🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsOther Peptides & Research CompoundsBPC-157 actually fixed my bad knee?? Is this placebo

BPC-157 actually fixed my bad knee?? Is this placebo

FitDadDave Thu, May 7, 2026 at 12:49 AM 26 replies 825 viewsPage 1 of 6
FitDadDave
Member
534
2,678
Jul 2024
Minneapolis, MN
May 7, 2026 at 12:49 AM#1

My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my material.

So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: how to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases.

Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.

38 8Dr.NephBHM_UK, kim_atl_prep, sarah_TO and 35 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.SportsMedIN
Senior Member
1,456
6,789
Feb 2024
Indianapolis, IN
May 7, 2026 at 1:00 AM#2

Short answer first, then the reasoning. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.

Last edited: May 7, 2026 at 6:00 AM
37 7lisa_labSD, adam_van, Dr.SurgeonPGH and 34 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
FranDenver
Member
267
1,123
Oct 2024
Denver, CO
May 7, 2026 at 1:10 AM#3
Dr.SportsMedIN said:
Read four things before the headline number.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:
...regarding the trial evidence...

I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:

A recent meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n=18,900) found that the trial evidence was associated with a consistent effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 20, which is comparable to metformin for T2DM prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.

Last edited: May 7, 2026 at 7:10 AM
36 6BariatricNurseD, MASHdoc_SA, GenomicsKate and 33 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
LeilaHI
Member
167
789
Jan 2025
Honolulu, HI
May 7, 2026 at 1:21 AM#4
FitDadDave said:
My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my…

Same position here, arrived at the long way round. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.

Last edited: May 7, 2026 at 6:21 AM
35 5LondonLisa, mike_nyc, VendorMark and 32 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PharmacoVig_BOS
Senior Member
1,567
8,901
Feb 2024
Boston, MA
May 7, 2026 at 2:20 AM#5

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.

A recent PSM study of 12,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced MI incidence (HR 0.78) over 3 years of follow-up[1].

These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.

References:
[1] Registry-based cohort study, pre-print 2024.
Last edited: May 7, 2026 at 5:20 AM
34 4LabKate, kate.chem, DataDave and 31 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1236

Similar Threads

BPC-157 oral vs injectable — bioavailability review and evidence15 replies
TB-500 for tissue repair — mechanism and clinical evidence4 replies
Selank and Semax — anxiolytic peptides overview2 replies
CJC-1295/Ipamorelin combination — GH secretagogue discussion23 replies
BPC-157 + GLP-1 stacking for gut healing — N=1 experience17 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register