Injectable peptides: the new anti-ageing beauty trend

Injectable peptides have become the latest anti-ageing craze in the beauty sector.

Across social media, these compounds are presented as ways to repair skin, boost collagen production and deliver "cellular rejuvenation". Although many peptides are not regulated in Australia, they can readily be bought online from overseas suppliers.

But what do these products contain, and are they safe?

Earlier this year, three people in the United States received fines of thousands of dollars over their involvement in administering peptide injections to two women at an anti-ageing festival in Las Vegas. The women later became critically unwell.

The pharmacy board could not establish what caused their illness or identify exactly what the injected serums contained.

Our work with colleagues at Steroid QNECT – a confidential advice helpline for people using enhancement drugs – indicates that people in Australia are already injecting peptides.

However, regulation has not kept pace. There are also significant evidence gaps around whether the anti-ageing claims made for peptides are justified, and whether they are safe in humans.

What are injectable peptides, and why are they popular?

Peptides are brief strings of amino acids, the compounds that form proteins. They function as chemical signals within the body and are involved in numerous processes, including skin repair and reducing inflammation.

The body produces peptides naturally. Synthetic peptides are made to copy or strengthen these natural effects.

Some peptides have established medical roles. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) medicines, including semaglutide, are approved for diabetes and weight management, and are sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. Their approval is supported by robust clinical trial evidence showing they work.

Yet an increasing range of peptides is being promoted for cosmetic and anti-ageing uses without approval from Australia’s therapeutic goods regulator.

Products containing peptides including GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 are sold online with claims that they increase collagen production, speed up skin repair, lessen wrinkles and even reverse elements of biological ageing.

Are injectable peptides legal in Australia?

At present, injectable peptides that are regulated are classified as prescription-only medicines. They should therefore be obtained only through a suitably qualified health professional and for a legitimate medical purpose.

Australian regulators have already fined businesses for unlawfully advertising weight-loss injections directly to consumers.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) classifies certain other synthetic peptides that are not approved for human use, including BPC-157, as Schedule 4 poisons.

Many products sold online attempt to sidestep this by being marketed as "research chemicals" and labelled "not for human consumption".

In reality, however, they are packaged, dosed and advertised in ways that plainly anticipate people using them. Online vendors generally conduct little age or identity checking, while advertising fast delivery and high purity, for instance, "99%+ tested".

This has created a parallel market beyond clinical supervision and regulatory protections. Although importing or possessing prescription-only peptides without authorisation may result in fines or other legal sanctions, enforcement is difficult in global digital marketplaces.

Meanwhile, injections seem to be less stigmatised, especially across the cosmetic and wellness sectors. Most cosmetic injectables, including anti-wrinkle treatments and dermal fillers, also contain prescription-only substances. Nevertheless, many clinics provide injections with limited oversight from prescribing doctors.

This wider "injectable culture", alongside rising steroid use, may be reducing the barriers to more experimental activities, including peptide use.

What does the evidence actually show?

High-quality evidence in humans remains scarce for many peptides marketed for anti-ageing and skin health.

The assertions that peptides such as GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 can regenerate and repair tissue or reduce inflammation largely stem from a small number of laboratory studies in cells or animals, rather than people.

There is, for instance, limited evidence that GHK-Cu may contribute to collagen production and wound healing in mice. These results have not, however, been verified in humans.

Likewise, some studies indicate BPC-157 may encourage new blood cell growth, ease inflammation and support tissue healing in rats.

Evidence in humans is exceptionally sparse. Just three small studies have assessed BPC-157, and they were poorly designed and did not include a control group against which reported outcomes, such as reduced knee pain, could be compared. There are no large clinical trials. Its effectiveness and safety in humans are therefore still unclear.

A consistent pattern can be seen:

• the evidence is largely confined to animal research
• where human studies are available, they are small and short in duration
• no high-quality trials reflect real-world use, including combinations of products, higher doses or long-term use.

At present, there is not enough high-quality evidence to support the numerous anti-ageing claims made about peptides.

Injectable peptides also carry risks

The first concern is uncertain product quality. Unregulated peptides can be incorrectly labelled, contaminated or supplied at the wrong dose. Similar problems have already been recorded in related markets, such as counterfeit steroids.

There are also biological concerns. Peptides that affect growth, repair or hormonal pathways could trigger unintended effects. In theory, this may include encouraging the growth of existing tumours or interfering with normal endocrine function. This cancer risk is heightened by the substantial presence of heavy metals in illicit enhancement-drug markets.

Injection itself presents additional hazards, including infection, abscesses and tissue injury, particularly if products are self-administered without sterile procedures.

At Steroid QNECT, we are already hearing from people seeking advice after taking peptides purchased online. They are often uncertain about what they have used, the dose they received or what effects to anticipate.

In some instances, the amounts used are well above anything examined in clinical trials.

What needs to change?

Peptide supply and marketing require clearer and more consistent regulation. Given the international and digital nature of peptide supply chains, though, regulation alone is unlikely to be sufficient.

A more useful approach would also provide clear, accessible public health information about the possible benefits and risks of peptide use.

Crucially, responses must acknowledge the reality that people are already using these substances.

Timothy Piatkowski, Senior Research Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland; Bahareh Ahmadinejad, PhD Candidate in Public Health, The University of Queensland; and Samuel Cornell, Honorary Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland; UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.