CJC-1295 references: every study cited in this digest

How to read this list

Every CJC-1295 references entry below is numbered to match the inline [N] markers across the site. Citations 1-6 are the core CJC-1295 literature; 7, 8, 14 and 15 are the tesamorelin benchmark; 9-11 are the secretagogue and ipamorelin studies; 12 and 13 are recent reviews and methods. Identifiers carry the registry note where sources disagree.

The list is deliberately tiered, because the evidence is. The two human pharmacokinetic studies (Teichman 2006 ^[1]; Ionescu/Frohman 2006 ^[3]) carry the early-phase clinical data. The discovery and animal work (Jette 2005 ^[2]; Alba 2006 ^[4]; the ipamorelin studies ^[10][11]) are preclinical. The tesamorelin trials (Falutz 2007 ^[8]; Stanley 2014 ^[7]; the 2010 trial ^[14]; the 2026 outcomes analysis ^[15]) are the Phase 3 RCT benchmark for the drug class — they study tesamorelin, not CJC-1295, and are included as the comparator the CJC-1295 vs tesamorelin page is built around.

Compound identifiers and the registry disagreement

Machine identifiers for the compound itself: CAS 863288-34-0, attributed to the DAC variant across chemical-supplier registries (ChemicalBook, Chemsrc, Alfa Chemistry), though some listings apply it loosely to the no-DAC sequence as well. PubChem CID 91971820. Molecular weight near 3367.9 daltons for the DAC peptide before albumin conjugation; the effective circulating species after conjugation is the much larger peptide-albumin complex, near 66 kilodaltons ^[2].

Registry sources disagree on the exact molecular formula — the CAS-registry consensus gives C152H252N44O42 while PubChem lists C165H269N47O46 (near 3647 daltons). This site flags that disagreement rather than picking a winner: a formula that two reputable registries report differently is reported as contested, not asserted. The discontinued ConjuChem Phase 2 trial in HIV-associated visceral obesity is registered as NCT00267527 ^[1].

Where a citation below resolves to a paywalled article, the DOI and PubMed identifier are still listed so the source can be located and verified independently. Nothing on this site asks a reader to take a number on trust; every figure has an address.

What this list does not include

A note on absence, because it is part of an honest reference list. There is no large efficacy trial of CJC-1295 in healthy adults to cite, no long-term safety study, and no approved-indication label — because none exists. Where this digest discusses fluid retention, insulin sensitivity, or the IGF-1/cancer-risk epidemiology, those are framed as recognized consequences of GH-axis stimulation and as theoretical concerns rather than CJC-1295-specific trial outcomes, and they are not dressed up with a citation the underlying literature would not support.

The regulatory facts — the 2024 Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee review, the unapproved status, the WADA Section S2 prohibition — are matters of public record rather than journal findings, and are reported as such. The result is a reference list that is short on purpose: it carries the studies that exist, names the comparator that does, and leaves the gaps visible instead of filling them.