Skip to content
DE

AviptadilVasoactive intestinal peptide analogue

Aviptadil is a synthetic form of vasoactive intestinal peptide. A large controlled trial in COVID-19 respiratory failure did not demonstrate the hoped-for clinical benefit, despite a plausible biological rationale.

What is Aviptadil?

Aviptadil reproduces vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP). It has been investigated in several clinical settings, including severe inflammatory lung injury.

How it works

VIP influences blood vessels, smooth muscle and immune signalling. Those multiple actions provide research hypotheses rather than proof of lung protection.

Effects studied

COVID-19 respiratory failure

TESICO analysed 461 treated adults with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Intravenous aviptadil did not significantly improve the 90-day primary clinical outcome, and the trial stopped for futility. 1

Evidence: Controlled clinical evidence that did not support the proposed benefit in this setting.

What does the evidence show?

Randomised TESICO trial abstract checked

A molecule with several actions

Vasoactive intestinal peptide influences blood vessels, smooth muscle and immune signalling. Aviptadil reproduces this peptide. Its wide-ranging biology prompted research in several settings, including the idea that it might protect the lungs during severe inflammatory injury.

The test in respiratory failure

TESICO compared intravenous aviptadil with placebo in adults with COVID-19 hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The main analysis included 461 participants who received treatment. The study did not find a statistically significant improvement in its 90-day clinical outcome and was stopped for futility. 1

What the controlled trial tells us

Cellular mechanisms and small early reports can justify a trial. A larger controlled result then helps determine whether the proposed benefit appears in patients. In this case, the trial did not support the hoped-for benefit in the studied setting. This provides evidence against the proposed benefit in that setting, beyond the uncertainty left by the early reports.

Route and indication remain important

Intravenous exposure in critically ill patients is different from local administration or a combination product used for another condition. Blood-pressure effects and tolerability also depend on context. Each clinical programme needs to be assessed separately. The TESICO result does not support describing aviptadil as a general lung-repair or anti-inflammatory peptide.

Safety & status

Blood-pressure effects and tolerability depend on route and patient condition. Intravenous exposure in critically ill people cannot define the safety of a different local or combination preparation.

Country and product status

Country-specific product availability and authorisation require a separate current check.

Frequently asked questions

Did TESICO demonstrate improved recovery?

No. The trial did not find a statistically significant improvement in its primary 90-day outcome. 1

Does that result settle every possible use of aviptadil?

No. It answers a specific intravenous respiratory-failure question; other indications and routes need their own evidence.

Sources

This entry was rewritten from our research archive. References below are reading leads unless a completed check is explicitly noted; a full independent evidence and regulatory review is still pending.

  1. Brown et al. · TESICO aviptadil trial Primary trial abstract · Primary trial abstract checked 27 October 2026; full paper and supplementary data not independently reviewed.
  2. Aviptadil · retained archive reference Archive research lead · Retained archive reference; not independently checked for this draft
  3. Aviptadil · retained archive reference Archive research lead · Retained archive reference; not independently checked for this draft
Research provenance

This name was discovered in the Superpower peptide index, archived 26 October 2026. Its ratings and reviewer attribution have not been adopted as our own. The archive informed this original editorial draft; independent source review is still pending.