PubMed
Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157: Novel therapy in gastrointestinal tract
Sikiric P, Seiwerth S, Rucman R, et al. Curr Pharm Des. 2018
Compare
BPC-157 vs VIP
Side-by-side observational reports from PeptIQ users. This compares self-reported patterns — not clinical head-to-head trials.
Last reviewed . By the PeptIQ team.
Observational reporting only — not medical advice. Does not recommend doses, protocols, or treatments.
BPC-157
128 community reports
Overall experience
From check-in ratings — separate from side effects logged below. Side effects are logged separately from overall experience. A favorable check-in can still include nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions.
Favorable 98% · Mixed 2% · Unfavorable overall 0%
Most reported benefits
Benefits users selected when logging a favorable or mixed check-in.
Recovery
247
Energy
2
Sleep
1
Most logged side effects
Side effects are logged separately from overall experience. A favorable check-in can still include nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions.
Nausea
5
Inflammation
1
Self-reported dose per injection
Median bucket: 0.2–0.4 mg · Most common: 0.2–0.4 mg
Reports span 0 to ≥ 5 mg (open-ended top bucket)
0–0.01 mg
2
0.025–0.05 mg
1
0.1–0.2 mg
3
0.2–0.4 mg
138
0.4–0.6 mg
94
0.6–1 mg
5
1–2 mg
1
3–5 mg
1
5+ mg
1
Anonymized self-reports from PeptIQ users — not prescribing guidance. Buckets group similar logged amounts; open-ended top buckets mean “at least” that dose.
Commonly stacked with
How repeat users are trending
Among repeat reporters, 94% said they felt similar to their last entry, 6% more positive, and 0% more negative.
Overall, repeat reporters leaned more positive than their previous entry.
Median gap between entries: 50 days · Based on 47 repeat reporters
VIP
25 community reports
Overall experience
From check-in ratings — separate from side effects logged below. Side effects are logged separately from overall experience. A favorable check-in can still include nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions.
Favorable 2% · Mixed 2% · Unfavorable overall 96%
Most reported benefits
Benefits users selected when logging a favorable or mixed check-in.
Recovery
163
Energy
6
Most logged side effects
Side effects are logged separately from overall experience. A favorable check-in can still include nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions.
Nausea
83
Headache
77
Self-reported dose per injection
Median bucket: 50–100 mcg · Most common: 50–100 mcg
Reports span 50–200 mcg
50–100
116
100–200
47
Anonymized self-reports from PeptIQ users — not prescribing guidance. Buckets group similar logged amounts; open-ended top buckets mean “at least” that dose.
Commonly stacked with
How repeat users are trending
Among repeat reporters, 88% said they felt similar to their last entry, 13% more positive, and 0% more negative.
Overall, repeat reporters leaned more positive than their previous entry.
Median gap between entries: 152 days · Based on 24 repeat reporters
Sources (19)
Published sources linked on the BPC-157 and VIP wiki pages.
- Wiki study page →Source
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 enhances the growth hormone receptor expression in tendon fibroblasts
Chang CH, Tsai WC, Lin MS, et al. Molecules. 2019
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
BPC 157 and its role in accelerating wound healing
Vukojevic J, Siroglavic M, Kasnik K, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2022
- Wiki study page →Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
BPC-157 studies on ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical trial registry. 2024
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
BPC 157 and Standard Angiogenic Growth Factors. Gastrointestinal Tract Healing, Lessons from Tendon, Ligament, Muscle and Bone Healing
Seiwerth S, Rucman R, Turkovic B, et al. Current pharmaceutical design. 2018
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 and its effects on a NSAID toxicity model: diclofenac-induced gastrointestinal, liver, and encephalopathy lesions
Ilic S, Drmic D, Franjic S, et al. Life sciences. 2011
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Intra-Articular Injection of BPC 157 for Multiple Types of Knee Pain
Lee E, Padgett B. Altern Ther Health Med. 2021
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
From Regeneration to Analgesia: The Role of BPC-157 in Tissue Repair and Pain Management
Yuan C, Demers A, Silva-Ortiz V, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2026
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Injectable Peptide Therapy: A Primer for Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Physicians
Mayfield CK, Bolia IK, Feingold CL, et al. Am J Sports Med. 2026
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Therapeutic Peptides in Orthopaedics: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions
Rahman OF, Lee SJ, Seeds WA. JAAOS Glob Res Rev. 2026
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Vasoactive intestinal peptide as a new drug for treatment of primary pulmonary hypertension
Ghatei MA, Takahashi K, Suzuki H, et al. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2003
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Vasoactive intestinal peptide generates CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells in vivo
Delgado M, Chorny A, Gonzalez-Rey E, et al. J Leukoc Biol. 2005
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Vasoactive intestinal peptide: a neuropeptide with pleiotropic immune functions
Delgado M, Ganea D. Amino Acids. 2013
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Vasoactive intestinal peptide: cardiovascular effects
Henning RJ, Sawmiller DR. Cardiovascular Research. 2001
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Vasoactive intestinal peptide and the mammalian circadian system
Vosko AM, Schroeder A, Loh DH, et al. General and Comparative Endocrinology. 2007
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
New perspectives on vasoactive intestinal polypeptide as a widespread modulator of social behavior
Kingsbury MA. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2015
- Wiki study page →Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide studies on ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical trial registry. 2024
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
The significance of vasoactive intestinal peptide in immunomodulation
Delgado M, Pozo D, Ganea D. Pharmacological reviews. 2004
- Wiki study page →Source
PubMed
Role of vasoactive intestinal peptide in osteoarthritis
Jiang W, Wang H, Li YS, et al. Journal of biomedical science. 2016