BPC-157 Interstitial Cystitis Study (2024): Results and Limitations

Written by BPC-157 Research TeamEvidence checked 23 September 2026

A 2024 pilot study gave BPC-157 injections to 12 women with interstitial cystitis, a painful bladder condition, whose symptoms had not responded to a standard medicine. All 12 rated their symptoms as much improved afterwards, but the study had no comparison group and outcomes were self-rated, so it cannot show that BPC-157 caused the improvement.

Why does this study matter?

Interstitial cystitis is a long-term condition with few effective treatments, and this is the only published report of BPC-157 being used for it. It is also one of only three full published human BPC-157 reports. As an uncontrolled pilot in 12 people, it provides much weaker evidence than a randomised controlled trial.

What were the researchers trying to find out?

Whether women whose interstitial cystitis symptoms had not responded to pentosan polysulfate, an approved treatment, would report improvement after BPC-157 injections into the bladder wall.

How was the study carried out?

Twelve women aged 39 to 76 took part at a private clinic. Each underwent cystoscopy, a procedure in which a thin camera is passed into the bladder, during which BPC-157 was injected around the inflamed areas of the bladder in a single procedure. Afterwards, each participant rated her own symptoms using the Global Response Assessment, a standard questionnaire in bladder research that asks patients how much their condition has changed.

What did the study report?

The authors reported that 10 of the 12 women described complete resolution of their symptoms after the single treatment, and the remaining two rated their symptoms as around 80% improved. All 12 gave the highest rating on the Global Response Assessment, and no one dropped out of the study.

These are the authors' reported figures. With no comparison group, they describe what the participants said afterwards, not what BPC-157 did.

What did it report about safety?

The authors reported that no adverse events occurred. Reporting no adverse events in 12 people is not the same as showing a treatment is safe: a group this small cannot detect uncommon side effects. Our BPC-157 side effects guide covers what has and hasn't been documented.

What can we conclude?

The study shows that BPC-157 has been injected into the human bladder wall in a clinic setting and that all participants rated their symptoms as improved. It cannot show that BPC-157 caused the improvement. Interstitial cystitis symptoms naturally rise and fall, placebo responses in pain conditions are strong, and the cystoscopy procedure itself may have played a part. Without a comparison group, these possibilities cannot be separated.

What are the study's limitations?

• No comparison group. Without one, it is difficult to say how much change was due to BPC-157 rather than natural symptom variation, placebo effects or the procedure itself.
• Small size. Twelve people cannot reliably detect uncommon side effects or show whether results apply more widely.
• Self-rated outcomes. Improvement was measured by asking participants how they felt, with no objective measures.
• Single clinic, single procedure. The findings come from one setting and one round of treatment, with no long-term follow-up reported.

How does this fit with other BPC-157 human research?

This is one of three recent full published human reports identified in our review, all sharing the same first author and journal. The wider human record also includes registered clinical trials and earlier studies reported only as abstracts. View all BPC-157 clinical trials and human studies →