DSIP: uses, evidence and status | Inside Your Peptides

compound file

The answer, first. A nonapeptide isolated from rabbit cerebral venous blood in 1977 and named for the delta-wave sleep it appeared to promote in animals. The strongest evidence is for alcohol and opiate withdrawal, graded C — small or open-label human only.

The largest report gave a single 25 nmol/kg intravenous dose to 107 inpatients and rated 97% of opiate and 87% of alcohol cases improved ⁷.

No control arm, staff-rated, 13 to 22% unevaluable. The other use — sleep in chronic insomnia — grades D or E: a claim the human trials have already tested and not supported.

What it is used for

Every use graded on its own evidence, not the compound as a whole. 4 outcomes, ranked by what the human record supports.

#outcome · human · animal · gradewhat the best evidence actually shows

01Alcohol and opiate withdrawal2 open series, 174 patients · mouse withdrawal modelsgrade CThe largest report gave a single 25 nmol/kg intravenous dose to 107 inpatients and rated 97% of opiate and 87% of alcohol cases improved ⁷. No control arm, staff-rated, 13 to 22% unevaluable.

02Chronic pain episodesone pilot, n=7 · opioid interaction studiesgrade CA 1984 pilot treated 7 patients with migraine, vasomotor headache, tinnitus or psychogenic pain and compared them against their own baseline ⁸. Seven patients, no control group, no blinding.

03Blunting the ACTH stress responseone crossover, n=11 · cortisol rhythm studiesgrade CIn 11 healthy men, a single 25 nmol/kg intravenous dose lowered plasma ACTH immunoreactivity for at least 3 hours versus saline in a double-blind crossover ¹⁰. Cortisol did not change.

04Sleep in chronic insomnia2 blinded trials, both negative · rabbit and cat sleep studiesgrade EBoth blinded trials read negative. A 1992 double-blind study in 16 chronic insomniacs found the sleep-efficiency gain weak and partly an artefact of the placebo group ¹. A crossover trial agreed ².

gradewhat it means

ARegulatory approval, or multiple adequately-powered trials agreeing with each other

BAt least one well-powered human randomised trial, with the direction replicated

CSmall or open-label human trials only

DAnimal or mechanism data only, with no controlled human outcome

EA claim the human trials have already killed

How it works

The proposed mechanism, in three steps. A mechanism is a reason to run a trial, never a substitute for one.

1targetNo receptor, gene or protein for DSIP has ever been isolated. The molecule matches no known peptide family ⁹.

2signalProposed opioid-receptor agonism sits behind the withdrawal work, on the ground that naloxone reversed the animal effect ⁶¹¹.

3effectIn rabbits, 25 mcg/kg intravenously augmented light non-REM sleep ¹¹. In cats the same dose preferentially augmented REM sleep ¹¹.

What it does not do

Claims the current record does not support. Worth knowing before you set expectations.

not supported by the evidence

DSIP is the body's sleep switch. The peptide was named before its role was shown. A 2006 review calls the sleep-factor hypothesis extremely poorly documented and still weak ⁹.
Subcutaneous dosing reproduces the trial results. Every published human study dosed intravenously, most at 25 nmol/kg ¹²⁴. No trial has tested a subcutaneous dose in a human.
It deepens slow-wave sleep. The crossover trial found stage 2 rose while slow-wave sleep did not move, and the same gap was present at baseline ².

How it is used

What published protocols administered, and what the community reports doing. Descriptive on both counts, and never a recommendation.

routeIntravenous by slow injection in every published human trial. The research market sells it for subcutaneous use.

formatLyophilised powder for reconstitution on the research market.

published dosesHuman trials used 25 nmol/kg by slow intravenous injection, single or on three to four consecutive occasions ¹²⁴¹⁰. One sleep-laboratory protocol gave 30 nmol/kg six times across a week ³. No oral or subcutaneous protocol has been published.

human pharmacokineticsNo human pharmacokinetic data published.

reported conventionsAs reported on peptide forums, 2018 to 2026: subcutaneous doses in the low hundreds of micrograms, taken in the evening. Often for a few nights at a time rather than continuously. The route differs from every published trial. Convention, not guidance.

commonly paired withEpithalon

This site does not publish protocols to follow. The doses above are what studies administered or what users report, stated as facts about the literature and the market. How protocols are structured, mixing and storage and the reconstitution calculator cover the arithmetic.

What to expect

Where a trial measured it, the trial. Where only the community reports it, that is said out loud.

onsetThe 1981 trial saw sleep effects only in the second hour after injection, with a slight arousing effect in the first, in 6 insomniacs ⁴. The blinded trials found no meaningful benefit at any point ¹².

most common reportAs reported: nothing, or a vague sedation users cannot separate from expectation.

adverse effectsThe 1981 study reported no daytime sedation and no other side effects in 6 subjects ⁴. No trial is large enough to estimate adverse-event rates. As reported: injection-site reactions and next-day grogginess.

the stop signalNo published stop criterion. As reported: users abandon it within a week or two when nothing changes, which is the most common report in this file.

Approval and status

What regulators and sport bodies have actually said, separately from what the evidence shows.

approvalNever approved as a medicine in any country.

FDANo FDA approval and no US drug product. Sold as a research chemical.

sport [WADA]Not named on the Prohibited List. The S0 catch-all covers unapproved substances.

sold asresearch chemical

Check the vial

The grade above describes a molecule studied under controlled conditions. It says nothing about the powder in a particular vial.

That gap is the one part of this market a reader can actually close. How to read a certificate of analysis covers the five measures in five minutes, and the 2026 audit grades vendors on the documents they publish against a rubric printed in full.

Questions we get

What is DSIP used for?

It is bought for sleep, which is the one use the blinded trials tested and did not support ¹². The stronger human signal is elsewhere and rarely mentioned.

Two uncontrolled 1980s series used it for acute alcohol and opiate withdrawal in 174 inpatients ⁶⁷. A double-blind crossover in 11 healthy men lowered plasma ACTH for at least 3 hours ¹⁰.

How is DSIP used?

Descriptively, and the gap here matters. Every published human study gave it intravenously by slow injection, almost all at 25 nmol/kg, single or over three to four consecutive occasions ¹²⁴¹⁰.

One protocol used 30 nmol/kg six times in a week ³. The research market sells it for subcutaneous injection. No trial has tested that route.

How long does DSIP take to work?

The 1981 study in 6 insomniacs saw sleep effects only in the second hour after injection, with a slight arousing effect in the first ⁴. That is the most specific timing published.

Both blinded trials concluded the change was not clinically meaningful, so there is no reliable effect for which an onset time would mean anything ¹².

Is DSIP an approved drug?

No. It has never been approved as a medicine anywhere and is sold as a research chemical. It is also unusual among peptides in having no identified receptor, gene or protein after five decades of work.

A 2006 review in the Journal of Neurochemistry states that directly ⁹. On our index it is graded thin human on clinical evidence and moderate on community adoption.

How do I know what is actually in a vial of DSIP?

You do not, unless a certificate of analysis for that specific lot says so. A certificate worth trusting covers five measures: identity, purity, measured net content, endotoxin and a microbial screen.

It names the lab that ran them and carries an accession number you can verify with that lab. Most certificates on this market cover one to three of the five. Purity alone is one number, not a quality programme.

References

Bes F, Hofman W, Schuur J, et al. Effects of delta sleep-inducing peptide on sleep of chronic insomniac patients. A double-blind study. Neuropsychobiology. 1992. PMID 1299794
Monti JM, Debellis J, Alterwain P, et al. Study of delta sleep-inducing peptide efficacy in improving sleep on short-term administration to chronic insomniacs. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1987. PMID 3583493
Schneider-Helmert D. Efficacy of DSIP to normalize sleep in middle-aged and elderly chronic insomniacs. Eur Neurol. 1986. PMID 3792404
Schneider-Helmert D, Schoenenberger GA. The influence of synthetic DSIP, delta-sleep-inducing-peptide, on disturbed human sleep. Experientia. 1981. PMID 7028502
Kaeser HE. A clinical trial with DSIP. Eur Neurol. 1984. PMID 6391926
Dick P, Grandjean ME, Tissot R. Successful treatment of withdrawal symptoms with delta sleep-inducing peptide, a neuropeptide with potential agonistic activity on opiate receptors. Neuropsychobiology. 1983. PMID 6328354
Dick P, Costa C, Fayolle K, et al. DSIP in the treatment of withdrawal syndromes from alcohol and opiates. Eur Neurol. 1984. PMID 6548969
Larbig W, Gerber WD, Kluck M, et al. Therapeutic effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide, DSIP, in patients with chronic, pronounced pain episodes. A clinical pilot study. Eur Neurol. 1984. PMID 6548970
Kovalzon VM, Strekalova TV. Delta sleep-inducing peptide, DSIP: a still unresolved riddle. J Neurochem. 2006. PMID 16539679
Bjartell A, Ekman R, Hedner P, et al. Reduction of immunoreactive ACTH in plasma following intravenous injection of delta sleep-inducing peptide in man. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1989. PMID 2554357
Scherschlicht R, Marias J, Polc P, et al. Some pharmacological effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide, DSIP. Eur Neurol. 1984. PMID 6548967

Inside Your Peptides is published by the owners of the next lab, a vendor graded elsewhere on this site. We sell nothing here, and this page carries no vendor link. Grades follow the published criteria in our editorial policy — never referral terms. Research and education only. Not medical advice.