Reply to Sikiric et al. BPC 157 Therapy: Targeting Angiogenesis and Nitric Oxide's Cytotoxic and Damaging Actions, but Maintaining, Promoting, or Recovering Their Essential Protective Functions. Comment on "Józwiak et al. Multifunctionality and Possible Medical Application of the BPC 157 Peptide-Literature and Patent Review. <i>Pharmaceuticals</i> 2025, <i>18</i>, 185".

This paper is a published correspondence ("Reply") in the journal Pharmaceuticals, in which the original authors of a literature and patent review on the BPC 157 peptide respond to a commentary submitted by Sikiric et al. The reply addresses points raised in the comment regarding BPC 157's proposed mechanisms of action, specifically its purported roles in modulating angiogenesis and nitric oxide (NO) pathways. The responders engage with the argument that BPC 157 may selectively target the cytotoxic and damaging aspects of NO signaling while preserving or restoring its essential protective physiological functions. As a correspondence piece reacting to a comment on a review article, this paper does not present new experimental data, clinical trials, or original preclinical findings. Its contribution is interpretive and editorial in nature, clarifying the scope and conclusions of the original review in light of the mechanistic claims put forth by the commentators. Limitations include the absence of any new empirical evidence; all mechanistic claims discussed are derived from previously published literature cited by both parties.

Why this grade: This is a published letter/reply correspondence with no original experimental data, human or animal, making it insufficient as standalone evidence for any efficacy claim.