BPC-157 trial enrollments 40/42/30/120 — where are results?

Where’d you see 120? I only get 40/42/30 in my export.

The 75.3% rat ulcer inhiibtion gets quoted like human data. It’s an ethanol-induced gastric ulcer model, not a recovery trial.

The Bacillus expression paper is more concrete: 2% inoculum, 40 g/L soybean peptone, 80 g/L glucose, ~3x reporter expression. Still not human stacking.

Fermentation data doesn’t tell us squat about stacking.

That’s the gap. The rotator cuff repair trial has 30 slots and isn’t recruiting yet.

I get why the rat ulcer number and fermentation tweaks get brought up, but neither answers the stacking question. The completed gummy trial enrolled 40 and still has no posted results. That’s not negative, it’s just opaque. I’d rather track sleep and ROM for eight weeks than pretend the registry gap is settled either way. The 120 number floating around makes it messier.

No posted results is the whole issue. I pulled registry history and it’s bare. Also, 120 keeps showing in raw lists though named trials are 40/42/30.

What markers are you logging at week 3? I track pain and ROM but not labs. Curious if anyone’s seen CRP or ESR shift while stacking anything.

Honestly the 40 vs 42 gap is probably just anticipated versus actual enrollment — sponsors update those fields at completion and then sit on results for years, so I wouldn't build a timeline around any of it. Contrarian thing I'd say is that week 3 data is the most misleading week you'll have: my shoulder flexion went 95 to 118 degrees between weeks 2 and 4 and then flatlined for almost a month, and I was sure I'd plateaued until my PT pointed out I'd been measuring after work when I'd already been moving around all day. Switched to morning measurements and the curve got a lot uglier and a lot more honest — cost me maybe five minutes a day and saved me a ton of false hope. Are you doing yours same time, same position, ideally same person holding the goniometer? Sleep moved way earlier for me than anything structural — 6h10m average in week 2 up to almost 7h by week 5, well before strength changed at all, so if your sleep numbers are climbing while ROM looks flat you're probably not stuck.

Between school pickup and raiding the snack drawer, my registry sleuthing is limited, but I’ve had better luck with conference abstracts than CT.gov. For the rotator cuff one, I’d search AOSSM/ASES/ORS meeting archives 1–2 years after the listed completion. Also check if there’s a linked thesis or poster on the PI’s lab page. Has anyone tried that? I found a vague sports-med abstract for a different peptide that way, but no numbers for it. Curious if the 30-arm one has a projected primary completion date yet.

The 120 is the one frying my brain—did you find if it’s a separate NCT or a pooled cohort? I couldn’t tell from the raw fields. Also, does the 30-person rotator cuff trial list an estimated results date, or just “trust us”? My tracking is a Notes app: stairs vs elevator, sleep, and whether dorm chicken was edible. Very scientific. Following for any actual results.

I also spot-check registries, and I have learned to look at the “Last Update Posted” date rather than only the results tab. Many completed trials post results months later, and some appear first as conference abstracts. A concrete tracking habit that helps me: a weekly average of sleep hours, steps, protein, and a simple 0–10 daily function score, so one rough day does not distort the trend. Quick question: where does the 120 figure come from? Is it a separate trial, or a combined projected enrollment across sites? That might explain the extra number you are seeing. Appreciate you laying out the NCT numbers so clearly.

registry rabbit holes are my weird hobby when I’m avoiding the snack drawer. If you haven’t already, click “Study Record Versions” on those NCTs — it shows every edit, so you can see when enrollment shifted and whether results were ever expected. I also tried the Contacts tab once; the PI’s coordinator actually answered with “analysis pending,” which was more than the Results tab gave me. Which of the four are you most invested in? I’d park an alert on the one with the oldest last-update date. Tracking-wise, weekly waist, mood, and steps keep me sane without obsessing over the scale.

I keep a registry tab with three columns: completion date, last update posted, results-first-posted. My trendline says completed trials in this space often sit 18–24 months before the results tab even populates, so 40/42/30 silence isn't shocking to me. The 120 is the outlier I can't map — which NCT owns that number? Is it a separate Phase 2, or the original target for the cuff repair one before it got trimmed to 30? That distinction would tell us whether we're waiting on one dataset or two.

Trial-sleuthing for me is mostly phone-screen time in the locksmith van between rekey jobs. When I chased a different registry ghost, the thing that cracked it was comparing the Results First Posted date to the Primary Completion Date. Those are frequently 12+ months apart, and sponsors can file a delay cert to push it further. The rotator cuff 30 is only a target, so I wouldn't expect much there. If the Results tab is still blank for the completed 40-person trial, pull the Responsible Party contact and ask for the CSR or a publication timeline. Did any of the four actually list a study completion date, or are they all still projected?

I’m not a registry expert either — just an empty-nester who finally has time to walk after dinner and cook real meals instead of grazing. One sleuthing habit that’s helped me: I screenshot each NCT page and log the “Primary Completion Date,” “Last Update Posted,” and whether “Results First Posted” is blank. For completed trials, that gap tells me if it’s an embargo, a delay, or just not applicable. Has anyone looked at the sponsor contact listed on the gummy trial or tried emailing them? I’m curious if they’ll say “results pending publication” or just ghost.

which trial is the 120? That’s the number I’d chase—if it’s a phase 2-ish study, it might actually tell us something beyond safety. I’m not a registry wizard, but I set a calendar reminder every 3 months and check the sponsor’s conference abstracts/press page, because posters often drop before ClinicalTri

I’ve started logging the registry entries in a little spreadsheet: NCT number, primary completion date, last update posted, and whether there’s a linked PubMed record. The tell for me is a primary completion date that’s 2+ years old with no results tab and no publication. Then I search the NCT number in Google Scholar and check conference abstracts, because sometimes it’s buried there. Which of those four actually has a primary completion date listed? That’s the one I’d chase first, especially if “unknown status” hasn’t been updated in a while.

The 120 figure is the one worth chasing. If that’s the larger safety cohort, 40/42/30 are small pilots and won’t answer much. Check each record’s primary completion date against the results-first-posted field; a blank past the FDAAA 12-month window is the tell. Also, was NCT02637284 Phase 1? That changes posting incentives. I track sleep efficiency, resting HR, and flare frequency in a notes app—enrollment counts don’t mean much without a protocol synopsis. Anyone have the full inclusion criteria for the gummy trial?

I’ve been lurking these BPC threads since the old 2023 one, and the thing I’d check next is the “Last Update Posted” date versus the “Primary Completion Date.” NCT02637284 has that frozen, unknown-status vibe — so the 42 may just be stale, not pending results. For NCT07752381, if it’s tagged Phase 1, the results clock is usually different than a later-phase trial. Has anyone pulled the WHO ICTRP or EU CTR record for the same protocol? Sometimes results surface there first.

the "status unknown" on the 42 one is the tell for me — usually that's the sponsor stopped updating the record, not that the trial disappeared. compare last update posted against primary completion date; if the gap's past a year, results are technically overdue but nobody chases small PK studies. also PK data like that sometimes lands in a journal instead of the results tab, so sponsor name + pharmacokinetics on pubmed is worth a shot. did anyone actually email the listed contact? sitting here at 3am wondering if they ever reply.

I keep a little spreadsheet for NCT, status, last update, enrollment, and results-posted date. The thing I’d check next is the Record History tab — it shows whether 42 or 120 were original targets or later protocol amendments, which would explain the mismatch without guessing. Also cross-check WHO ICTRP; sometimes a results link lives there when ClinicalTrials is blank. For the completed gummy one, if primary completion is past the 12-month results window, look for a delayed-results flag or certification. Did you see that, or is the Results tab just fully empty? I’m on a GLP-1 and mostly track sleep/side effects, so I’m useless on labs, but registry gaps annoy me.

I keep a registry spreadsheet too: enrollment, status, last update posted, primary completion date, results Y/N. The field that usually tells the story is “last update posted” — if NCT02637284 hasn’t been touched in 2+ years and the status is vague, that smells like an abandoned record, not results pending. Also, some sponsors only publish in a journal and never backfill the registry. Did you check the “More Information” or PubMed links for a matching paper? That’s where I’d

Wait, where’s the 120 coming from? Is that a separate trial or a projected Phase 2? That’s the number I’d want clarity on. On tracking: I use a notes app with pain 0–10, sleep hours, and whether I got my 10-min walk in. Week 3 was mostly about consistency for me, not labs. If you find the 120’s NCT, drop it—I’ll help sleuth after bedtime. Solidarity from the snack-drawer shift. 😅

Hi, very new here—week one, mostly lurking, so sorry if this is a dumb one. Is the 120 maybe the only record that actually has a “Results” section, or is it just planned enrollment? I’ve been using the ClinicalTrials.gov API to pull the “Results First Posted” date for each NCT and set phone reminders, because otherwise I forget to check. For me that’s easier than logging anything else. If the completed gummy trial is showing “No Results Posted,” is there a usual lag before sponsors upload them, or does that mean they’re not required to? Thanks—still learning how to read these.

The 120 is the number I can’t place—is it a separate PK cohort or a pooled target? If it’s pooled, comparing it to 40/42/30 is apples/oranges. I’m not in a trial; I just track sleep, steps, flare days, protein, and hydration in my notes app. It’s helped me see my pain spikes follow bad sleep more than activity. Have you checked whether any of those records have a results-posting due date tied to completion? That’s the only thing that makes the waiting feel less maddening.

Hi—also brand new, mostly lurking (week one, sorry if this is obvious). I made a tiny spreadsheet of the NCT numbers with status and last-update dates, and the thing I haven’t tried yet is WHO ICTRP plus conference abstracts from ortho/peptide meetings; results sometimes surface there before CT.gov. Has anyone checked the sponsor/investigator names on those pages? Also, some records show a “Results Submitted” note even when no results are visible. Curious if any of these four have that flag or a quiet update. Thanks—this thread is way more organized tan my notes.

One pattern from registry diving: “unknown status” usually means the sponsor stopped updating, not that data vanished. For the 42-person PK one, I’d search WHO ICTRP and any EU/national registry by sponsor name—in the trials I’ve tracked, PK results often surface as a conference poster before a paper. I keep a spreadsheet with NCT, last update posted, results posted, and linkd pubs; the last-update date has been more telling than status. Has anyone found a poster/abstract for that PK cohort? Also worth checking whether the gummy trial even triggered FDAAA results reporting—if not, that tab may stay empty indefinitely.

I keep a nerdy spreadsheet of trial IDs and last-update dates, and that’s helped me spot when a number is probably a protocol estimate rather than a real cohort. The 120 might be the planned sample size in a statistical section, not an enrollment arm. If you can find the protocol or history tab, compare “estimated” vs “actual” enrollment and see if it changed. Gentle question: has anyone checked the WHO ICTRP or EU CTR for a matching 120-person entry? Sometimes results or registry updates show up there first. I’m cautiously curious, not trying to push anything.

Not a dumb one at all. One registry quirk I learned: Phase 1 drug trials usually aren’t covered by the federal results-reporting rule, so a PK/safety record can sit with zero results forever. That’s different from the completed gummy one with 40 actual—if it counted as phase 2+ or federally funded, results are generally due within a year, but sponsors often blow past that. Our local pharmacist also said investigational stuff won’t show in insurance claims, so no breadcrumbs there. I’d search PubMed by NCT number and sponsor name. Has anyone spotted a conference poster or abstract instead?

One wrinkle worth knowing: Phase 1 trials are exempt from FDAAA results-posting, so the 42-person PK study may legally never post anything — that alone isn't a red flag. For the 120, does the record say "estimated" or "actual" enrollment? If it's estimated and the status is withdrawn/terminated, it might just be a superseded protocol version. I've had better luck cross-checking WHO ICTRP and the EU CTR — sometimes the last-update date tells you whether anyone's touched the record since 2022, which is its own kind of answer.