What is CJC-1295? What it does, benefits and what the evidence shows

CJC-1295 is a synthetic analog of growth-hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH), developed by the Canadian biotech ConjuChem to last longer in the body than natural GHRH. It's sold in two distinct forms — "with DAC," chemically modified to bind to albumin in the blood and stay active for days, and "without DAC" (also sold as "Mod GRF 1-29"), which behaves more like a standard short-acting GHRH analog. Neither form has ever been approved by FDA for any use, and the compound's own clinical development was halted in 2006 after a trial participant died. This isn't medical advice.

What CJC-1295 is and how it works

CJC-1295 is a modified 29-amino-acid analog of human GHRH, first described in the scientific literature by Jetté and colleagues in 2005. ConjuChem Biotechnology, based in Montreal, built the "DAC" (drug affinity complex) version by attaching a small chemical linker — a maleimidopropionic acid group bound to a lysine residue — to the end of the GHRH sequence, specifically to overcome the very short half-life of natural human GHRH (FDA evaluation memorandum for the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, 2024). That linker reacts with a specific site on albumin, the most abundant protein in blood, effectively hitching the peptide to a molecule the body doesn't clear quickly. Researchers confirmed this bioconjugation happening in rats and showed that the albumin-bound form still triggered growth hormone release from pituitary cells in culture (Jetté et al. 2005, cited in the same FDA memo). "CJC-1295 without DAC" is the same GHRH-analog core sequence synthesized without that albumin-binding tail — FDA's review describes it as the first form referenced in the literature, in a 2010 report analyzing a pharmaceutical preparation seized by Norwegian authorities that mass spectrometry showed contained the CJC-1295 sequence but not the DAC modification.

In healthy adults, the DAC version's effect on growth hormone and IGF-1 lasted dramatically longer than natural GHRH: a single injection raised growth hormone for six days or more, and researchers measured a half-life in blood of roughly six to eight days (Teichman et al. 2006, J Clin Endocrinol Metab). CJC-1295 without DAC, lacking the albumin anchor, would be expected to clear far faster, closer to the short half-life of GHRH itself — though we found no published human pharmacokinetic study of that specific unmodified form to confirm a number.

Buyers researching this compound often ask about pairing CJC-1295 with ipamorelin, since the two work through separate receptors — CJC-1295 through the GHRH receptor, ipamorelin through the ghrelin receptor — that are theoretically complementary. We found no controlled human trial testing that combination; what's published tests each peptide on its own.

What people use it for

What the research actually shows

Two human pharmacology trials — real GH and IGF-1 changes, no serious adverse reactions reported

The core human evidence for CJC-1295 with DAC comes from Teichman and colleagues' 2006 study: two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials in healthy adults ages 21 to 61, using ascending amounts given by subcutaneous injection. After a single injection, mean growth hormone concentrations rose two- to tenfold above baseline for six days or more, and IGF-1 concentrations rose one-and-a-half- to threefold for nine to eleven days; after repeated dosing over several weeks, IGF-1 stayed above baseline for up to 28 days. The published abstract reports no serious adverse reactions and describes the compound as "safe and relatively well tolerated," with tolerability best at the two lower amounts studied. The same abstract's authors concluded the data "support the potential utility of CJC-1295 as a therapeutic agent" — a statement about theoretical promise from a small pharmacology study, not a demonstrated treatment benefit for any condition.

FDA's 2024 review, drawing on Teichman et al. 2006 together with two other studies in healthy adults (Ionescu and Frohman 2006; Sackmann-Sala et al. 2009), found that across all three, adverse events were common: 94% of subjects who received CJC-1295 DAC reported at least one adverse event, versus 29% on placebo in one of the two Teichman trials. Injection site reactions — irritation, redness, hardening, pain, or itching — occurred in roughly 70% of treated subjects and were more severe or prolonged at higher amounts. Headache occurred in 63% of the treated group versus 14% on placebo; transient hive-like rashes at the injection site occurred in almost 30% and weren't clearly tied to how much was given; and diarrhea and flushing/warmth/transient low blood pressure each occurred in a meaningful minority, again more often at higher amounts. None of this speaks to whether CJC-1295 treats anything — it's tolerability data from healthy volunteers over a matter of weeks.

Growth hormone deficiency — no human evidence at all

FDA's review is direct on this point: none of the nominators' submissions and none of FDA's own literature search turned up a single study testing any form of CJC-1295 in people who actually have growth hormone deficiency. The three published human studies were all conducted in healthy adults and didn't measure the outcomes — body composition, height velocity — that would matter for a GHD treatment claim. FDA's stated conclusion: "There are no studies evaluating effectiveness in humans with GHD for any of the evaluated substances." Like other growth-hormone-releasing peptides, CJC-1295 only works on a pituitary gland that still has some capacity to secrete GH — it would not be expected to help someone with complete GHD.

The 2006 trial and the death that ended it

ConjuChem's furthest clinical progress with CJC-1295 DAC was a Phase 2 trial in people with HIV-associated visceral obesity, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00267527: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study sponsored by ConjuChem, with an enrollment of 120 listed on ClinicalTrials.gov (the press reports FDA cites say 192 subjects were enrolled), that started in December 2005 and is listed as terminated by September 2006. FDA's 2024 evaluation memorandum describes what happened only from what it calls anecdotal press reports, not from trial records: two hours after an 11th weekly dose, one subject reported chest discomfort, an ECG confirmed a heart attack, and the subject died about an hour later. The memo relays the attending physician's stated view that the most likely explanation was asymptomatic coronary artery disease with plaque rupture and blockage. The study was terminated and its data were never published. The memo draws no conclusion about whether the drug played any role, and the trial's data were never published — the death has neither been shown to be caused by CJC-1295 nor shown to be unrelated. That unresolved signal is a documented part of the compound's history, not a settled verdict.

Side effects and risks

Beyond the injection site reactions, headache, GI effects, and flushing reported in the healthy-volunteer studies above, and the unresolved cardiac event from the 2006 trial, FDA's own regulatory reviewers reached a broader conclusion in 2024: they recommended against including any form of CJC-1295 on the list of substances eligible for pharmacy compounding, citing that each form was not well-characterized (inconsistent naming has led to real confusion between "CJC-1295" and "CJC-1295 DAC," which are different molecules with different properties), a lack of long-term human safety data, and no evidence of effectiveness for any nominated use. On December 4, 2024, FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee voted against placing any of the five CJC-1295 forms on the 503A bulks list, with 0 or 1 yes votes and 12 or 13 no votes on each. The published minutes (FDA, PCAC minutes, December 4, 2024) record only the counts and one member's comment on the lack of evidence for effectiveness; the other concerns, including immunogenicity of injected peptides, the absence of repeat-dose toxicity studies and the unresolved 2006 death, come from FDA's own briefing review.

None of the published human studies followed subjects for more than a few weeks, so there's no data on what happens with the kind of extended, repeated use grey-market buyers typically describe. On the buying side specifically, our data shows purity has generally been solid for both forms of this compound, but sample sizes are small enough that a single vendor's results can swing the numbers noticeably — worth keeping in mind before treating any of the figures below as a settled picture.

What the lab tests show

As of September 30, 2026, our database splits into two separate pictures depending on which form is being sold. CJC-1295 with DAC has 7 vials from 5 vendors, drawn from 7 lab reports dated March 2025 through August 2026. Of 6 vials with a purity result, 5 came in at 99% or higher and 1 measured under 95%, with a median of 99.33%. The median measured amount was +1.2% vs. label, with 3 of the 7 measured vials within ±5% and 1 more than 20% under label. Altogether 2 of the 7 tested vials failed our definition.

CJC-1295 without DAC — sometimes labeled "NoDAC" or sold as "Mod GRF 1-29" — has a separate record: 6 vials from 4 vendors, 5 lab reports dated July 2025 through August 2026. 6 of the 6 vials had a purity result; 4 came in at 99% or higher, with a median of 99.28%. The median measured amount was +0.6% vs. label, with 3 of the 6 measured vials within ±5% (5 were within ±10% as of September 29, 2026) and 1 more than 50% over label. 1 of the 6 tested vials failed our definition.

Both are small samples — a handful of vendors and a single unusual result can move these numbers noticeably. Here's how the ranked vendors for CJC-1295 look right now; the table shows current verdicts and flags any vendor whose failed-vial rate is above 5%. Ranked isn't automatically good, and for a compound with this few total vials tested, this table may be short:

Buying smarter

Before you check a vendor's record, confirm which molecule you're actually looking at: "CJC-1295," "CJC-1295 with DAC," "CJC-1295 without DAC," and "Mod GRF 1-29" get used inconsistently across grey-market listings, and FDA's own reviewers flagged this same naming confusion as a real safety issue — a mislabeled vial means you could end up with a molecule with different properties than the one you researched. Once you know which form you're buying, check the vendor's full record on our CJC-1295 results page — a vendor needs five or more lab reports before we rank them, and the number of reports behind a score matters as much as the score itself.

Whatever COA a vendor posts is a starting point, not proof: check it against how to read a peptide COA and the red flags in fake peptide COAs. How to get a peptide tested walks through ordering independent identity, purity, and quantity testing on your own vial — worth doing given how small and split our current dataset is between the two forms. If your own report comes back with a fail, stop using that batch, tell anyone who bought from the same run, bring the report to the vendor, and submit it to VendorVerify.

Database figures without a date update automatically from VendorVerify's lab results; dated figures are snapshots. This isn't medical advice; CJC-1295 is sold for research use only and has not been evaluated by FDA for safety or effectiveness in humans.