Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend sweeping the beauty industry

Injectable peptides have become a fashionable new anti-ageing fix in the beauty world.

Online and across social media, these compounds are touted as aids for skin repair, collagen production and "cellular rejuvenation". Many can be purchased on the internet from overseas suppliers, even though a range of peptides remain unregulated in Australia.

So what are you actually getting - and is it safe?

Concerns are not hypothetical. Earlier this year, three people in the United States were fined thousands of US dollars for their involvement in administering peptide injections at an anti-ageing festival in Las Vegas to two women who later became critically unwell.

The pharmacy board could not identify what made the women ill, nor determine exactly what the serums contained.

Through our work with colleagues at Steroid QNECT - a hotline offering confidential advice to people using enhancement drugs - we know peptides are already being injected in Australia.

Regulation, however, is struggling to keep pace. Large gaps also remain in the evidence: whether the anti-ageing promises made for peptides stand up, and whether these substances are safe in humans.

What are injectable peptides, and why are they trending?

Peptides are short chains of amino acids - the components that make up proteins. In the body, they act as chemical messengers and are involved in many biological functions, including supporting skin repair and reducing inflammation.

Your body produces peptides naturally. Synthetic versions are made to replicate - or amplify - these natural effects.

Some peptides have well-established medical roles. For instance, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) medicines such as semaglutide are approved for diabetes and weight management, and are sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. This approval is supported by strong clinical trial evidence showing they work.

At the same time, more and more peptides are being promoted for cosmetic and anti-ageing use, despite lacking approval from Australia’s therapeutic goods regulator.

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

Are these products legal in Australia?

In Australia, injectable peptides that are regulated generally sit within prescription-only medicine categories. In practical terms, this means access should be through a qualified health professional, and only for a legitimate medical reason.

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

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) also lists additional synthetic peptides that are not approved for human use - including BPC-157 - as Schedule 4 poisons.

To sidestep this, many online products are marketed as "research chemicals" and carry the disclaimer "not for human consumption".

In reality, these items are often presented, measured and promoted in ways that clearly assume human use. Online sellers commonly ask for very little proof of age or identity, while advertising fast delivery and high purity (for example, "99%+ tested").

The result is a shadow market operating without clinical supervision or the safeguards that regulation is meant to provide. Although importing or possessing prescription-only peptides without proper authority can attract fines or other legal consequences, policing a global, online marketplace is difficult.

Meanwhile, injecting appears to be becoming more normalised, particularly within cosmetics and wellness. Many cosmetic injectables - including anti-wrinkle injections and dermal fillers - also use prescription-only substances. Yet numerous clinics provide injections with minimal oversight by prescribing doctors.

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

What does the evidence actually say?

For many peptides marketed for anti-ageing and skin health, robust evidence in humans is still scarce.

Much of the promotion around peptides such as GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 - including claims about tissue regeneration, repair and inflammation reduction - rests on a small number of laboratory studies conducted in cells or animals, rather than in people.

For instance, there is limited evidence suggesting GHK-Cu might contribute to collagen production and wound healing in mice. However, these results have not been confirmed in humans.

In the same way, some studies indicate BPC-157 can encourage new blood cell growth, reduce inflammation and assist tissue healing in rats.

But the human evidence is extremely thin. Only three small studies have examined BPC-157, and they were poorly designed and did not include a control group to compare the reported effects (such as improvements in knee pain). No large clinical trials exist, leaving both safety and effectiveness in humans unclear.

A consistent pattern emerges:

• the evidence largely comes from animal studies
• where human studies exist, they tend to be small and short-term
• there are no high-quality trials that reflect real-world use, including combinations, higher doses or long-term administration.

On current evidence, there is not enough high-quality research to justify the many anti-ageing claims being made about peptides.

And there are risks

First, product quality is uncertain. Unregulated peptides may be mislabelled, contaminated or dosed incorrectly - issues already documented in related markets such as counterfeit steroids.

Second, there are biological hazards. Peptides that affect growth, repair or hormonal pathways may also trigger unwanted effects. In theory, this could mean encouraging the growth of existing tumours or interfering with normal endocrine function. This cancer risk is amplified by the high presence of heavy metals in illicit enhancement drug markets.

Third, injections themselves carry risks, including infections, abscesses and tissue injury - especially when people self-inject without sterile technique.

At Steroid QNECT, we are already hearing from people asking for advice after using peptides purchased online - often unsure what they have taken, how much they have used or what effects to expect.

In some instances, the amounts people use are far higher than anything studied in clinical trials.

What needs to change?

Regulation of peptide supply and marketing needs to be clearer and more consistent. But on its own, that is unlikely to solve the problem given the global, digital nature of peptide supply chains.

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

Crucially, any response must deal with 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.