Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Endogenous neuropeptide hormone
VIP is an endogenous signaling peptide that relaxes smooth muscle and influences vascular, pulmonary, intestinal, and immune pathways.
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.
Vasoactive intestinal peptide, or VIP, is a signaling peptide made in the body. It affects smooth muscle, blood vessels, lung and intestinal function, and parts of the immune system.
Its broad physiology has led to route-specific programs in lung disease, critical illness, and erectile dysfunction. That breadth makes it especially important to separate the studied formulation, route, and co-treatments.
Large randomized research in critical COVID-19 did not show a clinically meaningful improvement for intravenous aviptadil. An earlier controlled study produced mixed endpoint findings. Older erectile-dysfunction research often combined VIP with another active drug, so it cannot isolate VIP's effect.
Whether a different route or narrowly defined indication can produce a favorable benefit-risk profile remains unresolved. Combination findings, acute physiology, and one disease setting cannot establish broad systemic benefit or product equivalence.
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 large randomized, blinded platform trial investigated intravenous aviptadil in adults hospitalized with critical COVID-19 and compared it with placebo.
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.
Controlled human evidence varies sharply by indication, route, and co-administered therapy.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
Whether a route-specific indication can produce a favorable benefit-risk profile and which effects belong to VIP alone versus a combination.
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: The study did not show a clinically meaningful improvement in its primary outcome. This critical-illness setting cannot answer inhaled, local, outpatient, wellness, or combination-use questions. 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.
Large randomized COVID-19 research did not establish benefit for intravenous aviptadil; smaller route- and indication-specific studies answer different questions.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Whether a route-specific indication can produce a favorable benefit-risk profile and which effects belong to VIP alone versus a combination.
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.
This is the strongest human-evidence boundary in the current record.
Mechanistic findings explain biological plausibility; they do not establish a human outcome.
Relay keeps this uncertainty visible rather than converting it into a prediction.
The safety snapshot reflects the studied record and its limitations.
Regulatory and identity status determine how the evidence should be interpreted.
Mechanisms
Aviptadil programs have studied inhaled, intravenous, and local routes. The TESICO randomized COVID-19 trial did not show the hoped-for clinical benefit, while older erectile-dysfunction studies often combined VIP with phentolamine.
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 double-blind placebo-controlled platform trial
Adults hospitalized with critical COVID-19
The randomized platform trial did not show a clinically meaningful improvement in the primary outcome for aviptadil.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Specific critical-COVID setting; does not answer other routes or indications.
Randomized placebo-controlled trial
Adults with critical COVID-19
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
An earlier controlled study generated mixed findings across endpoints.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Outcome interpretation and subsequent larger evidence limit broad positive claims.
Controlled combination study
Men with erectile dysfunction
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
Combination studies reported erectile responses, but the design does not isolate VIP monotherapy.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Combination evidence; cannot attribute outcome to VIP alone.
Safety snapshot
Current evidence cannot yet resolve: Whether a route-specific indication can produce a favorable benefit-risk profile and which effects belong to VIP alone versus a combination.
No direct evidenceAn absence of adequate evidence is not evidence of benefit, harm, or equivalence.
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.
No source-qualified compound-specific warning or contraindication is encoded in the current record.
Evidence boundaryInvestigational as aviptadil for systemic indications in the United States; no broadly FDA-approved VIP product. Whether a route-specific indication can produce a favorable benefit-risk profile and which effects belong to VIP alone versus a combination.
The current record does not identify a reliable compound-specific pattern of events that caused study discontinuation.
Evidence boundaryThis is an evidence gap, not proof that discontinuations did not occur.
No 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
PMID 37348524
PMID 36044317
PMID 17875241