Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Metabolic & endocrine

Vasopressin

The body's own antidiuretic nonapeptide, used intravenously in intensive care to support blood pressure in vasodilatory shock.

L5Repeated human trialsApproved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · FDA (US)Approved
How settled this rating is:
high confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Intravenous
Also known as:
antidiuretic hormone, ADH, arginine vasopressin, Vasostrict
Last reviewed:
2026-08-23
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Vasopressin

A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.

Reviewed 2026-08-23
Evidence level
L5Repeated human trials
Confidence
High confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Approved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · See jurisdiction details
Development status
Approved

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence80 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Human safety evidence75 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.

Evidence base
Includes human studies
Furthest established stage
Approved
Human research maturity
Approved critical-care medicine
Source curation
Source curation pending

Routes recorded

IV

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength80 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength75 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength75 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Approved critical-care medicine

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

IV

The approved context is intravenous infusion in intensive care; there is no approved non-parenteral product for systemic use.

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

Approved

What it is

An endogenous nine-amino-acid hormone that constricts blood vessels via V1a receptors and promotes water retention via V2 receptors; synthetic vasopressin is given intravenously in shock states.

What people claim

  • Raises blood pressure in vasodilatory (e.g. septic) shock
  • Reduces catecholamine requirements in critical care

What the evidence actually says

Large randomised trials and decades of critical-care experience established its role as a vasopressor in vasodilatory shock. Its status as a natural hormone sometimes invites extrapolation to wellness contexts for which no evidence exists.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Randomised controlled trials in vasodilatory and septic shock.
  • Extensive critical-care haemodynamic and pharmacology data.

Preclinical evidence

  • Vascular and renal receptor pharmacology of V1a/V2 agonism.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • V1a-mediated vasoconstriction raises systemic vascular resistance; V2 activity promotes renal water reabsorption.

Safety and unknowns

  • Labelled risks include ischaemic effects from vasoconstriction and hyponatraemia; use is monitored intensive-care therapy.
  • No evidence supports research-market or wellness uses.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

No concern identified

No established human cancer signal within approved use.

Regulatory status

Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.

Named regulators: FDA (US)

Approved IV vasopressin products (e.g. Vasostrict) are indicated to increase blood pressure in adults with vasodilatory shock who remain hypotensive despite fluids and catecholamines. Approval is specific to that critical-care context.

Evidence grade

L5Repeated human trialsHigh confidence in rating

Substantial, consistent controlled human evidence supporting a specified outcome, preferably independently replicated. Approval is reported separately.

What would change our rating?

  • Not applicable at this evidence tier.

References and sources

Source transparency

A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.

Source curation pending
Last editorial review
2026-08-23
Recently reviewed · 54 days ago
Linked curated sources
0
Sources still pending
1
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
To be curated: 1

Review provenance

Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.

Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.

  • To be curatedSources to be curated

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-08-23.