Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 22, 2026
A Tripeptide-Stabilized Nanoemulsion of Oleic Acid
Published on: February 27, 2019
Injectable Peptides in Sports Medicine: A Structured Narrative Review of Evidence, Safety, and Antidoping
Alan D Villegas Meza1, Michael Nocek1, Brendon C Mitchell1,2
1The Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado.
Background:
Injectable peptides are increasingly promoted for musculoskeletal recovery, tissue repair, and performance enhancements; however, clinical adoption has outpaced high-quality evidence and regulatory consensus.
Purpose:
To summarize contemporary human and translational evidence (January 1, 2020-August 31, 2025) for injectable peptides relevant to orthopaedics and sports medicine, and to clarify safety, product quality, regulatory, antidoping implications, and clinical outcomes.
Study Design:
Structured narrative review.
Methods:
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched (January 1, 2020-August 31, 2025). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective human studies, and translational investigations directly applicable to musculoskeletal care; noninjectable formulations and nonmusculoskeletal indications were excluded. Results were synthesized qualitatively; risk of bias for human trials was appraised using standard tools.
Results:
Five functional peptide classes were identified. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide) are the only class supported by reproducible randomized evidence of symptomatic improvement in knee osteoarthritis, with benefits primarily mediated by clinically meaningful weight loss and putative anti-inflammatory effects, whereas structural cartilage modification remains unproven. Collagen-derived injectable preparations show preliminary postoperative symptom/early recovery benefits in small, single-center prospective human studies. Regenerative peptides (e.g., body protection compound-157 and thymosin derivatives) and growth hormone axis secretagogues (e.g., CJC-1295, ipamorelin, and tesamorelin) remain investigational, with uncertain safety profiles, product quality concerns, and widespread antidoping restrictions.
Conclusions:
Injectable peptides for sports medicine remain largely experimental. Clinical use should be confined to approved metabolic agents for indicated conditions and to rigorously designed research protocols. Clinicians caring for athletes must counsel patients regarding uncertain efficacy, product quality, safety risks, and antidoping implications.
Level Of Evidence:
Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy:
Predominantly C.
Related Concept Videos
01:28Parenteral Drug Delivery Systems: Injectables, Implants, and Infusion Devices
01:28Drug Products: Biologics, Biosimilars and Interchangeables
01:21Drug Accumulation During Multiple Dosing: Repetitive IV Injections
01:22Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Stability-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence
01:29Drug Delivery: Parenteral Route
There are three primary parenteral routes: intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC). The IV route introduces the drug directly into the bloodstream, ensuring immediate action. The IM route...
01:25Routes of Drug Administration: Parenteral
The intravenous route (IV) of drug administration can be further categorized into two types. The bolus injection administers the entire dose rapidly, while an intravenous infusion slowly delivers smaller doses steadily.
The IV route is often...