CJC-1295 in Humans: What Clinical Studies Exist

Short answer

Human evidence for CJC-1295 exists, and it is mainly pharmacology of a long-acting DAC form in healthy adults. Teichman and colleagues measured sustained GH and IGF-I increases. Ionescu and Frohman described pulsatility. Sackmann-Sala analyzed biomarkers in already existing samples. A Phase 2 registry record is Terminated, with no results posted.

That is not a completed disease-treatment program. In 2024 FDA wrote that human studies were primarily in healthy subjects and that there was no completed disease-treatment study establishing effectiveness for the evaluated growth-hormone-deficiency use.^1,5

This page inventories. It does not recommend a vial, does not specify a technique, and does not turn GH or IGF-I into muscle, fat, recovery, anti-aging, sleep, or performance. The map is in the CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin hub.

Inventory also means saying what does not belong. A no-DAC material does not belong because it shares the trade name. The blend does not belong. A terminated registry does not belong as if an outcome already existed. Form identity is in CJC-1295 with DAC versus no DAC.

Teichman 2006

Teichman, Neale, Lawrence, Gagnon, Castaigne, and Frohman published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. The design is two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ascending-dose studies in healthy adults. The object was the long-acting form. The authors reported prolonged stimulation of GH and IGF-I secretion.¹

That establishes endocrine pharmacology in healthy people under the study conditions. It does not establish that CJC-1295 treats a disease. It does not establish that a commercial no-DAC lot reproduces that curve. It does not establish that adding Ipamorelin improves, worsens, or leaves unchanged the result.¹

Short-duration tolerability is also not read here as “proven safe.” A short program in healthy adults is not a long-term safety base. FDA later identified safety uncertainties and limited clinical data.^1,5

Any administered quantities that appear in the original source stay in that source. This page does not turn them into practical instructions and does not describe a technique.

Ionescu 2006

Ionescu and Frohman asked whether continuous stimulation would shut down the pulsatile GH rhythm. In healthy men, pulsatility persisted. The finding belongs to secretion physiology, not to a clinical indication and not to a change in lean mass or fat.²

The paper does not administer Ipamorelin. It does not compare DAC with no DAC. It does not offer a sleep, recovery, or performance endpoint. It is cited because it completes the endocrine picture of the long-acting form, not because it widens the claims that can be made about a commercial vial.

Reading “pulsatility is preserved” as if a clinical benefit already existed would be a leap. Preserving a secretion pattern in healthy men is a physiological fact. It is not efficacy in a disease and not combination evidence.²

Sackmann-Sala 2009

Sackmann-Sala and colleagues published in Growth Hormone & IGF Research. The work is proteomic and biomarker-focused. It starts from an exposure already studied; it does not recruit a new disease-treatment program and does not define a primary clinical efficacy endpoint.³

A serum-profile change can be consistent with axis activation. It does not demonstrate that the activation produces a clinical benefit, that it is safe long term, or that it is reproduced with a no-DAC material. It is also not a trial of the CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin pair.³

That is why this paper is not added as a third efficacy trial. It is added as a secondary analysis of samples. Inventorying it without that qualification would inflate the clinical count.

NCT00267527

A terminated registry is not a published negative result and not a published positive result. It is an administrative status. In the sources reviewed as of September 1, 2026, we did not identify posted results for NCT00267527, nor an official reason for termination that the registry record itself establishes.⁴

This page does not invent why the study stopped. It does not turn the visceral-obesity title into an efficacy or failure claim. It does not treat the planned enrollment number as if those participants had been analyzed.

This registry is also not used to discuss the blend. The title names CJC-1295. It does not name Ipamorelin. A component registry is not a registry of the exact pair.⁴

FDA assessment

The sentence that matters for this page is scoped: there was no completed disease-treatment study establishing effectiveness for the evaluated GHD use. Pharmacology in healthy people and biomarkers do not fill that gap.⁵

The advisory committee voted on the nominations. FDA had proposed against including those substances on the 503A list. The votes are advisory recommendations. They are not a drug approval and not a drug ban.⁶

On safety, the Agency identified limited clinical data and uncertainties. It identified serious adverse events including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction. This page does not translate that into “CJC causes heart problems.” It also does not offer a technique or a quantity.^5,7

A 2026 review of unapproved axis peptides places those data against use outside clinical programs. A review does not replace primary sources and does not turn DAC pharmacology into a no-DAC material.⁸

Biomarker versus efficacy

GH and IGF-I are axis biomarkers. Raising them in healthy adults shows that the long-acting analogue, under those conditions, activates the axis. It does not show that the activation treats a disease, changes body composition, or improves an outcome a patient can feel.

Teichman measured those biomarkers. Ionescu described the pulsatile pattern. Sackmann-Sala looked at serum proteins. None of the three is a clinical efficacy trial with a prespecified, met disease endpoint.^1,2,3

When FDA asked for effectiveness for a nominated GHD use, it did not treat those biomarkers as enough. This page keeps that separation: the biomarker is cited; clinical efficacy is not invented.⁵

What they do not establish

• They do not establish clinical efficacy for treating a disease.⁵
• They do not establish long-term safety. Short tolerability in healthy people is not “proven safe.”^1,5
• They do not establish the pharmacology of a no-DAC material. That exposure does not transfer.^1,8
• They do not establish CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin evidence. Component evidence is not combination evidence.¹
• They do not establish muscle, fat, recovery, anti-aging, sleep, or performance from GH or IGF-I.^1,2
• NCT00267527 does not establish an outcome or a reason for termination.⁴

In the sources reviewed as of September 1, 2026, we did not identify a completed human disease-treatment trial that established effectiveness of CJC-1295 for the GHD use FDA evaluated, nor a trial that administered the exact pair with Ipamorelin.⁵

If the question is which form was studied, DAC versus no DAC. If the question is whether the mixed vial has evidence of its own, combination evidence. The index is the cluster hub.