An early study published in 2003 examined inhaled VIP, breathed into the lungs, in eight people with pulmonary hypertension, meaning high blood pressure in the lung's blood vessels. Researchers reported changes in circulation measurements, but there was no placebo group receiving an inactive version for comparison.
A 2010 study examined inhaled VIP in twenty people with sarcoidosis, a condition involving clusters of inflammatory cells. It reported changes in immune cells and their signals. It was also uncontrolled: everyone received VIP, so changes could not be compared with a similar group receiving a placebo.
COVID-19 brought larger comparisons. A 2022 trial assigned 196 people with critical respiratory failure by chance to aviptadil or placebo. It missed its main goal of survival without respiratory failure. It reported a signal on a separate survival measure, which needs to be read alongside that missed main goal.
In the NIH-funded TESICO trial published in 2023, aviptadil given into a vein did not show a meaningful advantage over placebo on the main measure of recovery and survival. Researchers analyzed 461 adults who received a study infusion. Enrollment stopped because success on that measure was judged unlikely.
A smaller inhaled-aviptadil trial published in 2025 enrolled eighty hospitalized adults and reported a shorter hospital stay. It studied a different route and less critically ill patients than TESICO. Its authors noted limited numbers completing follow-up. That result needs confirmation; it does not cancel the larger trial's finding.
Reports about chronic inflammatory response syndrome, a label used for symptoms attributed to damp-building exposure, are a separate evidence line. A 2013 report followed twenty people without a randomized placebo comparison. Such reports cannot establish whether VIP itself caused the reported changes.