Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Experimental sleep-associated nonapeptide
DSIP is a nine-amino-acid peptide researched for sleep and later promoted for recovery, stress, pain, and withdrawal. Its name overstates the certainty: old human insomnia studies were tiny and inconsistent, and no subcutaneous effectiveness or safety evidence was located.
60-Second Overview
Start with what it is, why it matters, what research has shown, and what remains unknown. The science follows after the orientation.
Start here. These four answers explain why the compound matters before the page introduces the deeper science.
DSIP, also called emideltide, is a nine-amino-acid peptide discovered during sleep research. Its name—delta sleep-inducing peptide—describes that history, not a proven sleep effect.
Older researchers tested whether it could change sleep, stress, anesthesia, pain, or withdrawal. The sleep question matters most because the name can make uncertain evidence sound settled.
Small controlled insomnia studies were inconsistent. A 16-person blinded trial found no significant objective or subjective sleep-quality advantage, and a six-person crossover study also found no significant benefit. Some similarly small or less controlled reports described sleep signals. Later withdrawal reports lacked controls.
Whether any exact formulation or route provides reproducible meaningful benefit remains unresolved. Human pharmacokinetics, product-form differences, interactions, cardiovascular effects, immunogenicity, rare harms, misuse potential, and long-term safety are not adequately established.
The research depth, routes, studies, and primary sources below explain how Relay knows—and where the evidence stops.
Research context
Published research has investigated this compound using the following study designs.
These records explain what researchers did. They are not instructions, recommendations, or a transferable protocol.
A double-blind controlled study investigated historical intravenous emideltide in adults with chronic insomnia, comparing it with placebo across consecutive sleep-laboratory nights.
Reported study administration—not a recommendation.
Research at a glance
Evidence depth, confidence, and route context explain how Relay knows—not what anyone should do.
Several human reports exist, but most are tiny, old, short, and methodologically limited.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
Controlled findings conflict, and no modern route-specific development program exists.
Confidence describes how reliable and consistent the conclusions are. It can be high for one outcome and low for another.
The strongest evidence type shows what the best-supported conclusions are actually based on.
Human findings are more directly relevant than animal or laboratory results, but they still apply only to the populations and outcomes studied.
Route-specific record
These are exposures used in cited research for a specific route and population—not an instruction for an individual.
Half-life describes how long it takes the measured amount in the body to fall by half. It is not a dosing recommendation.
Evidence can change by administration method. Findings from one route should not automatically be applied to another.
Evidence boundary: Only sixteen participants were enrolled, and the study found no significant objective or subjective sleep-quality advantage. Historical intravenous material does not establish effects or safety for subcutaneous, intranasal, oral, or modern commercial products. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
Detailed evidence
Start with the strongest supported conclusion and its main uncertainty. Claim-level records below show how the evidence changes by question, population, route, formulation, and study design.
A sixteen-person double-blind placebo-controlled insomnia study found no significant objective or subjective sleep-quality advantage, while a separate six-person randomized crossover study also found no significant benefit versus placebo. Positive reports were similarly small and methodologically weaker.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Whether any formulation or route produces reproducible clinically meaningful sleep benefit, and what identity-specific pharmacokinetics, interactions, immunogenicity, abuse potential, cardiovascular effects, rare harms, and long-term safety look like.
Keeping the main uncertainty visible prevents an early or promising finding from looking more settled than it is.
Questions people bring to the evidence
Research questions—not promises of benefit.
The name delta sleep-inducing peptide describes its historical discovery story, not a guaranteed clinical effect.
FDA found inconsistent naming, certificates of analysis, and marketed-product descriptions across the record.
Small positive reports conflict with two double-blind placebo-controlled studies that found no significant or clinically meaningful advantage.
One controlled study increased stage-2 sleep without changing slow-wave sleep, and another found no significant objective sleep advantage.
The positive signal came from comparison with baseline and external healthy controls.
FDA located IV research but no data for the nominated subcutaneous route.
The larger historical report lacked controls and standardized assessments; the seven-person follow-up had poor completion and recurrent symptoms.
Preclinical work suggests indirect endorphin release rather than direct receptor binding.
During isoflurane anesthesia, DSIP reduced delta rhythm and appeared to lighten anesthetic depth at one dose.
FDA summarized 209 IV-exposed participants, with sparse reporting and no subcutaneous safety dataset.
FDA found three serious adverse-effect reports in the 107-person withdrawal study, including progressive hypotension after a second exposure.
The reported vote was six in favor, seven against, and one abstention.
The concerns include inconsistent identity, peptide-related impurities, aggregation, endotoxin characterization, and absent safety information for proposed routes.
Historical IV experiments and vendor directions are not approved consumer protocols.
Those promoted goals are not supported by controlled human outcome programs in the traceable record.
Mechanisms
Emideltide (Trp-Ala-Gly-Gly-Asp-Ala-Ser-Gly-Glu) is a rapidly degraded nonapeptide historically studied by intravenous exposure. Controlled insomnia studies produced conflicting or negative polysomnographic findings, uncontrolled withdrawal reports were methodologically weak, and a small anesthesia study paradoxically reduced EEG delta activity. FDA's 2026 review found insufficient evidence for chronic insomnia, narcolepsy, or opioid withdrawal and no data supporting the nominated subcutaneous route.
A plausible mechanism can explain why a study was attempted. It does not prove that the compound improves a human outcome.
Studies
Study arms are reported for transparency. They describe what researchers did in a defined record and do not transfer across identities, routes, formulations, or populations.
A later trial phase can ask a more mature question, but it does not guarantee a positive result, regulatory approval, or relevance outside the studied population.
Randomized controlled perioperative pharmacodynamic study
Twenty-four female ASA I-II surgical patients; 12 saline controls and 12 allocated across three DSIP dose groups
DSIP increased heart rate, reduced heart-rate variability and delta rhythm, and appeared to lighten rather than deepen isoflurane anesthesia at one tested dose.
Study administration: Intravenous DSIP or saline before and during anesthesia
Limitations: Small dose groups, perioperative setting, surrogate endpoints, and no relevance to chronic insomnia efficacy or routine repeated use.
Double-blind parallel placebo-controlled sleep-laboratory study
Sixteen adults with chronic insomnia; eight received emideltide and eight placebo
There was no significant between-group difference in objective sleep measures or subjective sleep quality; the authors described at most weak effects.
Study administration: Historical intravenous emideltide versus glucose placebo
Limitations: Small group sizes, short exposure, baseline-night effects, and an unstable placebo sleep-latency value limit precision, but this is one of the clearest controlled negative findings.
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover polysomnography study
Six adults with severe chronic insomnia
Small numerical changes favored emideltide, but none differed significantly from baseline or placebo, and subjective sleep quality did not improve significantly.
Study administration: Historical intravenous emideltide or placebo across four randomized nights
Limitations: Only six participants and short follow-up; the study cannot exclude a small effect, but it did not demonstrate clinically meaningful benefit.
Randomized double-blind within-subject placebo-controlled crossover sleep-laboratory study
Six middle-aged adults with chronic insomnia and unstable sleep
The authors described fewer interruptions and tendencies toward better sleep efficiency after emideltide, but no clear sleep-onset effect or significant daytime difference.
Study administration: Historical intravenous emideltide or placebo immediately before bedtime; study exposure is not dosing guidance
Limitations: Only six participants, sequential within-person nights, possible delayed carryover, incomplete numerical reporting, and uncertain clinical significance.
First-in-human randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover pharmacodynamic pilot
Six otherwise healthy middle-aged adults
Five participants reported immediate sleep pressure, acute observed sleep time increased, and delayed next-night sleep changes were reported without mood or concentration differences.
Study administration: Historical daytime intravenous emideltide or placebo
Limitations: Tiny healthy-volunteer pilot, multiple endpoints, unclear generalizability, and no evidence of treatment benefit for chronic insomnia or other sleep disorders.
Seven-person open-label opioid-detoxification study
Seven adults with acute opioid withdrawal
Withdrawal scores fell after the first exposure, but only two participants completed the scheduled protocol and recurrence was generally not suppressed after later exposures.
Study administration: Historical scheduled intravenous emideltide exposure
Limitations: Extremely small, uncontrolled, unblinded report with incomplete protocol completion and concomitant doxepin in the two completers.
Repeated-exposure sleep-laboratory study with baseline and external healthy controls
Fourteen middle-aged adults with chronic insomnia
The report described improved sleep induction, maintenance, and daytime performance versus baseline.
Study administration: Historical intravenous emideltide across seven nights; study exposure is not dosing guidance
Limitations: Despite being described as placebo-controlled, FDA found no concurrent placebo arm. The small externally controlled design is vulnerable to baseline change, confounding, and overinterpretation.
Uncontrolled open-label inpatient withdrawal report
107 adults with alcohol or opioid withdrawal, including 60 with opioid use
The authors reported improvement in many opioid-withdrawal signs among assessed participants, but anxiety and marked insomnia often recurred after discontinuation.
Study administration: Historical repeated intravenous emideltide on request or at fixed intervals
Limitations: No control group or blinding, ill-defined assessment population, nonstandard outcomes, flexible exposure, incomplete follow-up, and no basis for maintenance-treatment conclusions.
Safety snapshot
The human safety record is too small and route-specific to establish repeated-use safety.
Other human evidenceSmall short studies cannot exclude rare, delayed, immune, interaction, cardiovascular, or dependence-related harms.
Open sourceThe current record does not support a reliable common-versus-uncommon frequency split.
Evidence boundaryUnder-detected or under-reported events must not be described as rare.
FDA identifies important compounded-DSIP product-quality and immunogenicity concerns.
No direct evidenceThis is a product-quality and safety-information boundary; it does not prove every product is contaminated or quantify event rates.
Open sourceThe authors reported improvement in many opioid-withdrawal signs among assessed participants, but anxiety and marked insomnia often recurred after discontinuation.
Other human evidenceStudy discontinuation describes what happened under a study protocol; it is not an emergency-action threshold.
Open sourceNo compound-specific patient-facing urgent-action threshold is established in the current Relay record.
Evidence boundaryRelay does not infer emergency guidance from study discontinuations, mechanism, or incomplete adverse-event reporting.
Community
Built by the community
Every structured report adds useful context about research setup, outcomes, and unwanted effects as the community dataset grows.
Publicly anonymous by default. Your account keeps reports editable and helps reduce duplicate submissions.Sources
2026-07-31
2026-07-24
2026-07-24
2026-05-11
2009-02-01 · PMID 19142086 · DOI 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32831c8644
1998-06-01 · PMID 9617990 · DOI 10.1097/00004714-199806000-00016
1992-01-01 · PMID 1299794
1987-01-01 · PMID 3583493
1987-01-01 · PMID 3622582
1984-01-01 · PMID 6548969
1981-01-01 · PMID 7028502 · DOI 10.1007/BF01971753
1981-01-01 · PMID 6895513