compound
CJC-1295 without DAC
The version of CJC-1295 most people buy, and the one nobody has studied. Every duration, potency and pulse-pattern figure quoted for it was measured on a different product.
- Primary sources Registry records and papers are read at the source, not through summaries. Read the methodology
- Every claim graded Each claim about what a compound does carries an evidence tier and a numbered citation. How grades derive
- Sells nothing No cart, no price, and no product page anywhere on this site. Conflict disclosure
- Corrections logged Errors are fixed and recorded in a permanent public log, never edited away. Corrections log
Two products are sold as CJC-1295. They share a base peptide and differ by a chemical linker, and only one of them has ever been measured in a person. This page is about the other one.
That is not a technicality about naming. The linker is what makes the studied version last for days, and it is therefore the source of every number quoted about how long CJC-1295 lasts. Strip the linker out and the published record goes with it.
What remains is a peptide with a real chemical description, a large market, no registered trial under its own name, and no published human study of any design. A 2026 review of this class reached the same conclusion independently and placed it in its lowest evidence tier, defined as having no peer-reviewed human studies at all.
The page below sets out what is actually known, where each circulating figure came from, and one result from the other version that undercuts the main reason this one is preferred.
| Property | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Growth hormone releasing hormone 1-29 with four amino acid substitutions that slow the enzymes clearing it, sold without the albumin-binding linker | PMID 42395176 |
| Also known as | Mod GRF 1-29 and modified GRF. It is most often sold blended with a second compound rather than on its own | The two versions compared |
| Registered human trials | None under this name. A sweep on 23 August 2026 covering the compound name, its variants and the sponsor returned one record, and that record does not identify which version it used | ClinicalTrials.gov, swept 23 August 2026 |
| Published human studies | None. The three published human studies carrying the CJC-1295 name all used the albumin-binding version | PMID 16352683 |
| Independent assessment | A 2026 review of this class places it in its lowest evidence tier, defined as no peer-reviewed human studies, supported only by preclinical extrapolation and user narratives | PMID 42395176 |
| Anti-doping status | CJC-1295 is named on the face of the WADA 2026 Prohibited List at S2.2.4, prohibited at all times, and this product is sold under that name | WADA 2026 Prohibited List |
Not medical advice
This page reports what has been documented about a compound. It is not medical advice, not a diagnosis, not a dosing protocol, and not a recommendation to obtain or use anything described here. Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health. Read the full disclaimer.
Reviewed against editorial standards Updated
Key takeaways
- No registered trial and no published human study exists for this version. A registry sweep covering the compound name, its spellings, the modified GRF name and the original sponsor returned one record in total, and that record identifies its intervention only as CJC 1295 with no description, so it cannot be attributed to either version.
- The three published human studies carrying the CJC-1295 name all used the version with the albumin-binding linker. Every figure in circulation about how long this compound lasts, how far it raises growth hormone and how it shapes release comes from those studies, and the linker is precisely what those studies were measuring. [Anecdote] [1] [4]
- The main reason given for preferring this version is that it preserves the body's natural growth hormone pulses where the long-acting version supposedly flattens them. The one study that measured pulses directly did so in the long-acting version, and found pulse frequency and magnitude unaltered. What that version raised was the trough between pulses. [Anecdote] [2]
- A 2026 peer-reviewed review of this class assigns every compound in it an evidence tier and puts this one in the lowest, defined as no peer-reviewed human studies, supported only by preclinical extrapolation and grey-literature user narratives. Its stated finding is that assertions about pulsatility and body composition for this version derive from extrapolation and non-academic sources.
- FDA lists CJC-1295 among bulk substances that may present significant safety risks for compounding, stating that it has identified serious adverse events including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction. That entry names the compound rather than a variant, and this product is sold under that name.
- What people say they use it for, from a published study of bodybuilding forums rather than from vendor copy: weight loss, muscle enhancement, youthful skin, improved sleep and injury healing. None of the five has been measured in any study of this compound. [Anecdote] [3]
- PUBLISHED HUMAN STUDIES OF THIS VERSION
- 0
- REGISTERED TRIALS UNDER THIS NAME
- 0
- NUMBERED SOURCES
- 14
- EVIDENCE GRADE
- D
Who researches CJC-1295 without DAC?
Most people reach this page having bought or considered a blend, usually with ipamorelin, and wanting to know what the CJC-1295 half of it does.
The answer has two parts. The chemistry is real and describable, and it is set out below. The evidence is not thin, it is absent, and the useful thing this page can do is show exactly which product each circulating figure was measured on.
What is CJC-1295 without DAC?
Plain-English version: the first 29 amino acids of the hormone that tells the pituitary to release growth hormone, altered in four places so enzymes clear it more slowly.
Growth hormone releasing hormone is made in the hypothalamus and signals the pituitary to release growth hormone. Its first 29 amino acids carry the activity, and that fragment is itself a drug: sermorelin, which FDA approved and which was later withdrawn from the US market in a determination the agency has stated was not for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Enzymes clear that fragment in minutes. Four amino acid substitutions slow those enzymes down, and the result is this compound [4].
A second and separate modification exists: a linker that bonds the peptide to albumin so it circulates for days. Adding it gives CJC-1295 with DAC, which has an estimated half-life of 5.8 to 8.1 days measured in randomised trials [1].
So there are three products on one chemical line: sermorelin, this compound, and the linked version. This one sits in the middle and is the only one of the three with no study under its own name. It is also usually sold combined with a second compound rather than alone, and no published study tested any such combination.
Growth hormone releasing hormone 1-29 with four amino acid substitutions. This site did not verify the substituted positions against a primary chemical reference and does not print them · Not stated here. No primary chemical reference was read for this page
How strong is the evidence, claim by claim?
Every claim area this compound is discussed for gets a row, including the ones with the weakest support. The tier records what the row rests on, and the last column states what that work can and cannot show. Each tier links to its definition on the methodology page.
| Evidence Area | What Has Been Studied | Evidence Level | What It Can and Cannot Show |
|---|---|---|---|
| What the published record contains for this version | A registry sweep on 23 August 2026 covering the compound name, three spellings of it, the modified GRF name, the drug affinity complex description and a sponsor query returned one record in total, and that record does not identify which version it used. A PubMed search returns three human studies carrying the CJC-1295 name, and all three used the albumin-binding version [9] [14] | [Anecdote] | There is nothing to weigh. No trial, no published study, no case series and no pharmacokinetic measurement exists for this version under its own name, which means no figure quoted for it can be checked against a source that studied it |
| The claim that this version preserves natural growth hormone pulses | The main reason given for choosing this version over the linked one. The reasoning is that a short-acting signal produces bursts resembling the body's own pattern, while a signal lasting days would flatten them [2] [4] | [Anecdote] | The reasoning has never been tested on this compound, and the one direct measurement of pulses under this compound's family was made on the linked version. Sampling every 20 minutes across a 12 hour overnight window found pulse frequency and magnitude unaltered one week after a single injection of the long-acting form; what rose was the trough between pulses. The premise the preference rests on was not confirmed in the product it was contrasted against, and no study has compared the two versions directly |
| How long it lasts and how far it raises growth hormone | Figures for half-life, duration and the size of the growth hormone and IGF-1 response circulate widely for this compound [1] [4] | [Anecdote] | Every one of them traces to the trials of the linked version, and the linker is the modification those trials were measuring: it is what produced the estimated half-life of 5.8 to 8.1 days. Applying those numbers to a molecule without the linker is applying a measurement of a modification to a product that does not have it. A 2026 review of this class states the same thing, that assertions of this kind derive from extrapolation from related compounds and from non-academic sources rather than from direct evidence |
| Body composition, recovery, sleep and skin, which are what it is sold for | A published study of bodybuilding forums, narrowed to nine sites and 23 discussion threads, reports the uses people give for compounds sold under this name: weight loss, muscle enhancement, youthful skin, improved sleep and injury healing. Two 2026 reviews of this class report the same list from clinical practice [3] [5] [6] | [Anecdote] | Forum accounts are what people say rather than what was measured, and the same study reports its subjects were experienced users of several performance compounds at once, so nothing in those accounts is attributable to one. None of the five has been measured in any study of this version, and none has been measured in any study of the linked version either: the three human studies of that product measured hormone concentrations in blood |
Rolled up, that puts CJC-1295 without DAC at evidence grade D Animals and anecdote . No completed human study of this compound for any use. The claim set is animal, in-vitro, and anecdote. A grade describes the quality of the research, not whether something works and not whether anyone should use it. The derivation is published.
How CJC-1295 without DAC is thought to work
The mechanism proposed for this compound is inherited rather than measured, and the two things worth separating are the chemistry, which is real, and the pharmacology, which has never been done on it.
1. What the four substitutions do, they slow the enzymes that break the fragment down (chemistry established, effect never measured in this compound)
The unmodified 1-29 fragment is cleared in minutes, which is why sermorelin has to be given in a way that works around that. Four amino acid substitutions in the sequence make the peptide a poorer target for the enzymes responsible.
That is a real and well-described chemical change. What has not been established is what it produces in a person: no published study has measured this compound's half-life, its effect on growth hormone, or anything else, in anyone.
The gap matters because the substitutions and the linker are separate modifications solving the same problem to different degrees. Attributing the linker's measured result to the substitutions alone is the error this page exists to name. [Anecdote] [4]
2. The pulse argument, and what the one measurement showed, the reason people prefer this version was tested on the other version, and did not hold (measured once, on the other product)
Growth hormone is released in bursts, mostly overnight, and the burst pattern is widely held to matter. The argument for this version is that a short signal produces something closer to that natural pattern, while a signal lasting days would smooth it away.
That argument was testable and it was tested, on the long-acting version. Blood sampled every 20 minutes across a 12 hour overnight window, before and one week after a single injection, found the frequency and the magnitude of growth hormone pulses unaltered. What rose was the level between pulses, by 7.5 fold, and that rise carried the increases in mean growth hormone and IGF-1.
So the contrast the preference is built on was not confirmed where it was measured. That does not establish anything about this compound, because nobody has measured this compound. It establishes that the reasoning has a hole in it that the published record can already see. [Anecdote] [2]
What we do not know
This compound's half-life, in anyone. No published measurement exists.
Whether it raises growth hormone or IGF-1 in a person, and by how much, and for how long.
Whether it produces a different release pattern from the linked version. No study has compared them.
What it does to body composition, recovery, sleep or skin, which are the reasons people buy it.
What is in the blends it is usually sold in, and whether any published study has ever tested such a combination. None was found for this page.
Which version the one registered trial used. The record identifies its intervention only as CJC 1295 and gives no description.
What this evidence can and cannot show
These results come from None for this compound. The work described below was done on sermorelin or on the linked version. in Randomised trials and overnight pulse sampling, all of them measuring other products., not from people. An animal model is a deliberate simplification: the injury is created on purpose, the animal is young and healthy, the dose is scaled to body weight in a way that does not translate directly, and the outcome is measured at a fixed point rather than lived with. Cell and tissue work is a further step removed, because the concentrations that produce an effect in a dish are often far above anything a body reaches. Mechanism is a reason to run a trial. It is not a substitute for one, and compounds that looked mechanistically convincing have failed in people many times.
Has CJC-1295 without DAC been tested in humans?
There is nothing in this section for this compound, and that is the finding rather than a gap in the research behind this page.
The table lists what a reader searching this name is most likely to be shown instead, with what each item actually studied.
| Study | People | What was done | Result | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This version, under its own name | None | No registered trial and no published human study of any design | This is the finding. A registry sweep and a literature search are both recorded in the references | [Anecdote] |
| The three CJC-1295 human studies | Healthy adults, and 11 men in the smallest | Ascending-dose pharmacology, overnight pulse sampling, and a serum protein profile. All three used the version with the albumin-binding linker | Covered on that compound's page. They are evidence about a different product, and they are the source of nearly every figure quoted for this one | [Anecdote] |
| The registered phase 2 (NCT00267527) | 120 planned | Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, in HIV-associated visceral obesity. Terminated, reason field empty, no results posted, record unchanged since October 2006 | The record names its intervention only as CJC 1295 with no description, so it cannot be attributed to either version | [Anecdote] |
| Sermorelin | Covered elsewhere | The unmodified 1-29 fragment, an approved drug later withdrawn in a determination stating the withdrawal was not for safety or effectiveness | A 2026 review states that claims for this compound derive largely from extrapolation from sermorelin. A trial of that fragment is not a trial of this one | [Anecdote] |
Why we are not calling this proof
A study of a molecule with an extra chemical group is not a study of the molecule without it. The linker is the difference between the two products, it is the modification the published trials were designed to measure, and it is the source of the half-life figure quoted for both.
A study of sermorelin is not a study of this compound either. The four substitutions are the difference, and they exist precisely because they were expected to change how the molecule behaves.
The absence of any study is not evidence that the compound does nothing. It means nobody has looked, and that no figure offered about it can be checked.
Benefits: what the research shows
The matrix above holds each claim and what sits behind it. This section is about where the confidence around this compound comes from, since it does not come from studies of it.
The honest bottom line on benefits
Nothing published measures this compound, so nothing published establishes what it does. That is a statement about the record and not about the molecule: an untested compound has not been shown to do nothing, it has not been examined.
What can be established is where every number attached to it came from, and the answer is consistent. The duration figures came from the version with the linker. The pulse argument came from reasoning rather than measurement, and where that reasoning was tested, on the other version, the contrast it depends on did not appear. The use cases came from forums.
The most useful comparison is not with the linked version's marketing but with its record, which is set out on its own page. That product has three published human studies and a terminated trial, and even it has never been measured against an outcome a person would notice. This one starts a step behind that.
How long CJC-1295 without DAC stays in the body
There is no half-life, no peak concentration, no duration and no exposure figure for this compound in a person, because no study measuring any of them has been published.
The figures that circulate are from the linked version, where the estimated half-life is 5.8 to 8.1 days. That number is a measurement of what the linker does. Quoting it for a product without the linker describes the wrong molecule.
Community sources sometimes give this version a half-life in minutes by reasoning from sermorelin instead. That is the other extrapolation available and it has the same problem: the four substitutions exist because they were expected to change exactly that.
No pharmacokinetic measurement of this compound has been published. [Anecdote] [1] [4]
What is documented about dosing
Nothing here is a dosing recommendation. Statements about dosing reflect community and research reports only.
Commonly cited protocols (extrapolated, not validated)
Nothing here is a dosing recommendation. Statements about dosing reflect community and research reports only.
| Study | What was given | Frequency | Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any study of this compound | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | No registered or published study exists under this name |
| The linked version's trials | Amounts stated per kilogram in the source papers | Single, then weekly or every two weeks | 28 and 49 days | A different product. Its trials measured hormone concentrations, not outcomes |
| The blends it is usually sold in | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | No published study tested this compound combined with anything |
Schedules for this compound circulate in detail, usually built by reasoning from a half-life. There are two half-lives available to reason from, one belonging to the linked version and one to sermorelin, and this compound is neither of them.
The blend problem compounds it. This compound is most often sold combined with a growth hormone secretagogue, and no published study has tested that combination, so even a figure correct for one component would say nothing about what the pair does.
Commonly cited protocols (extrapolated, not validated) exist for this compound, including in a peer-reviewed 2026 review that documents them as a clinical phenomenon rather than endorsing them. This site does not reproduce them as guidance.
Nothing here is a dosing recommendation. Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health.
Main routes people compare, and what each source class actually reported, are set out on the documented protocols page.
Reported effects and what has been measured
What FDA said about the name this product is sold under
FDA lists CJC-1295 among bulk drug substances for use in compounding that may present significant safety risks, stating that compounded drugs containing it 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 the agency has identified serious adverse events associated with CJC-1295 including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction, and that available clinical data are limited.
That entry names CJC-1295 and does not distinguish between the two products sold under it. This product is sold under that name, and this page reports the entry as written rather than deciding on the agency's behalf which variant it covers.
FDA does not publish the underlying reports on that page, so this site cannot say how many, how severe, or in what circumstances. [Anecdote] [11]
What has been measured in anyone taking this compound
Nothing. No registered or published study has followed anyone taking this version, so there is no adverse event reporting, no exposure duration and no tolerability data attributable to it.
This site does not describe any compound as safe, and an absence of reported harm from studies that were never run is not a safety finding in either direction. [Anecdote] [9]
The class picture, from recent reviews
Three 2026 reviews cover compounds acting on this axis as a class. The adverse effects they attribute to the 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.
Those are class-level observations from narrative reviews rather than findings about this compound, and they are on this page because the class picture is the only picture that exists. [Anecdote] [4] [5] [6]
What has been measured about CJC-1295 without DAC, and what has never been studied
Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health.
Sourcing and quality
What a credible product should show
There is no approved product, no pharmacopoeial monograph and no reference standard for this compound, so a certificate of analysis has nothing external to be checked against.
The identity question is sharper here than for most compounds, because two products share one name and differ by a chemical group. A certificate reporting purity for CJC-1295 does not establish which of the two is in the vial unless the method distinguishes them.
The falsified peptide market has been measured directly. A systematic screen of the ten most frequently encountered falsified peptide drugs on one national market, bought from three suspected illegal internet pharmacies, found wide variation in the amount per unit and purity between 5 and 75 per cent for the cysteine-containing peptides, and found arsenic and lead, with multiple samples up to ten times the toxicity limit for injected drugs and all the arsenic in its more toxic inorganic form. Whether this compound was among the ten is not established here.
Red flags
A half-life, a duration or a growth hormone multiple quoted for this version. Every such figure was measured on the version with the linker.
The claim that this version preserves natural pulses where the long-acting one does not. The one direct measurement of pulses in this family was made on the long-acting version and found pulse frequency and magnitude unaltered.
A trial count for this compound. There is no registered study under this name.
Sermorelin's record presented as this compound's. The four substitutions are the difference between them and exist because they were expected to matter.
A blend sold with a combined claim. No published study tested this compound with anything.
A claim that it is not banned in sport. CJC-1295 is named on the face of the WADA 2026 Prohibited List at S2.2.4, and this product is sold under that name.
Will it show on a drug test?
CJC-1295 is named on the face of the WADA 2026 Prohibited List at S2.2.4, in the entry covering growth hormone releasing hormone analogues and secretagogues, prohibited at all times rather than in competition only [12]. This product is sold under that name.
Detection methods for growth hormone releasing hormone analogues in human plasma are validated and published, at a limit of detection below 50 pg/mL [8]. An athlete should take any question about a specific product to the relevant anti-doping authority rather than to a page.
Storage
No storage guidance is given here. Storage conditions belong to a characterised formulation and no characterised formulation of this compound exists.
Regulatory status, as of 23 August 2026
| Body | Position | Date | Document |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA | No approved application. A query for CJC-1295 across generic and brand name fields returned no record | Queried 23 August 2026 | openFDA drugsfda endpoint |
| FDA | CJC-1295 is listed among bulk drug substances for compounding that may present significant safety risks, with the agency stating it has identified serious adverse events including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction. The entry names the compound and does not distinguish the two products sold under it | Page content current as of 22 April 2026, read 23 August 2026 | FDA human drug compounding, category 2 list |
| European Medicines Agency | Not approved. Stated in a 2026 peer-reviewed review of this class | Published 2026 | Front Endocrinol review, PMID 42395176 |
| WADA | CJC-1295 is named on the face of the 2026 Prohibited List at S2.2.4, prohibited at all times | List effective 1 January 2026, read 9 August 2026 | WADA 2026 Prohibited List |
| ClinicalTrials.gov | No registration under this name. The single CJC-1295 record does not identify which version it used | Swept 23 August 2026 | ClinicalTrials.gov v2 API |
Every regulatory record that exists for this compound attaches to the name CJC-1295 rather than to one of the two products sold under it. That is worth stating plainly, because it cuts in an unexpected direction: the version with no evidence carries the same regulatory position as the version with some.
It also means a reader cannot use the regulatory record to tell the two apart, which leaves the published literature as the only thing that distinguishes them, and the published literature belongs entirely to the other one.
This section is dated and re-checked on review. It records documents and their contents, not evidence about an effect, and carries no evidence tier for that reason.
CJC-1295 without DAC compared with other growth hormone secretagogues
| Compound | Evidence grade | What the human record covers | Read more |
|---|---|---|---|
| CJC-1295 with DAC | Graded on its own page | The same base peptide plus a linker that bonds it to albumin. Three published human studies, a measured half-life of 5.8 to 8.1 days, and a terminated phase 2 | /peptides/cjc-1295-dac/ |
| Sermorelin | Graded on the group page | The unmodified 1-29 fragment this compound is built from, and an approved drug that was later withdrawn in a determination stating the withdrawal was not for safety or effectiveness | /peptides/groups/growth-hormone-secretagogues/#sermorelin |
| Tesamorelin | Graded on the group page | The same class developed properly: an approved medicine with randomised trials behind an FDA-approved indication | /peptides/groups/growth-hormone-secretagogues/#tesamorelin |
| Ipamorelin | Graded on the group page | The compound this one is most often blended with. A different mechanism in the same axis, and no published study tested the pair | /peptides/groups/growth-hormone-secretagogues/#ipamorelin |
This compound sits between two molecules that both have records, and it has none of its own. Sermorelin is what it is built from and was an approved drug. The linked version is what it becomes with one more modification, and it has three published human studies.
That position is the whole reason figures for it are so easy to find and so hard to check: there is always a neighbour to borrow a number from.
What CJC-1295 without DAC typically costs
Frequently asked questions
Is CJC-1295 without DAC the same as Mod GRF 1-29?
Yes. Both names describe growth hormone releasing hormone 1-29 with four amino acid substitutions and no albumin-binding linker.
Has it been tested in humans?
No. A registry sweep on 23 August 2026 covering the compound name, its spellings, the modified GRF name and the original sponsor found no registration under this name, and no published human study of this version was located.
What about the CJC-1295 studies I have read about?
All three published human studies carrying that name used the version with the albumin-binding linker. They are covered on that compound's page, and they are the source of nearly every figure quoted for this one.
What is its half-life?
No published study has measured it. The figure usually quoted, 5.8 to 8.1 days, was measured on the version with the linker, and the linker is what produced it.
Does it preserve natural growth hormone pulses better than the long-acting version?
No study has compared them. The one direct measurement of pulses in this family was made on the long-acting version, and it found pulse frequency and magnitude unaltered one week after a single injection. What rose was the level between pulses.
Is it the same as sermorelin?
No. Sermorelin is the unmodified 1-29 fragment. This compound carries four amino acid substitutions that exist specifically because they were expected to change how the molecule behaves, so a study of one is not a study of the other.
What has FDA said about it?
FDA lists CJC-1295 among bulk drug substances for compounding that may present significant safety risks, stating that it has identified serious adverse events including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction. That entry names the compound and does not distinguish the two products sold under it.
Is it banned in sport?
CJC-1295 is named on the face of the WADA 2026 Prohibited List at S2.2.4, prohibited at all times, and this product is sold under that name. Validated detection methods for this class of compound in human plasma are published.
What about the blends it is sold in?
No published study tested this compound combined with anything. A result attributed to a blend cannot be assigned to either component.
Why does this page exist if there is no evidence?
Because the absence is the finding, and because a reader searching this name will otherwise meet the linked version's numbers presented as this product's. Establishing that took a registry sweep and a literature search, and both are recorded here so anyone can repeat them.
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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, and that record identifies its intervention only as CJC 1295 with no description. No registration exists under the modified GRF name or under any name identifying the version without the albumin-binding linker. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. ClinicalTrials.gov
- ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00267527, study ID GH100-013: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 study of CJC 1295 administered for 12 weeks in HIV infected patients with HIV associated visceral obesity, sponsored by ConjuChem, listed enrolment 120. Recorded as TERMINATED with the whyStopped field EMPTY, no results posted, no primary outcome measures listed, and no update since 12 October 2006. Read through the v2 API on 23 August 2026. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. NCT00267527
- 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. The entry names the compound and does not distinguish the two products sold under that name. 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
- 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
- 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
- US National Library of Medicine. PubMed, searched for CJC-1295 and CJC 1295 on 23 August 2026. Both searches return the same set. Three published human studies carry the name, PMID 16352683, PMID 17018654 and PMID 19386527, and all three used the version with the albumin-binding linker. No published human study of the version without that linker was located under any of its names. PubMed. 2026. Source document