Repair and pain
Does it close a wound faster?
Surgical wounds, ulcers and burns, where healing time is genuinely measurable.
68
people in trials
3
human studies
0
compounds, animal or cell only
1
trials found nothing
Measured in people
Ranked by how many people, which is a fact about the evidence and not a judgement about the compound. The one at the top is the most studied, which is not the same as the best. Counts are never added across compounds, because the same person can appear in more than one trial.
- 34 people2 human studies1 found nothing
found nothing34 participants with venous leg ulcers, three week open-label placebo run-in then four weeks of randomised double-blind twice weekly topical LL-37 at 0.5, 1.6 or 3.2 mg/mL or placebo. Healing rate constants at 0.5 and 1.6 mg/mL were about six-fold and three-fold higher than placebo, p = 0.003 and p = 0.088. Mean ulcer area fell 68% and 50% in those groups. The highest dose showed no difference from placebo. Topical, on wounds, first in man.
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2014 · 34 people
A randomised double-blind controlled trial of LL-37 cream in diabetic foot ulcer healing. The second controlled human study of this peptide and again topical, on a wound, rather than injected for systemic immune effect.
Archives of Dermatological Research, 2023 · no headcount in the line
- 34 people1 human study
First-in-man trial in 34 patients: 0.5 mg/mL topical LL-37 raised the healing rate about sixfold versus placebo, with no safety concerns.
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2014 · 34 people
What people using these actually report
Uncontrolled self-reports, gathered from clinic write-ups, regulatory complaint records and public forums, and reproduced here as written. They are the best guide on this page to what people actually do, what they expect, and what goes wrong, and they cannot show that anything works, because nobody was measured against a placebo and the people who saw no effect mostly stopped posting. Both halves of that are true at once. The negative reports are kept in for the same reason.
- The uses people report are chronic tendon and ligament complaints, shoulder and hip problems, scar tissue and range of motion, and general recovery between hard training blocks.
Sources: FDA's July 2026 evaluation of TB-500, including its FAERS search, its catalogue of vendor claims and its account of the veterinary preparation; the 2012 Ghent doping-control identification paper; the 2026 Sports Medicine and American Journal of Sports Medicine reviews on how these peptides are used and marketed; and public discussion and injury logs on peptide and bodybuilding forums including eroids, iSARMS, Ironsport and FITMISC, where TB-500 is almost always logged alongside BPC-157. Reddit's r/Peptides and r/PeptideSupport could not be retrieved for this entry. No quotation is reproduced from any of these sources and nothing above is attributed to a specific person.
Why the trial record looks like this
A missing trial is usually a missing sponsor. Nobody runs a nine-figure programme on a molecule they cannot own, so the compounds with the thinnest human records are often the oldest and most freely available ones rather than the weakest. Taking Thymosin alpha-1 with KPV and LL-37 as the example, because it states the problem most clearly:
The LL-37 dose-response result is the most instructive thing on this page and it deserves to be read carefully. The two lower concentrations worked and the highest concentration did not differ from placebo. That is the opposite of the assumption underlying most blend dosing, which is that more of a good ingredient is better. Where a real dose-response has been measured in this family, the curve was not monotonic.
The second point is about the sepsis trial. A negative phase 3 in critically ill patients does not settle whether a peptide modulates immunity in a healthy person with recurrent infections. It does mean that the component here with the largest and best-conducted human trial did not improve the outcome it was tested for, and that fact belongs next to any claim made for it.
Third, the interaction question. One component is anti-inflammatory, one is immunostimulatory and one has both antimicrobial and pro-inflammatory properties depending on context. Combining them in a fixed ratio assumes those actions sum. Nobody has checked whether they cancel.
Read this on the Thymosin alpha-1 with KPV and LL-37 profile
A compound appears here only when a citation on its own page states this outcome and reports a result for it; naming it is not enough. Human, animal and cell work are counted separately and never merged. Participant counts are read from the study lines and deliberately undercount. Nothing here is advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to take or to avoid anything.