CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin

"CJC-1295 + ipamorelin" is not one drug. It is two peptides sold and injected together: CJC-1295, a synthetic analog of growth-hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH), and ipamorelin, a selective agonist at the ghrelin receptor. Both prompt the pituitary to release the body's own growth hormone (GH) rather than supplying GH from outside, and each has genuine published pharmacology behind it.

The thesis here is the gap between those facts and a third one. CJC-1295 with DAC was characterized in randomized, placebo-controlled human studies measuring multi-day GH and IGF-1 elevation (Teichman, JCEM 2006); ipamorelin as the first GH secretagogue with GHRH-like selectivity (Raun, Eur J Endocrinol 1998). But the combination has never been the subject of a published human trial, and none is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The "synergy" that sells the blend is a mechanistic inference, not a measured result.

Evidence tier: preclinical for the combination. The components sit higher — CJC-1295 has human PK data and an abandoned phase 2 program, ipamorelin a failed phase 2 trial — but the paired product has no direct human evidence at all.

The two peptides converge on the same output — a GH pulse from the somatotroph cells of the anterior pituitary — through two different receptors.

• CJC-1295 acts at the GHRH receptor. It is a tetra-substituted form of human GRF(1-29), the shortest fully active fragment of GHRH; the substitutions resist enzymatic breakdown, and the DAC version adds a maleimide group that binds covalently to Cys34 of circulating albumin, keeping it in plasma beyond 72 hours in rats (Jetté, Endocrinology 2005).

• Ipamorelin acts at the growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHS-R1a) — the ghrelin receptor. Its defining property is selectivity: at doses more than 200-fold above the ED50 for GH release it did not raise ACTH or cortisol beyond what GHRH itself produced, and did not move FSH, LH, prolactin, or TSH (Raun 1998) — distinguishing it from GHRP-6 and GHRP-2, which raise both.

The rationale for pairing them is not invented. Combined GHRH-plus-GHRP stimulation is genuinely synergistic in humans: in 18 normal men, submaximal doses of GHRP-6 plus GHRH released more GH than either agent alone (Bowers, JCEM 1990). It is reliable enough that endocrinology adopted it as a diagnostic test, where it separated 125 adults with pituitary disease from 125 controls better than the insulin tolerance test (Popovic, Lancet 2000). But both studies used GHRP-6, not ipamorelin, given intravenously as a single provocation lasting minutes. Neither describes what repeated subcutaneous dosing does over weeks or months, which is how the blend is actually used.

Neither peptide has an approved indication anywhere, alone or combined. The clinical programs that existed both ended without approval:

• CJC-1295: a phase 2 study in HIV-associated visceral obesity (NCT00267527) was terminated in 2006, and development stopped there.

• Ipamorelin: a phase 2 trial for postoperative ileus in 114 bowel-resection patients did not beat placebo on time to tolerating solid food (25.3 vs 32.6 hours, p=0.15) (Beck, Int J Colorectal Dis 2014). That is its only published human efficacy trial, and it was negative.

In practice the blend appears almost entirely in wellness clinics, marketed for body composition, recovery, sleep, and "vitality." FDA catalogued that marketing when it reviewed both substances, including one website claiming that adding CJC-1295 produces a "3-5 fold increase in growth hormone release over ipamorelin alone" (FDA PCAC briefing, October 2024). It identified no data supporting any of it.

Both halves are named individually on the WADA Prohibited List. Under S2.2.4, CJC-1295 appears among "growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) and its analogues," alongside CJC-1293, sermorelin and tesamorelin; ipamorelin appears among "growth hormone secretagogues (GHS) and their mimetics," alongside ibutamoren (MK-677), anamorelin, macimorelin, and ghrelin itself.

As non-Specified Substances, the default sanction is the full four-year period. And because the list covers "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect," relabelling a vial as "modified GRF (1-29)" changes nothing about its prohibited status.

There is no safety database for the combination. What exists is a component record plus the well-characterized consequences of raising GH and IGF-1 — both more informative than the usual "generally well tolerated" line.

• The CJC-1295 program ended after a death. FDA's own review states that "ConjuChem Biotechnology withdrew CJC-1295 DAC from clinical trials in 2006 after the death of a subject involved in a phase 2 trial" (FDA PCAC briefing, December 2024). Contemporaneous reporting placed it after an eleventh weekly injection, with the site investigator attributing it to pre-existing coronary disease. Causality was never established either way, and never will be.

• Ipamorelin's phase 2 trial logged adverse-event imbalances. In the postoperative-ileus study, hypokalemia occurred in 12.5% of ipamorelin patients versus 3.4% on placebo, hyperglycemia at discharge in 14.3% versus 8.6%, and insomnia in 10.7% versus 5.2%. Two deaths occurred in ipamorelin-treated subjects; FDA noted the relationship was unclear but that their occurrence "raises safety concerns" (FDA, 2024).

• Glucose is the predictable class effect. GH is counter-regulatory to insulin. Over two years of daily dosing with the oral secretagogue MK-677, fasting glucose rose about 0.3 mmol/L (5 mg/dL) and insulin sensitivity fell (Nass, Ann Intern Med 2008). FDA flagged that nothing in the ipamorelin nomination ruled out "glucose intolerance and diabetes mellitus."

• GH-excess effects are dose-related, not exotic. A systematic review of GH in 220 healthy older adults found significantly higher rates of soft-tissue edema, arthralgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, and gynecomastia, with a trend toward new diabetes (Liu, Ann Intern Med 2007). Secretagogues work through the pituitary rather than bypassing it, but the downstream hormone is the same.

Product-level risk applies on top: FDA's reviews of both substances returned repeatedly to immunogenicity and to missing endotoxin testing for injectable routes. See also what are the risks of peptides.

The pharmacology buyers most often get wrong is that the two things sold as "CJC-1295" behave completely differently.

• CJC-1295 with DAC is the molecule from the published trials. A single subcutaneous injection raised mean plasma GH 2- to 10-fold for six or more days and IGF-1 1.5- to 3-fold for 9–11 days, with a half-life of 5.8–8.1 days (Teichman 2006) — a sustained elevation rather than a pulse.

• CJC-1295 without DAC is the same backbone with no albumin-binding group — FDA describes it as "Tetra-substituted GRF (1-29)," commonly sold as modified GRF (1-29) (FDA, 2024). It is short-acting, closer to sermorelin than to the DAC version, and the form usually present in blends marketed for daily use. No human pharmacokinetic study of it has been published.

For the detail behind these figures, see the dosing education page.

The blend is supplied as a lyophilized powder — either two vials drawn into one syringe, or a pre-mixed vial. There is no standardized ratio. The frequently quoted "1:1" is a gray-market convention, not a formulation standard, and no vial has a third-party assay behind its label.

The regulatory position on compounded versions is now explicit. Both substances were nominated for the FDA's 503A Bulks List, which governs what compounding pharmacies may legally use, and both were rejected by FDA's advisory committee in 2024 — ipamorelin 12–0 with one abstention in October (minutes), CJC-1295 (free base) unanimously 13–0 in December (minutes) — citing poor characterization, inconsistent naming, safety concerns, and no effectiveness data.

Related pairings — ipamorelin with sermorelin or tesamorelin — share the same two-pathway logic and the same absence of combination trials. Tesamorelin is the only GHRH analog here with an FDA-approved indication, a useful benchmark for what an evidence-backed one looks like.

The literature divides into three tiers, and the product occupies the empty one.

• Component pharmacology (human): two randomized, placebo-controlled ascending-dose studies of CJC-1295 in healthy adults aged 21–61, over 28 and 49 days, established the multi-day GH and IGF-1 elevation and the 5.8–8.1 day half-life (Teichman 2006).

• Component pharmacology (preclinical): ipamorelin's characterization in rats and swine showed GH potency similar to GHRP-6 with no ACTH or cortisol signal (Raun 1998); CJC-1295's albumin chemistry was worked out in rats (Jetté 2005).

• Class-level synergy (real, but not this product): GHRH plus a GHRP releases more GH than either alone in humans (Bowers 1990), reliably enough to serve as a diagnostic test (Popovic 2000) — both using intravenous GHRP-6 as an acute stimulus.

• Clinical outcomes (absent): no published trial of the combination exists and none is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Every number quoted in favour of this blend comes from a study of one component, a different secretagogue, or a different route. For the study-by-study walkthrough, see the research and evidence overview.

For deeper dives on this combination, see:

• CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin benefits and areas of interest
• CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin side effects and safety context
• CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin dosing concepts (educational)
• CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin research and evidence overview

What is the difference between CJC-1295 with DAC and without DAC? The backbone is the same tetra-substituted GRF(1-29). The DAC version adds a maleimide linker that binds covalently to albumin, giving it a half-life of 5.8–8.1 days (Teichman 2006). Without DAC there is no albumin anchor, so it is short-acting and usually sold as "modified GRF (1-29)." Most blends contain the no-DAC version — meaning the human trial data people cite does not describe what is in the vial.

Why are CJC-1295 and ipamorelin combined? Because they hit two different receptors that both end in a GH pulse, and combining a GHRH analog with a ghrelin-receptor agonist genuinely produces more GH than either alone in humans (Bowers 1990). That is a sound mechanistic rationale — not evidence that the blend, at the doses sold, produces any benefit worth the risk.

Has CJC-1295 + ipamorelin been studied in humans? No — no published trial and no registered study on ClinicalTrials.gov. The components were studied separately and both programs ended: CJC-1295's phase 2 trial was terminated (NCT00267527) and ipamorelin's missed its primary endpoint (Beck 2014).

Did someone die in a CJC-1295 trial? Yes, and the program was stopped. FDA's 2024 review states plainly that ConjuChem "withdrew CJC-1295 DAC from clinical trials in 2006 after the death of a subject involved in a phase 2 trial" (FDA PCAC briefing). Reporting at the time indicated the site investigator attributed it to underlying coronary artery disease and considered it unrelated to the drug. The relationship was never resolved, because the program ended.

Is CJC-1295 + ipamorelin banned in sport? Yes, both components, at all times. CJC-1295 is named under S2.2.4 as a GHRH analogue and ipamorelin as a growth hormone secretagogue on the WADA Prohibited List, both as non-Specified Substances, so the default sanction is four years. Naming a product "mod GRF (1-29)" does not exempt it — the list covers substances of similar structure or biological effect.

How does CJC-1295 + ipamorelin compare with sermorelin? Sermorelin is plain GRF(1-29), the unmodified parent of CJC-1295, and the only one of these with FDA approval history: it was marketed as Geref before being discontinued, a withdrawal the Federal Register determined was not for safety or effectiveness reasons (Drugs@FDA, NDA 019863). Sermorelin is short-acting and single-pathway; the blend adds a second receptor and, in the DAC form, far longer exposure. More stimulation is not automatically better — none has demonstrated a clinical outcome in healthy adults.

Can a compounding pharmacy legally make it? Not under the framework FDA has proposed: its advisory committee rejected both substances for the 503A Bulks List in 2024 (October, December minutes). Material sold online as "research use only" sits entirely outside that framework and carries no assurance of identity, purity, or sterility.