is not evidence that any of it is wrong. It means the five human studies come from two origins rather than five, and a reader weighing them is entitled to know that before deciding how much weight to give them.

The FTC sets the substantiation bar for a health claim at randomized controlled human trials and says animal work, laboratory work and observational data are generally not enough on their own. BPC-157 has two randomized studies, one of which measured efficacy, and it did not separate from placebo. That is the whole human picture as of August 2026.

Benefits: what the research shows

Each heading below is a claim people make about BPC-157, not a finding. Under each one is what was measured, in what, and by whom, with the detail the matrix rows above could not carry.

One review is worth naming here because it is cited as though it held data of its own. A 2025 systematic review in orthopaedic sports medicine screened 544 articles from 1993 to 2024 and included 36, of which 35 were preclinical and one was clinical [29]. It is a count of the literature rather than a new measurement, and it is cited on this page for that count.

The honest bottom line on benefits

Of the claim areas above, one has a randomized human result and it did not separate from placebo. Two more have uncontrolled human reports. The rest is rodent and cell work, and the single highest-volume claim, recovery by subcutaneous injection, has nothing at all.

There is a second thing to say about the count, and it does not cut the way counts usually do. This site checked the author lists of every paper it cites here against their live PubMed records. Of the 25 preclinical and identity papers cited here, 17 carry the same senior author, and a second author appears on every one of those 17. The remaining eight split across a Taiwanese cell-biology group with two papers, the original developer's own laboratory with two, an industry pharmacology group with one, a Chinese pharmacokinetics and toxicology group with two, and a Turkish orthopaedic group with one.

The human side is more concentrated still, and it is the more important number. All three published human studies share a first author and a journal. Both randomized studies come from the same commercial development programme, with one investigator on both.

Overlapping authorship is not proof of anything and it is not an accusation. Small fields are small, and a group that builds a model keeps using it. But this site treats concentration of authorship as a quality signal when it reads every other compound, and a reader weighing thirty years of consistent results should know they are closer to a handful of independent lines than to thirty.

What anyone does with that is a judgement rather than a fact, and it belongs to the reader. This site reports what has been documented. It does not prescribe what should be done.

How long BPC-157 stays in the body

BPC-157 has been measured properly in two animal species and never in a person. The one formal study gave single intravenous, single intramuscular at three ascending levels and repeated intramuscular doses to Sprague-Dawley rats and beagle dogs, with a tritium label to follow distribution and excretion [24]. The parent peptide's plasma half-life came out under 30 minutes in both species, kinetics were linear at every level tested, intramuscular bioavailability was well short of complete, excretion ran through urine and bile, and the peptide was rapidly cleaved to short fragments and then to free amino acids.

Two sets of figures for that study are in circulation and this page carries neither as the number. The paper's own abstract reports bioavailability as a range for each species, and FDA's presentation reports single point estimates for both half-life and bioavailability, reading them out of the same paper [24] [33]. The divergence is a reading difference rather than a disagreement, and quoting either as the figure would imply a precision the record does not have.

In a person, nothing has been established on any route. The only attempts to measure the compound in human plasma are the two unpublished rectal studies, and in both the compound was not detected, with most concentrations below the limit of quantification of the assay used [32]. That is a measurement with a null result rather than an absence of measurement, and the distinction matters: something was looked for and was not found.

The consequence is the open problem in this compound's file, and a 2026 review names it directly [31]. A plasma half-life of minutes sits against reported biological effects lasting hours to days, and no published work reconciles the two. Every explanation offered for it, a local depot, an active metabolite, an upstream signalling event that outlasts the molecule, is a hypothesis nobody has tested.

Measured in rats and dogs: a plasma half-life under 30 minutes for the parent peptide, linear kinetics, incomplete intramuscular bioavailability, urinary and biliary excretion, and rapid cleavage to amino acids. In people, no profile exists on any route, and the only two attempts to detect the compound in plasma did not find it. [Animal] [24] [32] [33] [31]

What is documented about dosing

No study has established an amount of BPC-157 for a person, so there is no dosing section on this site in the sense other properties use the phrase. What can be reported is what published studies gave to their animals or their patients, in the model or the clinical setting they used, and what kind of figures circulate elsewhere.

Commonly cited protocols (extrapolated, not validated)

Nothing here is a dosing recommendation. Statements about dosing reflect community and research reports only.

Two things in that table deserve pulling out. The first is that the marketed presentation, a lyophilised powder in a vial reconstituted and injected under the skin, appears nowhere in it. Not in an animal study, not in a clinic report, not in a registration that has read out.

The second is that a body-weight-scaled rodent regimen is not convertible into a human amount even in principle. Interspecies scaling is unreliable between two mammals given the same route, and none of the animal work here used the route in question. Arithmetic performed on those numbers produces a figure with the appearance of a derivation and none of the content of one.

Main routes people compare, and what each source class actually reported, are set out on the documented protocols page.

Reported effects and what has been measured

What the toxicology record contains

One formal preclinical safety package exists, published in 2020 by a Chinese group, and FDA read it for the July 2026 advisory committee [25] [33]. It is the substance of everything below.

Twenty-eight days of intramuscular treatment in rats and dogs produced what FDA describes as statistically significant safety signals that are potentially clinically relevant. Activated partial thromboplastin time, a standard clotting measure, fell in rats and rose in dogs. Serum triglycerides rose in female rats and in female dogs during treatment, and two weeks after treatment ended female rats showed raised triglycerides, raised alanine aminotransferase, raised glucose and a raised relative liver weight. Serum creatinine fell in female dogs at the highest level tested.

The same package reported no genotoxicity in laboratory or animal assays, and no fetal malformation or effect on fetal viability in rats dosed through the middle of gestation. FDA records that no study covering a complete reproductive cycle or peri- and postnatal development was submitted or found.

FDA's own conclusion is the line that belongs with all of it: longer repeat-dose toxicity studies were unavailable to demonstrate whether these safety signals persist, or whether additional signals emerge with chronic exposure. Twenty-eight days is the longest anyone has looked. [Animal] [25] [33]

What has been reported to regulators

FDA retrieved three adverse event reports from FAERS for its 2026 review, all involving compounded product [33]. A 55-year-old woman reported nine days of redness and swelling around an injection site, while also using an injectable compounded thymosin product. A 28-year-old man using the acetate salt by subcutaneous injection for injury and inflammation developed shortness of breath resulting in an emergency room visit. A 40-year-old woman using BPC-157 together with TB-500 reported diffuse hyperpigmentation and gingival darkening that were reproducible on rechallenge.

FDA's caveat travels with those reports and is not separable from them: it is unclear whether the events were attributable to BPC-157, the agency's ability to interpret FAERS reports is limited by missing information and concomitant medications, and reporting is voluntary, so FDA does not receive all events that may occur, especially for compounded products.

The rechallenge detail on the third report is the only causality-suggestive element in the set, and it is one report. Three reports is also a number that says as much about the reporting channel as about the compound: the compounding and grey markets this substance moves through do not report to FDA at all.

Immunogenicity and characterization, unassessed

FDA's position is that a peptide of this length given by a parenteral or nasal route may pose a significant risk for immunogenicity, potentially amplified by aggregation and by peptide-related impurities, and that peptides given rectally or through the skin may also carry that potential depending on the environment [32]. The nomination did not include, and the agency did not find, information suggesting the substance does not present those risks.

That is a statement about what has not been ruled out rather than a statement that a problem exists, and both halves of it belong on this page.

It sits alongside the characterization finding, which is the other half of the same gap. FDA concluded that both the free base and the acetate salt are not well-characterized from the physical and chemical perspective, on grounds that include naming conventions that do not follow chemical nomenclature standards, missing impurity, aggregate, bioburden and endotoxin data, and no information on the critical attributes of the transdermal cream, oral capsule and rectal suppository forms proposed to it [32]. A substance whose impurity profile has never been described cannot have its risks described either.

The haemostasis signal, and why it sits in two places

The rat work reporting reduced bleeding time under heparin, warfarin and aspirin is in the benefits section above, because that is where the claim is made [21]. Its counterpart belongs here: the formal 28-day toxicology found clotting-time changes in both species it tested, in opposite directions between them [25].

Those are two independent lines arriving at the same organ system from different directions, one as an effect and one as a signal. Nobody has followed up on what the combination means, in any species, and no human coagulation measurement of any kind exists for this compound. [Animal] [21] [25]

Two corrections in the published record

A search of the full PubMed corpus for this compound by publication type returns one withdrawn paper and one corrigendum, both from the same research group [30]. The withdrawn article covered severe electrolyte disturbances in rats and carries a publisher's notice stating that it has been withdrawn at the author's request; PubMed indexes it as a retracted publication, and this page's reference list records both wordings. The corrigendum applies to a 2021 paper on abdominal compartment syndrome in rats, and this site names both the correction and the original wherever either is cited.

No expressions of concern and no retraction-of-publication notices were found anywhere in the corpus.

Also in the record and not a correction: a 2025 comment-and-reply exchange in a journal between two research groups about angiogenesis and the nitric oxide system. It is a scientific disagreement published in the ordinary way, and it corrects nothing.

Two withdrawn or corrected papers in a corpus of 225 records is not a remarkable rate. It is on the page because a site that reports authorship concentration and then omits the corrections would be selecting, and because neither paper is cited for a claim here.

What has not been characterized

No human safety measurement of any kind exists for the route the compound is sold by, because no human study has used it. Nothing in the file establishes what happens after 28 days in any species, what the substance's impurity profile is, or whether it produces an immune response.

FDA's summary sentence covers all of it and is quotable in full: there is insufficient clinical safety information to characterize the safety profile of BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate [33]. This site makes no statement about tolerability, in either direction, because no data exists that could establish one.

Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health.

Sourcing and quality

What a credible product should show

A certificate of analysis is the document that matters, and most of the work is in reading it rather than in having one. Three things make a certificate checkable: a lot number that matches the vial in front of you, a test date, and the name of the laboratory that ran the test rather than the name of the company selling the material.

What the common tests establish is narrower than it looks. High performance liquid chromatography separates what is in a sample and reports relative peak area, which is a statement about chromatographic purity rather than about identity. Mass spectrometry addresses identity by measuring molecular weight, and for BPC-157 free base that figure is 1419.5 [32]. Neither test says how much peptide is in the vial: that is net peptide content, and it is reported separately, if at all.

This compound has two specific analytical questions attached to it, both of which come out of the agency record. FDA recorded that a common name rather than a standardized chemical name contributes to the substance being poorly characterized, so a certificate should say which form it covers, free base or acetate, since those carry different CAS numbers and different UNII codes [32]. And FDA's characterization finding lists the data classes that were missing from the whole record: impurities, aggregates, bioburden and endotoxin. Those are the four to look for, and their absence is a fact about the document rather than about any particular seller.

Red flags

A certificate with no lot number cannot be tied to the vial in your hand, whatever else it says. A certificate reproduced from a supplier without an independent test is a supplier's claim rather than a verification. A certificate dated well before the material was made covers a different batch.

A purity figure with no method named is not a purity figure. Ninety-nine percent by which measurement, against which reference standard, and with how much peptide in the vial are four separate questions, and one percentage answers none of them.

A certificate that does not say which form it covers is ambiguous by construction for this compound, because the free base and the acetate salt are separate substances with separate identifiers and FDA evaluated them separately.

Widely circulated statistics about what fraction of products in this market are underdosed, or what fraction of certificates are fabricated, trace back to affiliate content sites rather than to a published testing programme. This site does not publish them, because nobody has traced them to primary data. If a figure like that ever appears with a real methodology behind it, it will be cited here by number.

This site names no company adversely and names none favourably either. There is no best-vendor list here, no rating and no top pick, and there will not be one.

Will it show on a drug test?

For a tested athlete the answer is direct, and BPC-157 is one of the few compounds in this catalog where it does not need a derivation. It is named on the face of the S0 class of the WADA 2026 Prohibited List, in the sentence that reads: this class covers many different substances including but not limited to BPC-157, followed by three other examples, two of which are classes of substances rather than single ones [42]. The list's own index carries the entry BPC-157 with its page number.

S0 is Non-Approved Substances, and it is prohibited at all times, in competition and out of it. Its definition covers any pharmacological substance not addressed by another section of the list and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use. The list states that all prohibited substances in this class are Specified Substances, which changes how a sanction is calculated rather than whether the substance is banned.

Being named on the face of a class rather than caught by its definition is the practical difference between this compound and most of the catalog. There is no argument to have about whether the definition reaches it.

Whether a test can detect it is a separate question with a thinner answer. Two in-vitro plasma-metabolism studies exist for anti-doping screening purposes, and neither administered BPC-157 to a person [32]. The only human plasma measurements that exist anywhere are the two rectal studies, in which the compound was not detected. Nothing published establishes what a current screening panel would find after real-world use, in either direction.

The US Department of Defense position is separate and it is explicit. The Operation Supplement Safety ingredient and substance index carries a BPC-157 entry reading that BPC-157 is on the DoD Prohibited Dietary Supplement Ingredients list, with a status label of Prohibited [43]. Its linked article, posted 29 April 2025, states that the compound is an unapproved drug that cannot be legally prescribed or sold over the counter, records the S0 listing, and states that the lack of well-designed comprehensive human clinical studies means there is little to no reliable scientific evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of BPC-157 in humans.

Anti-doping status is decided by an athlete's own anti-doping organization against the current list, and that is the only body whose answer counts. Workplace testing is a different system with a different panel and no published position that reaches this compound.

Storage

FDA records that BPC-157 is expected to be stable under storage conditions below minus 18 degrees Celsius, as reported in the literature, and that is the only storage statement in the agency record [32].

No shelf life has been published for any presentation, and the characterization gap covers this too: without impurity and aggregate data there is no baseline against which a degradation product could be identified.

This site publishes no handling or preparation procedure. That is a standing rule and the reasoning is on the editorial policy page.

Regulatory status, as of 8 August 2026

The regulatory position on BPC-157 moved in 2026, most writing about it predates the move, and the order the events happened in is what makes it readable.

Start with where it actually sits. On FDA's page of bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risks, content current as of 22 April 2026, there are two tables. The first is the active category 2 list, and BPC-157 is not in it. BPC-157 is in the second table, headed bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn, alongside AOD-9604, cathelicidin LL-37, CJC-1295, epitalon, ipamorelin, KPV, melanotan II, MOTS-c, semax, thymosin alpha-1 and the thymosin beta-4 fragment, among others [36]. The safety text FDA wrote for it is retained beside it and is quoted in full in the table above. Withdrawn refers to the nomination, not to the agency's concerns.

The commonly repeated description of BPC-157 as an FDA 503A Category 2 substance placed on 29 September 2023 needs two corrections rather than one. It is no longer on that table, and there was never a Federal Register document behind the placement. Category 2 is an administrative designation FDA publishes on its own website under the 2016 interim policy guidance on compounding with bulk drug substances, and a search of the entire Federal Register corpus for BPC-157 returns one document: the 2026 meeting notice [35]. Anyone citing a Federal Register number for the 2023 placement is citing something that does not exist.

The 2026 events are the ones that matter now. On 16 April 2026 FDA published a Federal Register notice announcing a Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee meeting for 23 and 24 July, establishing a public docket and requesting comments, under Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6895. The chart of uses in that notice records the use FDA evaluated for this substance in three words: ulcerative colitis [35]. Not tendon repair, not muscle recovery, not the joint indications the market sells. The published questions document put BPC-157 first on the morning of 23 July, on two votes, one for the free base and one for the acetate salt [34].

FDA's own reviewers had already published their position in a 68-page briefing document. They concluded that both forms are not well-characterized physicochemically, that there is a lack of evidence to support effectiveness for ulcerative colitis, that there is insufficient clinical safety information to characterize the safety profile, and that available data are too limited to understand historical use in compounding, with no outsourcing facility having reported compounding it. Their overall sentence is that a balancing of the criteria weighs against BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate being placed on that list, and their recommendation is that neither be included [32].

What the committee then did is not on the public record. Checked on 8 August 2026, the meeting page and the 2026 meeting-materials index carry the briefing documents, the introduction, the agenda, the roster, the questions, webcast information and the two presentation decks, and nothing else [37]. No minutes, no transcript, no vote results. A tally has circulated in trade coverage; this site does not publish it, because no primary document supports it and two separate questions were put, so a single number could not be assigned to either even if it were sourced. This page will carry it when FDA publishes minutes. The 503A record on this site sets out the whole meeting, across all seven substances the committee considered, and it is the page to read for how the compounding process itself works.

What a listing would mean, if the agency accepted a recommendation and finished the process, is that a licensed pharmacy could compound the substance for an identified patient against a valid prescription under section 503A. It would not be an approval, it would not create an over-the-counter product, and it would not make a direct unlicensed sale lawful. The process runs through a proposed rule, a comment period and a final rule, and that cannot be bypassed. This page publishes no estimate of how long it takes, because no agency document states one.

The anti-doping and military positions are separate systems and both are unambiguous. BPC-157 is one of only four examples named on the face of the WADA S0 class rather than reached by its definition [42], and it is the only one of the four that is a single named peptide, and the Department of Defense lists it as a prohibited dietary supplement ingredient for Service Members [43]. Neither of those is a safety finding. They are rules positions, and they apply to a defined group of people regardless of what the evidence eventually shows.

BPC-157 compared with other peptides sold for repair and recovery

Three of these four carry a grade and one does not, and that is deliberate: a grade here is derived from tiered claim rows, and the source review behind those rows has not been run on larazotide.

The comparison that shows what the grade scale measures is BPC-157 against KPV. KPV sits at D because nobody has ever given it to a person. BPC-157 sits higher because it has been randomized against placebo, and the randomized trial did not separate from placebo. The letter records how much research exists and how good it is, not which way the research came out, which is why the sentence beside the badge on this page carries the direction in words. A reader comparing two cards and reading the higher letter as the better answer would have it backwards here.

The GHK-Cu row is the closest structural parallel on this site. Two compounds, both tested against a control, both failing to separate, both grading B for the same reason: being tested and beaten is a stronger evidence position than never having been tested at all, and it is a worse result. TB-500 sits a letter below both, and the two compounds sold beside each other for the same injuries now carry different letters for exactly that reason.

The comparison people actually search for is KPV against BPC-157, and it is set out in full on its own page.

What BPC-157 typically costs

BPC-157 is sold as a lyophilised powder in vials across a wide range of vial sizes, and also in capsule and oral spray presentations. What any of it costs is not published here, and the price comparison page sets out why, along with the four things that actually move a listing.

The one thing worth carrying away is that nothing in a price says anything about identity, content or testing, and for this compound that includes which form the vial holds, since the free base and the acetate salt are separate substances with separate identifiers. Those are certificate questions, and they are covered in the sourcing section above.

See the price comparison.

Frequently asked questions

References

1. Sikiric P, Seiwerth S, Brcic L, Blagaic AB, Zoricic I, Sever M, Klicek R, Radic B, Keller N, Sipos K, Jakir A, Udovicic M, Tonkic A, Kokic N, Turkovic B, Mise S, Anic T. Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 in trials for inflammatory bowel disease (PL-10, PLD-116, PL 14736, Pliva, Croatia). Full and distended stomach, and vascular response. Inflammopharmacology. 2006. PMID 17186181 DOI 10.1007/s10787-006-1531-7
2. Sikiric P, Petek M, Rucman R, Seiwerth S, Grabarević Z, Rotkvić I, Jagić V, Turković B, Mildner B, Duvnjak M. The significance of the gastroprotective effect of body protection compound (BPC): modulation by different procedures. Acta Physiol Hung. 1992. PMID 1345210
3. Sikiric P, Seiwerth S, Grabarevic Z, Petek M, Rucman R, Turkovic B, Rotkvic I, Jagic V, Duvnjak M, Mise S. The beneficial effect of BPC 157, a 15 amino acid peptide BPC fragment, on gastric and duodenal lesions induced by restraint stress, cysteamine and 96% ethanol in rats. A comparative study with H2 receptor antagonists, dopamine promotors and gut peptides. Life Sci. 1994. PMID 7904712 DOI 10.1016/0024-3205(94)00796-9
4. Staresinic M, Sebecic B, Patrlj L, Jadrijevic S, Suknaic S, Perovic D, Aralica G, Zarkovic N, Borovic S, Srdjak M, Hajdarevic K, Kopljar M, Batelja L, Boban-Blagaic A, Turcic I, Anic T, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 accelerates healing of transected rat Achilles tendon and in vitro stimulates tendocytes growth. J Orthop Res. 2003. PMID 14554208 DOI 10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00110-4
5. Krivic A, Anic T, Seiwerth S, Huljev D, Sikiric P. Achilles detachment in rat and stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157: Promoted tendon-to-bone healing and opposed corticosteroid aggravation. J Orthop Res. 2006. PMID 16583442 DOI 10.1002/jor.20096
6. Biçer O, Adanir O, Güleryüz Y, Balci EC, Dinçel YM, Yenigün MY, Aydin C, Bayrak BY. Effects of BPC-157 and TB-500 on Achilles tendon healing in rats: A histopathological and biomechanical study. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2026. PMID 42542926 DOI 10.52312/jdrs.2026.2951
7. Staresinic M, Petrovic I, Novinscak T, Jukic I, Pevec D, Suknaic S, Kokic N, Batelja L, Brcic L, Boban-Blagaic A, Zoric Z, Ivanovic D, Ajduk M, Sebecic B, Patrlj L, Sosa T, Buljat G, Anic T, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Effective therapy of transected quadriceps muscle in rat: Gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157. J Orthop Res. 2006. PMID 16609979 DOI 10.1002/jor.20089
8. Novinscak T, Brcic L, Staresinic M, Jukic I, Radic B, Pevec D, Mise S, Tomasovic S, Brcic I, Banic T, Jakir A, Buljat G, Anic T, Zoricic I, Romic Z, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 as an effective therapy for muscle crush injury in the rat. Surg Today. 2008. PMID 18668315 DOI 10.1007/s00595-007-3706-2
9. Japjec M, Horvat Pavlov K, Petrovic A, Staresinic M, Sebecic B, Buljan M, Vranes H, Giljanovic A, Drmic D, Japjec M, Prtoric A, Lovric E, Batelja Vuletic L, Dobric I, Boban Blagaic A, Skrtic A, Seiwerth S, Predrag S. Stable Gastric Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 as a Therapy for the Disable Myotendinous Junctions in Rats. Biomedicines. 2021. PMID 34829776 DOI 10.3390/biomedicines9111547 PubMed indexes the last author of this paper as Predrag S, which is Sikiric P with the name parts inverted at the source. The author list here is transcribed from that record and is not corrected by hand, so a reader counting the shared senior author across this page's reference list finds sixteen literal matches for Sikiric P and this seventeenth under the inverted form.
10. Matek D, Matek I, Staresinic E, Japjec M, Bojanic I, Boban Blagaic A, Beketic Oreskovic L, Oreskovic I, Ziger T, Novinscak T, Krezic I, Strbe S, Drinkovic M, Brkic F, Popic J, Skrtic A, Seiwerth S, Staresinic M, Sikiric P, Brizic I. Stable Gastric Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 as Therapy After Surgical Detachment of the Quadriceps Muscle from Its Attachments for Muscle-to-Bone Reattachment in Rats. Pharmaceutics. 2025. PMID 39861766 DOI 10.3390/pharmaceutics17010119
11. Cerovecki T, Bojanic I, Brcic L, Radic B, Vukoja I, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 (PL 14736) improves ligament healing in the rat. J Orthop Res. 2010. PMID 20225319 DOI 10.1002/jor.21107
12. Veljaca M, Lesch CA, Pllana R, Sanchez B, Chan K, Guglietta A. BPC-15 reduces trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colonic damage in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1995. PMID 7815358
13. Klicek R, Kolenc D, Suran J, Drmic D, Brcic L, Aralica G, Sever M, Holjevac J, Radic B, Turudic T, Kokot A, Patrlj L, Rucman R, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 heals cysteamine-colitis and colon-colon-anastomosis and counteracts cuprizone brain injuries and motor disability. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2013. PMID 24304574
14. Vuksic T, Zoricic I, Brcic L, Sever M, Klicek R, Radic B, Cesarec V, Berkopic L, Keller N, Blagaic AB, Kokic N, Jelic I, Geber J, Anic T, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 in trials for inflammatory bowel disease (PL-10, PLD-116, PL14736, Pliva, Croatia) heals ileoileal anastomosis in the rat. Surg Today. 2007. PMID 17713731 DOI 10.1007/s00595-006-3498-9
15. Chang CH, Tsai WC, Lin MS, Hsu YH, Pang JH. The promoting effect of pentadecapeptide BPC 157 on tendon healing involves tendon outgrowth, cell survival, and cell migration. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2011. PMID 21030672 DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00945.2010
16. Chang CH, Tsai WC, Hsu YH, Pang JH. Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 enhances the growth hormone receptor expression in tendon fibroblasts. Molecules. 2014. PMID 25415472 DOI 10.3390/molecules191119066
17. Tkalcević VI, Cuzić S, Brajsa K, Mildner B, Bokulić A, Situm K, Perović D, Glojnarić I, Parnham MJ. Enhancement by PL 14736 of granulation and collagen organization in healing wounds and the potential role of egr-1 expression. Eur J Pharmacol. 2007. PMID 17628536 DOI 10.1016/j.ejphar.2007.05.072
18. Seveljević-Jaran D, Cuzić S, Dominis-Kramarić M, Glojnarić I, Ivetić V, Radosević S, Parnham MJ. Accelerated healing of excisional skin wounds by PL 14736 in alloxan-hyperglycemic rats. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2006. PMID 16785777 DOI 10.1159/000093982
19. Hrelec M, Klicek R, Brcic L, Brcic I, Cvjetko I, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Abdominal aorta anastomosis in rats and stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157, prophylaxis and therapy. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009. PMID 20388960
20. Gojkovic S, Krezic I, Vrdoljak B, Malekinusic D, Barisic I, Petrovic A, Horvat Pavlov K, Kolovrat M, Duzel A, Knezevic M, Kasnik Kovac K, Drmic D, Batelja Vuletic L, Kokot A, Boban Blagaic A, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 resolves suprahepatic occlusion of the inferior caval vein, Budd-Chiari syndrome model in rats. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2020. PMID 32226643 DOI 10.4291/wjgp.v11.i1.1
21. Stupnisek M, Franjic S, Drmic D, Hrelec M, Kolenc D, Radic B, Bojic D, Vcev A, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 reduces bleeding time and thrombocytopenia after amputation in rats treated with heparin, warfarin or aspirin. Thromb Res. 2012. PMID 21840572 DOI 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.07.035
22. Tudor M, Jandric I, Marovic A, Gjurasin M, Perovic D, Radic B, Blagaic AB, Kolenc D, Brcic L, Zarkovic K, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Traumatic brain injury in mice and pentadecapeptide BPC 157 effect. Regul Pept. 2010. PMID 19931318 DOI 10.1016/j.regpep.2009.11.012
23. Perovic D, Kolenc D, Bilic V, Somun N, Drmic D, Elabjer E, Buljat G, Seiwerth S, Sikiric P. Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 can improve the healing course of spinal cord injury and lead to functional recovery in rats. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019. PMID 31266512 DOI 10.1186/s13018-019-1242-6
24. He L, Feng D, Guo H, Zhou Y, Li Z, Zhang K, Zhang W, Wang S, Wang Z, Hao Q, Zhang C, Gao Y, Gu J, Zhang Y, Li W, Li M. Pharmacokinetics, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of body-protective compound 157, a potential drug for treating various wounds, in rats and dogs. Front Pharmacol. 2022. PMID 36588717 DOI 10.3389/fphar.2022.1026182
25. Xu C, Sun L, Ren F, Huang P, Tian Z, Cui J, Zhang W, Wang S, Zhang K, He L, Zhang W, Zhang C, Hao Q, Zhang Y, Li M, Li W. Preclinical safety evaluation of body protective compound-157, a potential drug for treating various wounds. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020. PMID 32334036 DOI 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104665
26. Lee E, Padgett B. Intra-Articular Injection of BPC 157 for Multiple Types of Knee Pain. Altern Ther Health Med. 2021. PMID 34324435
27. 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. PMID 39325560
28. Lee E, Burgess K. Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2025. PMID 40131143
29. Vasireddi N, Hahamyan H, Salata MJ, Karns M, Calcei JG, Voos JE, Apostolakos JM. Emerging Use of BPC-157 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review. HSS J. 2025. PMID 40756949 DOI 10.1177/15563316251355551
30. Grubisic MM, Strbe S, Barisic I, Balenovic D, Stambolija V, Lozic M, Ostojic SB, Oreskovic I, Zizek H, Brcic K, Coric L, Staresinic M, Blagaic V, Oreskovic LB, Halle ZB, Matek D, Soldo D, Grizelj B, Blagaic AB, Skrtic A, Sikiric P, Seiwerth S. Withdrawn: Stable Gastric Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 as a Therapy of Severe Electrolyte Disturbances in Rats. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2025. PMID 39865815 DOI 10.2174/011570159X349612241205065330 Flagged by PubMed as a Retracted Publication. The publisher's own notice says the article has been withdrawn at the author's request, which is the wording the title carries.
31. Mateescu DM, Gavrilescu DM, Constantinescu FE, Oancea C, Ilie AC, Folescu R, Popa MD, Iurciuc S, Muresan CO, Enache A. BPC-157 as an Investigational Peptide Therapeutic: Biopharmaceutical Challenges, Formulation Strategies, and Translational Development Barriers. Pharmaceutics. 2026. PMID 42198317 DOI 10.3390/pharmaceutics18050625
32. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA briefing document for BPC-157-related bulk drug substances, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, 23 and 24 July 2026. 68 pages. Carries FDA's reprinting of the Ruenzi 2005 and Veljaca 2002 and 2003 meeting abstracts, the characterization findings, and the recommendation against listing. FDA advisory committee materials. 2026. Source document
33. US Food and Drug Administration. July 23, 2026 Meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee: FDA presentations. 149 pages. Carries the pharmacology limitations, the animal pharmacokinetics, the 28-day toxicology signals, the three FAERS reports and the clinical safety conclusion. FDA advisory committee materials. 2026. Source document
34. US Food and Drug Administration. Questions for PCAC regarding whether FDA should include certain bulk drug substances on the 503A Bulks List, 23 and 24 July 2026. BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate are the first two votes of the 23 July morning session. FDA advisory committee materials. 2026. Source document
35. US Food and Drug Administration. Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee; notice of meeting; establishment of a public docket; request for comments. Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6895. The chart of uses records the use evaluated for BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate as ulcerative colitis. Federal Register, document 2026-07361, 91 FR 20465. 2026. Source document
36. US Food and Drug Administration. Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding that May Present Significant Safety Risks. Page content current as of 22 April 2026. BPC-157 appears in the second table, bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn, and not in the active category 2 table. FDA human drug compounding. 2026. Source document
37. US Food and Drug Administration. July 23-24, 2026 Meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, meeting page and materials index. Page content current as of 6 August 2026 and read on 8 August 2026: briefing documents, agenda, roster, questions, webcast information and two presentation decks are posted, and no minutes, transcript or vote record is. FDA advisory committee calendar. 2026. Source document
38. PharmaCotherapia d.o.o. Phase I, pilot study in healthy volunteers to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of PCO-02, whose active ingredient is BPC-157, a pentadecapeptide from a gastric source (NCT02637284). Randomized, quadruple-masked, placebo-controlled, 42 estimated, single site in Tijuana. Status unknown; first posted and last updated 22 December 2015; no results posted. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2015. Source document
39. Hudson Biotech. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of pentadecapeptide BPC 157 for accelerated repair of acute grade II hamstring strain confirmed by MRI (NCT07437547). Registered as recruiting, 120 estimated, single site at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, actual start 2 February 2026, primary completion estimated 14 February 2027; no results posted. Read in full 8 August 2026, together with the sponsor account below. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. Source document
40. Parlay Wellness, with Citruslabs. A clinical trial to evaluate the effects of peptide gummies on markers of inflammation, physical performance, and recovery (NCT07752381). Single-arm, open-label, no randomization or masking, 40 actual participants, site in Las Vegas. Completed 1 November 2025 and first posted 7 August 2026; no results posted. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. Source document
41. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov registry, API v2, read in full on 8 August 2026. An intervention and free-text search for BPC-157 and its variants returns three records: NCT02637284, NCT07437547 and NCT07752381. A sponsor search for Hudson Biotech returns eight records: NCT07437547, NCT07437560, NCT07437586, NCT07467447, NCT07481734, NCT07481747, NCT07487363 and NCT07505745. Three of the eight describe themselves in their own registered text as an example, a mock study or a fictional study, and two carry Eli Lilly protocol identifiers for Lilly molecules. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. Source document
42. World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List, international standard, effective 1 January 2026. 26 pages. BPC-157 is named on the face of class S0 at page 4 and carries its own index entry. WADA. 2026. Source document
43. US Department of Defense, Operation Supplement Safety. Ingredient and substance index, and the article BPC-157: a prohibited peptide and an unapproved drug found in health and wellness products, posted 29 April 2025. Index checked 8 August 2026: the BPC-157 entry reads that BPC-157 is on the DoD Prohibited Dietary Supplement Ingredients list, with a status label of Prohibited. OPSS, Uniformed Services University. 2026. Source document