Hims Peptides: What Hims & Hers Plans to Sell

Hims peptides are planned, but the full lineup is not on sale. Hims & Hers told investors it expected to offer sermorelin, glutathione and a third wellness treatment before the end of 2026. It said BPC-157 and five other compounds would wait for final federal rulemaking. That difference matters: a company preparing to sell something is not the same as a finished prescription being available.

Hims peptides: what the company announced

As of September 18, 2026, the day this article was written, Hims & Hers had announced a phased launch rather than a single, finished Hims peptide menu. In its August 10 second-quarter earnings call, chief executive Andrew Dudum said the company was developing U.S.-manufactured products, clinician-led guidance and ongoing blood testing.

The first group included sermorelin and glutathione. The company's posted transcript renders the third name as “MEDplus [ph],” marking the transcription as uncertain; contemporaneous Reuters coverage reported it as NAD+. NAD+ is a coenzyme, a molecule that helps enzymes do their work, rather than a peptide. The company did not publish a patient-facing formulation, dose or price in the documents reviewed for this article.

BPC-157 was on a different track. Hims said its Menlo Park facility had begun stability and validation testing on active ingredients for the six peptides recommended by an FDA advisory committee. Those tests ask whether an ingredient remains consistent over time and whether the test method measures what it is supposed to measure. The call did not say BPC-157 was already available.

This plan has been building for a while. A February 21, 2025 acquisition release announced the purchase of a California peptide facility. The company's quarterly filing for June 30, 2026 still described investment in a peptide manufacturing facility and laboratory testing capabilities.

What the FDA vote did — and did not do

On July 23 and 24, the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee considered seven ingredients for the 503A Bulks List, the list of bulk substances that can be used under the patient-specific compounding pathway when the legal conditions are met. The FDA meeting page explains that committee recommendations are nonbinding. Hims' own July 24 statement said six compounds were recommended and the recommendation would go to FDA for formal consideration.

That vote did not place a new medicine on a pharmacy shelf. It also did not turn BPC-157 into an approved drug. BPC-157 has never been an FDA-approved product, and compounded preparations containing it are not FDA-approved products. A licensed provider may still prescribe a compounded formulation where lawful and clinically appropriate; that decision is between the patient and the doctor.

The numbers 503A and 503B describe two compounding routes, not quality grades. Section 503A centers on a prescription for an identified patient. A 503B outsourcing facility can prepare qualifying clinic stock without first receiving a prescription for each future patient, and it must meet federal manufacturing and reporting requirements. FDA's side-by-side legal comparison gives the formal details; our 503B outsourcing facility explainer puts them in everyday language.

A launch announcement is not clinical evidence

A peptide is a short chain of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. That label covers medicines with decades of data and compounds with almost none. The useful question is not whether something is called a peptide. It is what was studied in people, by which route, for how long and against what comparison.

For BPC-157, the human record is especially small. A 2025 systematic review in HSS Journal found 36 musculoskeletal studies: 35 were preclinical, meaning laboratory or animal work, and one was a small human study. A separate 2025 intravenous pilot followed two adults over three days. The authors reported no measured organ-marker changes or side effects, but two people cannot establish common, rare or longer-term risks. The BPC-157 side-effects guide keeps that evidence gap attached to the claims people hear online.

Evidence also cannot be transferred from one peptide to another. In a 2006 randomized study of CJC-1295, the compound raised growth hormone and IGF-1, a downstream growth signal measured in blood, in healthy adults. The study measured hormone levels and short-term tolerability; it did not test a CJC-1295/ipamorelin blend or broad wellness outcomes. Our CJC-1295 and ipamorelin explainer draws that boundary in more detail.

What the same rules mean for any telehealth service

The brand on the website does not replace the medical and pharmacy steps. A responsible prescription route has an intake for the specific compound, a provider licensed where the patient is located, a named licensed U.S. compounding pharmacy, a label that identifies the prescribed preparation, and a way to reach the care team when something feels wrong.

One questionnaire for every peptide would miss the point. BPC-157 raises different evidence and screening questions from a compound that acts on the growth-hormone pathway. The provider needs the actual medical history and medication list before deciding, not after a purchase.

At Promise, a licensed provider reviews every request and can decline; not everyone qualifies. If a prescription is written, a licensed U.S. compounding pharmacy prepares and dispenses it. The broader guide to getting peptides prescribed follows that process from intake through follow-up.

What to watch next

The next meaningful update is a final FDA action, not another advisory vote. Hims said it was waiting for final rulemaking before bringing the six committee-recommended compounds to market. Until that document appears, testing BPC-157 is preparation for a possible launch, not confirmation that patients can obtain it from Hims. The dated changelog in BPC-157 update: September 2026 tracks that timeline.

The other signal will be what a real patient-facing offering discloses: the exact prescribed compound, the dispensing pharmacy, the clinical review and the evidence used to set expectations. The September 16 Johns Hopkins report made the timely point plainly: interest in peptides is growing faster than rigorous human evidence for many of them. Hims entering the category may change where people hear about peptides. It does not change what the studies can support.