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?