Several human reports exist, but most are tiny, old, short, and methodologically limited.
Why this matters
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
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.
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.Research at a glance
Depth and confidence summarize the research record—not effectiveness, safety, or a recommendation.
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 a suggested amount.
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: Old IV exposure does not establish a current clinical protocol. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
Practical starting point
Common goals and questions—not recommendations or promises of benefit.
The overview, studies, and source ledger below explain what supports each label—and where the evidence stops.
What the evidence says
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.
The evidence story
Importance shows how much an item changes the evidence story. Quality shows how much confidence the design deserves. A strong negative study can score highly on both.
Importance and quality answer different questions. A rigorous study can be highly important even when it challenges a popular claim.
FDA reviewed the historical insomnia and withdrawal record, found the effectiveness evidence inconclusive, and found no evidence supporting the nominated subcutaneous route.
DSIP increased heart rate, reduced heart-rate variability and delta rhythm, and appeared to lighten rather than deepen isoflurane anesthesia at one tested dose.
Withdrawal scores fell after the first exposure, but only two participants completed the scheduled protocol and recurrence was generally not suppressed after later exposures.
There was no significant between-group difference in objective sleep measures or subjective sleep quality; the authors described at most weak effects.
Small numerical changes favored emideltide, but none differed significantly from baseline or placebo, and subjective sleep quality did not improve significantly.
Administration and handling
The traceable human literature primarily used intravenous research exposure, often in sleep laboratories or inpatient withdrawal settings. FDA found no effectiveness, pharmacokinetic, or safety evidence for the nominated subcutaneous route. Historical amounts and schedules must not be converted into a personal protocol, and IV findings do not establish intranasal or subcutaneous use.
There is no FDA-approved DSIP label, consumer reconstitution method, or official storage instruction. FDA found inconsistent naming and characterization across emideltide free base, acetate, nominations, certificates of analysis, and marketed products. Peptide impurities, aggregation, endotoxin control, and route-specific immunogenicity remain important unresolved concerns.
Primary-source ledger
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