CJC-1295 with DAC: what has been measured about safety

This version of CJC-1295 has human exposure on the record, which the version sold beside it does not. Two randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind ascending-dose trials in healthy adults aged 21 to 61 ran 28 and 49 days, and their published report states that no serious adverse reactions occurred over those periods [1].

Alongside it sits an agency statement that is stronger than the one on most pages in this catalogue. FDA lists the compound among bulk drug substances for use in compounding that may present significant safety risks, and its entry states that the agency has identified serious adverse events associated with CJC-1295 including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction [14]. For several other compounds here the agency's stated position is that it lacks information. Here it says it has identified events and names two.

Between those two records is where this page does its work: 49 days is the longest anyone has been followed on this compound, the one registered trial that would have run longer stopped in 2006 without a stated reason and under a record naming only CJC 1295, so which of the two products it used is not established, and every published study of this compound shares one author. This page sets out all three.

What this page reports, and what it does not

We report what has been documented. We do not prescribe what should be done.

Every sentence below reports what a named source measured, stated or recorded, in what population, and over what period. Where a registry field is empty, the page says it is empty rather than filling it in.

This page publishes no dose, no schedule, no route instruction and no list of people who should avoid anything. A list of who should not use a compound is a directions-for-use document, and it only makes sense if the reader is going to use the thing. What replaces it is a description of the compound and its record, written about the molecule rather than about the reader.

One distinction runs through everything here and it runs the opposite way from the sibling page. This is the version with the albumin-binding linker, and every measurement below was made on it. None of it is a measurement of the version sold without that linker, which has no published human study of its own.

What has been measured

The agency entry, and why this one reads differently

FDA's category 2 row for CJC-1295, read on 23 August 2026, states that compounded drugs containing the substance may pose risk for immunogenicity for certain routes of administration and may have complexities regarding peptide-related impurities and characterisation of the active ingredient, that FDA has identified serious adverse events associated with CJC-1295 including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction, and that available clinical data are limited [14].

The middle clause is what makes this entry unusual on this site. For several other compounds covered here the agency's position is that it lacks the information to judge the risks. Here it says it has identified serious adverse events, and it names two of them.

FDA does not publish the underlying reports on that page, so this site cannot say how many, how severe, or in what circumstances. The entry also names CJC-1295 without distinguishing the two products sold under that name, so it reaches this one and the other alike, and this page reports its scope as the entry states it rather than narrowing it.

What the published trials observed, and over how long

The two ascending-dose trials in healthy adults aged 21 to 61 ran 28 and 49 days. Their published report states that no serious adverse reactions occurred over those periods, and its conclusion applies the words safe and relatively well tolerated to the two amounts it named [1].

Those are the words of a pharmacology study in healthy volunteers over a matter of weeks, and this site does not describe any compound as safe. What the trials establish is bounded by what they were: randomised, placebo-controlled and double-blind, which is a good design, at enrolments sized to measure hormone concentrations rather than to detect an uncommon event, over 28 and 49 days, in healthy people rather than in anyone with a condition.

Forty-nine days is where the published follow-up stops. No published study has followed anyone taking this compound for longer than that, by any route, at any amount. [Human RCT] [1]

The trial that would have run longer

One registered trial would have produced a longer and more informative record than any of the above, whichever product it used. It was a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 in HIV-associated visceral obesity, sponsored by ConjuChem, with 120 planned participants and 12 weeks of treatment [12].

The registry records it as terminated. It gives no reason, posts no results, lists no primary outcome, and has not been updated since October 2006 [12]. An empty reason field is an empty reason field, and this page does not infer what belongs in it: a trial can stop for funding, for enrolment, for a corporate decision or for a finding, and nothing on the record says which happened here.

Be exact about whose trial it is, because this page is built on keeping the two products apart. The registry record names its intervention only as CJC 1295 and gives no description, so which of the two it used is not established [12]. This page does not claim it as this product's trial, and the sibling page does not claim it as the other product's either.

What the termination does establish is where the development stopped for the name as a whole. The one study that would have carried human exposure past seven weeks, in a population with a condition rather than in healthy volunteers, did not report anything.

The class literature, and what a narrative review can carry

Three 2026 reviews cover this compound as part of the growth hormone axis class. The adverse effects they attribute to that class are endocrine and metabolic disturbances including prolactin and cortisol elevations, appetite changes and disordered blood sugar, fluid retention, muscle and joint pain, and injection-site reactions [8] [9] [10].

Those are class-level observations rather than measurements of this compound, and the reviews are narrative rather than systematic: they gather what a field reports without pooling to a protocol or weighting by study quality, so they cannot say how often anything happens or in whom.

They are on this page because they describe the effects a person might notice, and the trial record does not. Every human study of this compound measured hormone and protein concentrations in blood, so the only published account of what taking it feels like comes from a literature that was not built to answer it. [Anecdote] [8] [9] [10]

What a screen of falsified peptide products found

A published systematic screen took the ten most frequently encountered falsified polypeptide drugs on one national market, bought from three suspected illegal internet pharmacies, and profiled their impurities. It found wide variation in the amount per unit, purity between 5 and 75 per cent for the cysteine-containing peptides, and arsenic and lead, with multiple samples up to ten times the toxicity limit for injected drugs and all of the arsenic in its more toxic inorganic form [11].

Whether this compound was among the ten is not established here, and this page does not assert that it was. What the study establishes is a property of the channel rather than of any molecule, and it is the reason a certificate deserves particular scepticism for anything bought this way: elemental contamination at those levels is not something a purity figure for a peptide would report at all.

It bears on this compound specifically because the trial material was manufactured for those trials under a protocol, and nothing sold under this name is that material. The 28 and 49 day observations above belong to the trial preparation. [In-vitro] [11]

Who wrote the record

Every published study of this compound, human and animal, shares one author, and the sponsoring company's staff appear on two of the four. Nothing has been replicated by an unconnected group.

That is a fact about the literature rather than about the molecule, and it does not make any of the measurements wrong. What it does mean is that a reader weighing the 28 and 49 day observations is weighing one programme's account of its own compound, with no independent check on any part of it, which is the ordinary reason replication matters.

What has not been characterised

Set out plainly, so the shape of the gap is visible rather than implied. Nothing is published on exposure beyond 49 days, in any population, at any amount [1]. Nothing is published on repeated exposure over months or years, on effects on DNA, on pregnancy or offspring, or on whether long-term exposure produces tumours.

Nothing is published on anyone with a condition. Every published human study of this compound enrolled healthy adults, and the one registered trial that would have enrolled a patient population was terminated with an empty reason field and posted nothing, under a record that does not say which of the two products it used [12]. So there is no observation of this compound in a body that was already under strain.

And nothing is published about the combinations it is sold in. The commonest presentation blends it with a second compound, no study tested any such pairing, and no interaction with any other substance has been characterised in either direction.

Our takeThis compound's record is unusually clean and unusually short, and both halves matter. Two randomised placebo-controlled trials followed healthy adults for 28 and 49 days and reported no serious adverse reactions, which is a real observation from a real design. Then it stops: the one registered trial that would have gone to 12 weeks in a patient population terminated in 2006 with an empty reason field, under a record that does not say which of the two products sold under this name it used, and every published study of this compound shares an author. FDA meanwhile says it has identified serious adverse events under this compound's name and does not publish the reports behind them.

Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health.

Frequently asked questions

References

1. Teichman SL, Neale A, Lawrence B, Gagnon C, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA. Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006. PMID 16352683 DOI 10.1210/jc.2005-1536
2. Ionescu M, Frohman LA. Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006. PMID 17018654 DOI 10.1210/jc.2006-1702
3. Sackmann-Sala L, Ding J, Frohman LA, Kopchick JJ. Activation of the GH/IGF-1 axis by CJC-1295, a long-acting GHRH analog, results in serum protein profile changes in normal adult subjects. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2009. PMID 19386527 DOI 10.1016/j.ghir.2009.03.001
4. Alba M, Fintini D, Sagazio A, Lawrence B, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA, Salvatori R. Once-daily administration of CJC-1295, a long-acting growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) analog, normalizes growth in the GHRH knockout mouse. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006. PMID 16822960 DOI 10.1152/ajpendo.00201.2006
5. Van Hout MC, Hearne E. Netnography of Female Use of the Synthetic Growth Hormone CJC-1295: Pulses and Potions. Subst Use Misuse. 2016. PMID 26771670 DOI 10.3109/10826084.2015.1082595
6. Knoop A, Thomas A, Fichant E, Delahaut P, Schänzer W, Thevis M. Qualitative identification of growth hormone-releasing hormones in human plasma by means of immunoaffinity purification and LC-HRMS/MS. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016. PMID 26879649 DOI 10.1007/s00216-016-9377-3
7. Timms M, Ganio K, Steel R. A method for confirming CJC-1295 abuse in equine plasma samples by LC-MS/MS. Drug Test Anal. 2019. PMID 30938069 DOI 10.1002/dta.2599
8. Dominikowski A, Rękoś Z, Olejarz M, Szczepanek-Parulska E, Domin R, RuchaŁa M. The emerging landscape of performance-enhancing peptides modulating GH-IGF1 axis: bridging the gap between clinical evidence and patient self-administration. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2026. PMID 42395176 DOI 10.3389/fendo.2026.1822475
9. Mendias CL, Awan TM. Safety and Efficacy of Approved and Unapproved Peptide Therapies for Musculoskeletal Injuries and Athletic Performance. Sports Med. 2026. PMID 41966639 DOI 10.1007/s40279-026-02437-0
10. Villegas Meza AD, Nocek M, Mitchell BC, Lizarraga M, DeFoor MT, Ruzbarsky JJ, Huard J, Philippon MJ. Injectable Peptides in Sports Medicine: A Structured Narrative Review of Evidence, Safety, and Antidoping Implications. JBJS Rev. 2026. PMID 42160466 DOI 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.26.00027
11. Janvier S, Cheyns K, Canfyn M, Goscinny S, De Spiegeleer B, Vanhee C, Deconinck E. Impurity profiling of the most frequently encountered falsified polypeptide drugs on the Belgian market. Talanta. 2018. PMID 30029448 DOI 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.06.023
12. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00267527, study ID GH100-013: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CJC 1295 administered for 12 weeks in HIV infected patients with HIV associated visceral obesity, sponsored by ConjuChem, with a listed enrolment of 120 randomized to low dose, high dose or placebo and a 6 week follow-up. Listed start December 2005, listed completion September 2006. Recorded as TERMINATED with the whyStopped field EMPTY, no results posted, no primary outcome measures listed, and no update to the record since 12 October 2006. The record names the intervention only as CJC 1295 and gives no description, so which variant it used is not established. Read through the v2 API on 23 August 2026. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. NCT00267527
13. ClinicalTrials.gov. Registry sweep for CJC-1295, CJC 1295, CJC1295, modified GRF 1-29, drug affinity complex GHRH, tetrasubstituted GHRH analog and ConjuChem GHRH, plus a sponsor query for ConjuChem, run through the v2 API on 23 August 2026. Exactly one record names the compound in its interventions: NCT00267527. No registration exists under any name for the version sold without the albumin linker. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. ClinicalTrials.gov
14. US Food and Drug Administration. Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding that May Present Significant Safety Risks. The category 2 table carries the row CJC-1295, reading in full: compounded drugs containing CJC-1295 may pose risk for immunogenicity for certain routes of administration and may have complexities with regard to for peptide-related impurities and API characterization; FDA has identified serious adverse events associated with CJC-1295 including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction; available clinical data are limited. Page content current as of 22 April 2026, fetched with a browser user agent and read on 23 August 2026. FDA human drug compounding. 2026. FDA category 2 list
15. World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List, international standard, effective 1 January 2026. Section S2.2.4 names CJC-1295 on the list's own face, alongside ipamorelin, ibutamoren, examorelin, GHRP-2, GHRP-6, sermorelin and tesamorelin. S2 substances are prohibited at all times. Retrieved by hand and read back on 9 August 2026; the URL serves zero bytes to automation and is ledgered in tools/unverified-sources.json. World Anti-Doping Agency. 2026. WADA 2026 Prohibited List
16. US Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA approved drug products, queried through the openFDA drugsfda endpoint on 23 August 2026 for CJC-1295 and CJC 1295 across the generic name and brand name fields. Both queries returned NOT_FOUND: there is no approved US application under either spelling. openFDA. 2026. openFDA drugsfda