Research

PubMed study record (PMID: 34687253).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human evidence; phase IIb randomized clinical trial.

Study design

Multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, three-arm phase IIb clinical trial evaluating a specified LL-37 study formulation in patients receiving compression therapy.

Study population

148 adults with hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers; reported mean age was 67.6 years, median ulcer duration 20.3 months, and mean wound area at randomization 11.6 cm².

Study endpoints

Stated study outcomes included ulcer-healing efficacy measures and safety/tolerability measures, including healing-related parameters for the target ulcer.

Limitations

Evidence is limited to the specified study formulation, venous-leg-ulcer setting, and selected study population. The publication reports a prespecified full-cohort comparison and exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses; subgroup findings are not confirmatory. The study does not establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 37480520).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human evidence; randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial.

Study design

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating a specified LL-37 cream formulation in a diabetic-foot-ulcer wound-care setting; registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04098562.

Study population

People with diabetic foot ulcers described in the publication as having mild infection; the study was conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Study endpoints

Stated study outcome measures included wound-healing rate, granulation index, wound-fluid IL-1α and TNF-α levels, and aerobic bacterial colonization.

Limitations

Evidence is limited to a specified cream formulation, diabetic-foot-ulcer population, mild-infection setting, and study context; it does not establish broader clinical applicability. Biomarker and colonization measures are study endpoints, not evidence of benefit for other conditions. The study does not establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

Peer-reviewed full-text study record (PubMed Central).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Peer-reviewed randomized human pilot study; limited and exploratory evidence.

Study design

Single-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled exploratory pilot study.

Study population

Adults with confirmed sarcoidosis and symptoms consistent with small-fiber neuropathy and clinically significant spontaneous pain; 22 participants completed the study analysis (12 ARA 290 and 10 placebo).

Study endpoints

Prespecified study endpoints included change in pain intensity, Small Fiber Neuropathy Screening List score, SF-36 quality-of-life measures, Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology score, and Fatigue Assessment Scale score.

Limitations

Small single-site pilot with short study duration, questionnaire-based outcomes, participant withdrawals and replacement participants; the population was restricted to sarcoidosis-associated neuropathic symptoms, limiting generalizability. This study material is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

Peer-reviewed full-text study record (PubMed Central).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Peer-reviewed phase 2 human pilot study; limited, open-label, exploratory evidence.

Study design

Prospective, interventional, investigator-led, open-label, exploratory phase 2 pilot study.

Study population

Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and center-involving diabetic macular edema meeting the study's retinal-thickness criterion, with no previous treatment for diabetic macular edema; 9 participants were recruited and 8 completed the study.

Study endpoints

The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline to week 12 in best-corrected visual acuity. Secondary outcome measures included central retinal thickness, central retinal sensitivity, retinal perfusion, tear production, patient-reported outcomes, specified visual-acuity letter-gain thresholds, cibinetide antibodies, and adverse events; exploratory measures included metabolic status, renal function, and serum proteins.

Limitations

Very small, single-center, open-label, non-comparative pilot with short follow-up and participant attrition; findings are specific to the selected diabetic-macular-edema population and exploratory outcome framework. This study material is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 32342318).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human component evidence; no direct evidence for the Semax-plus-Selank blend.

Study design

Peer-reviewed controlled human neuroimaging study with separate Semax and Selank groups and placebo comparison; repeated resting-state functional MRI assessments.

Study population

52 healthy adult participants.

Study endpoints

Whole-brain resting-state functional connectivity for predefined regions of interest, including the amygdala and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, assessed with resting-state fMRI.

Limitations

The study did not evaluate a combined Semax-plus-Selank formulation, used a small healthy-participant sample, and assessed neuroimaging connectivity rather than clinical outcomes. Its findings cannot establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 18454096).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human evidence; one small randomized comparative clinical study.

Study design

Randomized controlled comparative study of Selank versus medazepam, with clinical and biological assessments.

Study population

62 patients with generalized anxiety disorder and neurasthenia; 30 assigned to Selank and 32 to medazepam. The PubMed record describes adult, adolescent, male, and female participants in its indexing, but gives no further demographic breakdown in the abstract.

Study endpoints

Psychometric assessments using the Hamilton, Zung, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales; blood-serum enkephalin activity was also measured.

Limitations

Small sample; older 2008 publication; article is in Russian; the PubMed abstract provides limited detail on allocation, masking, follow-up, and prespecified analysis. The study is specific to its population, comparator, and study material and does not establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of any EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 30225715).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human primary evidence: controlled neuroimaging study in healthy volunteers.

Study design

Controlled, placebo-comparator human study using repeated resting-state functional MRI assessments; 24 healthy volunteers were studied in two groups.

Study population

24 healthy adults (11 men and 13 women; mean age 43.9 ± 9.5 years). The population was healthy volunteers rather than patients with a clinical disorder.

Study endpoints

Prespecified/stated imaging outcomes were resting-state default-mode-network topography and the volume of its rostral medial-frontal subcomponent, assessed by resting-state functional MRI.

Limitations

Small sample and short observation window; imaging outcomes were used rather than clinical endpoints, and the healthy-volunteer population limits clinical generalizability. This study does not establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 1299794).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human evidence; small randomized controlled clinical trial.

Study design

Double-blind, matched-pairs, parallel-groups clinical trial conducted over five consecutive laboratory nights, with polysomnographic and subjective assessments.

Study population

16 patients with chronic insomnia; PubMed indexing identifies adult and older participants and both women and men.

Study endpoints

Prespecified or stated measures included sleep structure, objective sleep quality assessed by polysomnography, subjective sleep quality, and subjective tiredness.

Limitations

Small sample, short laboratory observation period, and older single-study evidence limit precision and generalizability; the study did not establish long-term outcomes or conclusions about an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 3622582).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human evidence; small controlled clinical trial.

Study design

Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial with repeated sleep-wake assessments and laboratory polysomnography.

Study population

14 middle-aged people with severe chronic insomnia.

Study endpoints

Stated study outcome measures included polysomnographic sleep measures, daytime psychological state, and daytime mental-performance testing.

Limitations

Small sample and older, single-center-style study context limit generalizability; the abstract provides limited methodological detail, and the study does not establish long-term outcomes or conclusions about an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 34798060).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Peer-reviewed primary human evidence; randomized phase 2 clinical trial of investigational cagrilintide monotherapy.

Study design

Multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled phase 2 clinical trial; 906 adults were randomized across cagrilintide, liraglutide, and placebo groups.

Study population

Adults aged 18 years or older without diabetes who had obesity, or overweight with hypertension or dyslipidaemia, recruited at 57 sites in 10 countries.

Study endpoints

Prespecified primary endpoint: percentage change in bodyweight from baseline to week 26 under trial-product and treatment-policy estimands. The protocol also assessed safety and tolerability.

Limitations

Investigational, trial-product-specific evidence from a phase 2 study in adults without diabetes; the study population and protocol limit generalizability. The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk, and several authors were Novo Nordisk employees or shareholders. It does not establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 3079597).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Primary human clinical evidence; older, controlled comparative clinical trial.

Study design

Controlled clinical trial and comparative study evaluating pulsatile GnRH in induced cycles, with comparison to reference ovulatory cycles.

Study population

Eighteen women with well-characterized hypothalamic amenorrhea; 30 induced cycles were evaluated, alongside 62 reference ovulatory cycles from women without the condition.

Study endpoints

Study measures included ovulation, follicular development, peak serum estradiol, integrated luteal-phase progesterone, and pregnancy occurrence.

Limitations

Small, older study in a narrowly defined reproductive-endocrine population; findings are specific to the studied protocol and clinical context and should not be generalized to an EZpeps research material or other formulations.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT07152730).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered Phase 1 human study; withdrawn, with no posted results.

Study design

Open-label, nonrandomized, parallel-assignment interventional pharmacokinetic study in healthy volunteers.

Study population

Healthy female volunteers aged 18 to 40 years with regular menstrual cycles; actual enrollment was zero.

Study endpoints

Prespecified pharmacokinetic exposure and time-course measures.

Limitations

The registry lists the study as withdrawn with zero enrollment and no posted results; registration and stated outcome measures do not establish any outcome. The record concerns a named investigational product and delivery system, not an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 31599840).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Robust human evidence from peer-reviewed randomized phase 3 clinical trials, limited to the studied indication and population.

Study design

Two identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 parallel-group clinical trials (RECONNECT).

Study population

1,267 premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder were randomized; 1,202 were included in the reported efficacy population. Participants were adults meeting the study’s HSDD criteria.

Study endpoints

Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to end of study in the Female Sexual Function Index desire-domain score and the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Desire/Arousal/Orgasm item 13.

Limitations

The evidence is restricted to premenopausal women with the study-defined HSDD population and does not establish findings for other populations, conditions, or purposes. The report was funded by industry sponsors. This study does not establish the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 8637402).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited older primary human evidence

Study design

Single-blind, alternating-treatment, placebo-controlled pilot Phase I clinical trial.

Study population

Three adult healthy male volunteers.

Study endpoints

Pigmentation assessed by quantitative reflectance and visual perception; monitored clinical symptoms and observed erectile responses.

Limitations

Very small pilot sample, older study, short study period, and narrow population limit generalizability; findings are specific to the study material and protocol. This study is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT07437560).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered Phase 2 study; no posted results

Study design

Recruiting randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-assignment Phase 2 interventional study.

Study population

Estimated 60 adults with stable nonsegmental vitiligo; not healthy volunteers.

Study endpoints

Primary: change from baseline in total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI). Secondary: VASI50, time to first clinically detectable repigmentation, objective pigmentation by melanin index, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and adverse-event and dermatologic-change measures.

Limitations

ClinicalTrials.gov registration describes planned methods and outcome measures but does not establish an outcome because no results are posted. Estimated enrollment and protocol-specific endpoints may change; the record is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

Peer-reviewed full-text study record (PubMed Central).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Peer-reviewed phase 3 randomized clinical trial; high-tier human evidence for the studied population and study material.

Study design

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 parallel-group clinical trial.

Study population

218 adults with genetically confirmed primary mitochondrial myopathy, enrolled across multiple clinical sites.

Study endpoints

Prespecified primary endpoints were change in six-minute walk test distance and change in the Primary Mitochondrial Myopathy Symptom Assessment total-fatigue score; the protocol also specified additional patient-reported and functional outcomes.

Limitations

Disease-, eligibility-, protocol-, and study-material-specific population; findings cannot be generalized to other populations or to an EZpeps research material. A clinical trial record does not establish product identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use outside the study.

Peer-reviewed full-text study record (PubMed Central).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Peer-reviewed randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover human trial; preliminary, lower-certainty evidence than the phase 3 trial.

Study design

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover trial (MMPOWER-2).

Study population

30 participants with genetically confirmed primary mitochondrial myopathy; participants had previously participated in the MMPOWER study, and enrollment was limited by the available eligible cohort.

Study endpoints

The stated primary endpoint was distance walked on the six-minute walk test. Other stated outcomes included patient-reported fatigue and muscle-complaint measures, functional assessments, physical-activity measures, global assessments, and safety assessments.

Limitations

Small, selected cohort; crossover design; short study periods; and no formal sample-size calculation because enrollment was constrained by the prior-study cohort. Its results are not evidence of identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 35658024).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Robust human evidence: peer-reviewed phase 3 randomized controlled trial.

Study design

Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial.

Study population

A total of 2,539 adults with obesity, or overweight with at least one weight-related complication, and without diabetes; adults had a body-mass index of at least 30, or at least 27 with a qualifying complication.

Study endpoints

Coprimary endpoints were percentage change in body weight from baseline and the proportion with body-weight reduction of 5% or more. The study also specified cardiometabolic measures and safety outcomes.

Limitations

Population and findings are specific to the trial eligibility criteria, studied product, comparator, protocol, and prespecified assessment period; they do not establish conclusions for other materials or formulations. The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, and longer-term or broader-population evidence is not established by this record.

PubMed study record (PMID: 41551324).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited observational human evidence; not an intervention study.

Study design

Peer-reviewed observational study with cross-sectional comparisons and a longitudinal observational subgroup analysis; also included adipose-tissue immunofluorescence assessment.

Study population

Adults comprising 22 lean controls and 32 adults with obesity scheduled for bariatric surgery; longitudinal data were available for 10 of the adults with obesity, and adipose-tissue assessments included 6 lean kidney donors and 14 adults with obesity.

Study endpoints

Prespecified or stated study measures included circulating MOTS-c levels; metabolic parameters including BMI and HOMA-IR; inflammatory markers; longitudinal weight and circulating MOTS-c measurements; and adipose-tissue MOTS-c expression.

Limitations

MOTS-c was measured rather than administered, so this study cannot establish clinical treatment effects or safety. The sample was small, the cohorts were specialized, and the longitudinal subgroup was smaller than the cross-sectional sample. The study is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT07505745).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered human interventional study; recruiting with no posted results.

Study design

Phase 2a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group interventional study; estimated enrollment is 120 participants.

Study population

Adults aged 18 to 65 with prediabetes and overweight or obesity; the record lists BMI eligibility of 27.0 to 40.0 kg/m² and excludes established diabetes, among other criteria.

Study endpoints

Primary outcome measures are change from baseline in OGTT-derived insulin sensitivity (Matsuda Index) and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Secondary measures include change from baseline in HbA1c, fasting glucose, 2-hour plasma glucose during OGTT, and immunogenicity if applicable.

Limitations

This is a registry protocol, not a results report; no results are posted, and registration does not establish an outcome. The record concerns a specific investigational study product and protocol, not an EZpeps material. It is not evidence of identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 40131143).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited human component evidence; preliminary pilot study, not evidence for the BPC-157 plus TB-500 blend.

Study design

IRB-approved, single-site pilot study with pre/post clinical laboratory and vital-sign assessments and participant questioning about side effects; no comparator group.

Study population

Two adults at a private clinic in Florida: a 58-year-old Asian man and a 68-year-old Caucasian woman; both had prior BPC-157 exposure as described in the PubMed record.

Study endpoints

Study assessments included blood biomarkers relating to heart, liver, kidney, thyroid, and glucose; vital signs; and participant-reported side effects.

Limitations

Only two participants, no control group, prior participant exposure, and limited follow-up and outcome scope. It studied BPC-157 alone, not TB-500 or the combination, and cannot establish evidence for the blend.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT04555824).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered human component evidence without posted results; recombinant thymosin beta-4 registry evidence is not evidence for TB-500 identity or for the blend.

Study design

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-assignment, phase 1a interventional study in seven cohorts.

Study population

54 healthy Chinese adult volunteers, ages 18 to 50, studied in Beijing, China.

Study endpoints

The registered outcome measures included adverse events, pharmacokinetic parameters, and potential immunological reaction assessed by antibody formation.

Limitations

ClinicalTrials.gov displays no posted results, so the registry does not establish an outcome. The study concerned recombinant thymosin beta-4 (NL005), not TB-500 as a commercial or research-material designation, and did not study BPC-157 or the combination.

PubMed study record (PMID: 40131143).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Very limited human component evidence; not evidence for KLOW.

Study design

IRB-approved, two-participant pilot study with baseline and follow-up clinical measurements; no comparator and no randomization reported.

Study population

Two adults, one 58-year-old man and one 68-year-old woman, both reported as having prior exposure to BPC-157; conducted at a private clinic in Florida.

Study endpoints

Study objective and measured outcomes included vital signs, blood tests covering heart, liver, kidney, thyroid, and blood-glucose biomarkers, and participant-reported side effects.

Limitations

Very small uncontrolled pilot, prior participant exposure, private-clinic setting, and limited follow-up. It studied BPC-157 alone rather than KLOW, GHK-Cu, TB-500, or KPV, so it does not establish evidence for the blend or its other components.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT04555824).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered human component study with no posted results; not evidence for KLOW or TB-500 identity.

Study design

Completed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-assignment phase 1 interventional study; actual enrollment 54.

Study population

Healthy Chinese volunteers aged 18 to 50 years; all sexes eligible.

Study endpoints

Prespecified outcome measures included treatment-related adverse events assessed with CTCAE v4.03 and potential immunological reaction measured by antibody formation.

Limitations

The registry has no posted results, so registration does not establish any outcome. The study concerned a specified recombinant thymosin-beta-4 study product, not TB-500 or the KLOW blend; identity, quality, equivalence, or applicability to an EZpeps research material is not established.

PubMed study record (PMID: 10496658).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited component-level human evidence for ipamorelin; not evidence for the blend or for CJC-1295 No DAC.

Study design

Human clinical PK/PD trial in multiple exposure-level cohorts; PubMed classifies it as a clinical trial and randomized controlled trial.

Study population

Healthy adult male volunteers; eight participants were studied in each of five cohorts (40 participants total).

Study endpoints

Stated purpose and measures were ipamorelin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, including measured ipamorelin and growth-hormone concentrations and PK/PD model parameters.

Limitations

Studies ipamorelin alone, not the combination; healthy male volunteer population and PK/PD measures do not establish clinical outcomes. It does not identify, validate, or study an EZpeps material, CJC-1295 No DAC, blend composition, identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT00267527).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered human component-level study with no posted results; not evidence for the blend or specifically for CJC-1295 No DAC.

Study design

Terminated, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-assignment Phase 2 interventional study; enrollment listed as 120.

Study population

Adults aged 18–65 with HIV-associated visceral obesity; healthy volunteers were not eligible.

Study endpoints

The registry states study outcome domains of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability; no posted results are available.

Limitations

The record names CJC-1295 but does not establish the No-DAC form, and it does not study ipamorelin or the advertised blend. Termination and absence of posted results mean registration does not establish an outcome. It does not identify, validate, or establish identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 16847171).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Limited, older human component evidence for GHK-Cu; not evidence for the GLOW blend.

Study design

Randomized controlled study with blinded evaluator assessment and questionnaire-based follow-up.

Study population

Thirteen patients with circumoral CO2 laser-resurfaced skin completed the study; participants were randomized to post-procedure skin-care regimens with or without a copper tripeptide complex.

Study endpoints

Computer- and blinded-evaluator assessments of erythema; assessments of overall wrinkle improvement and overall skin appearance; and a validated questionnaire concerning skin quality.

Limitations

Small, older, single-study component evidence in a specific dermatologic setting. The studied material and context do not establish the composition, identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of the GLOW combination or an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 40131143).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Very limited human pilot evidence for BPC-157; not evidence for the GLOW blend.

Study design

IRB-approved pilot study with within-participant clinical and laboratory assessments.

Study population

Two adults participated: a 58-year-old Asian man and a 68-year-old Caucasian woman; both had prior exposure to the study peptide.

Study endpoints

Blood biomarkers involving the heart, liver, kidneys, thyroid, and blood glucose; vital signs; and participant-reported side effects.

Limitations

Only two participants, private-clinic setting, no comparator, and limited generalizability; the record is not evidence for the GLOW combination. It does not establish the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

PubMed study record (PMID: 37366315).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Robust human evidence from one peer-reviewed phase 2 randomized controlled trial; retatrutide remains investigational.

Study design

Phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Study population

338 adults with obesity, or with overweight plus at least one weight-related condition; participants were adults of both sexes.

Study endpoints

Prespecified endpoints included percentage change in body weight, categorical body-weight reduction thresholds, and safety assessment.

Limitations

Evidence comes from one phase 2 trial in a defined adult population and does not establish long-term findings, broader-population applicability, regulatory approval, or equivalence to another formulation. The study was funded by Eli Lilly. The clinical-trial material is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of an EZpeps research material.

ClinicalTrials.gov study record (NCT05882045).

Open the original third-party study record ↗

Evidence tier

Registered phase 3 human study record; no results posted, so the registry does not establish an outcome.

Study design

Completed, randomized, double-blind, parallel-assignment, placebo-controlled phase 3 interventional study.

Study population

1,946 enrolled adults with severe obesity and established cardiovascular disease; healthy volunteers were not accepted.

Study endpoints

Stated outcome measures included percent change in body weight; changes in body-mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin, physical-function score, and lipid measures; and a pharmacokinetic measure.

Limitations

This is a registry record rather than a posted-results report, and therefore cannot establish efficacy, safety, or any other outcome. Its population is limited to adults with severe obesity and established cardiovascular disease. The registry record does not establish regulatory approval or equivalence to an EZpeps research material; study material is not evidence of the identity, quality, equivalence, safety, suitability, or use of that material.