Human evidence for BPC-157 in orthopaedic and regenerative medicine: a systematic review of efficacy and safety.
BPC-157 shows some anecdotal symptom improvement in small studies, but the evidence is weak and not sufficient for clinical use outside of regulated trials.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the bpc-157 corpusSummary and findings
This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of BPC-157 for orthopaedic and regenerative purposes in humans. Three studies with a total of 30 participants were included, reporting symptom improvement without treatment-related adverse events. However, the studies were of poor methodological quality.
Abstract
or mzyjp23@nottingham.ac.uk Body Protective Compound-157 (BPC-157) is a synthetic pentadecapeptide popular among athletic populations for musculoskeletal injury recovery, despite lacking regulatory approval for human use and evidence being largely limited to animal models. This PRISMA-compliant systematic review, prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261406325), aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BPC-157 for orthopaedic and regenerative purposes in humans. Electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched up to 1 June 2026. Eligibility included quantitative and qualitative studies investigating BPC-157 for any indication in human participants. Methodological quality and certainty of evidence was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies With No Control Group and GRADE framework respectively. Findings were narratively synthesised in accordance with SWiM guidance. Three studies (n=30) met the inclusion criteria, consisting of a retrospective study of intra-articular BPC-157 injections for knee pain (n=16), a retrospective pilot study of intravesical BPC-157 for interstitial cystitis (n=12), and a prospective pilot study evaluating intravenous BPC-157 safety (n=2). All studies reported symptom improvement in most participants without treatment-related adverse events, but were judged to be of poor methodological quality. Overall certainty of evidence was rated very low due to serious risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. Accordingly, BPC-157 should not be used clinically in humans outside ethically approved, regulated, high-quality clinical trials.
Background
This paper addresses the use of BPC-157, a synthetic pentadecapeptide, in orthopaedic and regenerative medicine, particularly for musculoskeletal injury recovery. Prior to this review, evidence supporting its efficacy in humans was largely derived from animal models, raising questions about its applicability in clinical settings. The study matters as it seeks to clarify the existing human evidence and assess the safety profile of BPC-157.
Methods
The review followed PRISMA guidelines and included a systematic search of electronic databases up to June 1, 2026. Eligibility criteria encompassed both quantitative and qualitative studies involving human participants receiving BPC-157. The methodological quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies With No Control Group.
Results
Three studies were identified, with a total of 30 participants. These included a retrospective study of intra-articular BPC-157 injections for knee pain (n=16), a retrospective pilot study of intravesical BPC-157 for interstitial cystitis (n=12), and a prospective pilot study evaluating intravenous BPC-157 safety (n=2). All studies reported symptom improvement in most participants without treatment-related adverse events.
Interpretation
The findings suggest that while symptom improvement was reported, the studies' poor methodological quality limits the reliability of these results. The overall certainty of evidence was rated very low, indicating that any observed effects may not be clinically meaningful. The serious risk of bias and imprecision suggests that BPC-157 should not be used clinically outside of high-quality clinical trials.
Key findings
- n=30 participants across three studies.
- Symptom improvement reported in most participants.
- No treatment-related adverse events reported.
- Overall certainty of evidence rated very low.
Limitations
- small n=30 across three studies
- poor methodological quality of included studies
- overall certainty of evidence rated very low
- serious risk of bias and indirectness