Safety and Efficacy of Approved and Unapproved Peptide Therapies for Musculoskeletal Injuries and Athletic Performance

Abstract

Peptides are short chains of amino acids with a unique pharmacological niche between small-molecule drugs and large proteins. Their use in sports medicine is rapidly expanding, driven by patient demand for accelerated injury recovery and performance enhancement. While numerous peptide drugs have undergone a rigorous approval process that evaluates both safety and efficacy, a parallel "gray market" of unapproved compounds has emerged, operating largely outside of regulatory oversight. Our objective is to present the pharmacological mechanisms, safety profiles, and regulatory status of prominent approved and unapproved peptides marketed direct to patients, including AOD-9604 (anti-obesity drug 9604), BPC-157 (body protection compound 157), CJC-1295, FS-344 (follistatin-344), GHK-Cu (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine copper), ipamorelin, MOTS-C (mitochondrial ORF of the 12S rRNA type-c), sermorelin, SS-31 (elamipretide), tesamorelin (Egrifta), Tβ4 (thymosin beta-4), and TB-500 (thymosin beta-4 fragment). Many unapproved peptides demonstrate favorable tissue repair and metabolic outcomes in animal models, but rigorous human safety data are scarce, and there is potential for serious harm to patients. This narrative review focuses on the utilization of peptides in sports medicine, and alternative treatments that may be considered. We provide a framework to navigate patient discussions about peptides to better facilitate evidence-based practices for musculoskeletal healing and athletic performance. We also discuss the placebo effect as a mediator of peptide efficacy, and how social media amplifies this effect.