Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Endogenous neuropeptide hormone
A natural body signal involved in blood vessels, the gut, lungs, and immune function.
Evidence is explained by question. Dosing references show their own check dates.
60-second overview
Why people look into it, what studies found, and what is still unknown.
Educational information only. Evidence reviewed through July 31, 2026. Published studies, sponsor announcements, and trials without results are labeled separately. Evidence gaps apply to the specific finding beside them.
Research questions
Each label shows how much evidence supports that question.
What studies show
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 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.
Risks & unknowns
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 available information does not reliably show how often particular side effects occur.
Evidence boundaryUnder-detected or under-reported events must not be described as rare.
Relay has not verified which side effects led people to stop treatment in studies.
Evidence boundaryThis is an evidence gap, not proof that discontinuations did not occur.
Relay has not verified a compound-specific warning summary for this profile.
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.
This profile does not contain verified, product-specific emergency instructions.
Evidence boundaryRelay does not infer emergency guidance from study discontinuations, mechanism, or incomplete adverse-event reporting.
Dosing references
Each table labels its source and applies only to the named route, product, or study. An online example or community report is not an approved dose.
Amounts reported in a human study. A studied amount is not automatically an approved dose or a recommendation for an individual.
TESICO studied hospitalized adults with COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure.
| Treatment day | Total target over the 12-hour infusion |
|---|---|
| Day 1 | 600 pmol/kg |
| Day 2 | 1,200 pmol/kg |
| Day 3 | 1,800 pmol/kg |
These are total infusion targets, not hourly rates. The trial stopped for futility and did not significantly improve clinical outcomes. It does not establish outpatient, nasal, or wellness dosing.
Aviptadil · TESICO randomized critical-COVID trial Primary article · Methods / interventionThis reference checked Oct 20, 2026. The full-profile review date is shown at the top.This source does not establish a mixing volume or storage period for independently sourced powder. Use formulation-specific instructions; the study amount alone is not a reconstitution recipe.
Concentration = total mass ÷ final volume. The calculator performs user-entered math; it does not choose a dose or diluent.
Open concentration calculatorStarting dose: the amount used at the beginning of the named label schedule or trial.
Maintenance: the ongoing amount described by that product label.
Trial target: the amount assigned to a study group. Different groups may stop increasing at different targets.
A large randomized, blinded platform trial investigated intravenous aviptadil in adults hospitalized with critical COVID-19 and compared it with placebo.
Population: Adults hospitalized with critical COVID-19
Design: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled platform trial
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.
Research reference
A reference for the studies, populations, and routes behind this profile.
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.
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.
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