Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §4

CJC-1295 in growth hormone deficiency and growth-hormone secretagogue pharmacology: tolerability and… — summary of findings

Outcome-by-outcome summary with effect, certainty and the reason for each downgrade.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-099/4
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
1.2
Published
17 Jun 2025
Last reviewed
17 Apr 2026
Next review
17 Oct 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.99
Certainty
Low
Cycle
2025 Q2
Review type
Safety review
Search executed
21 Apr 2025

Templated review frame. This review question was generated by crossing an indication with a compound for which contributing trials exist. Its prose frame is templated and is shared with other questions of the same shape. Its included studies, its summary of findings and its certainty rating are computed from the underlying records and are not templated. The Institute publishes these questions because the alternative is to leave a question the document set can answer unanswered, and it labels them because the alternative is to present a templated frame as an authored one.

§4Summary of findings

§4.1Summary of findings

Table 7. Summary of findings for CJC-1295 in growth hormone deficiency and growth-hormone secretagogue pharmacology….

OutcomeParticipants (studies)Effect as reportedCertaintyReason for downgrade
Peak stimulated growth hormoneThe outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication.— (2)Sustained elevation of insulin-like growth factor 1 for one to two weeks after a single doseLowrisk of bias, publication bias
Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission.— (2)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowimprecision
Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction.— (1)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableVery lowinconsistency, imprecision
Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials.— (1)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableVery lowindirectness, imprecision
Change in IGF-1 and IGFBP-3A secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.— (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsVery lowrisk of bias, imprecision, publication bias
Body composition by DXAA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.— (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsVery lowrisk of bias, imprecision
Certainty ratings describe confidence in the effect estimate for the stated outcome. They are not recommendations and do not transfer between outcomes.

§4.2Forest plot

Contributing estimatesPoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.11.5Ratio measure, log scale (1 = no effect)Contributing studyEstimate (95 % CI)CJC-PH1-ASCENDING2006 · n=not held1.52 (1.37 to 1.68)CJC-PH1-MULTIDOSE2006 · n=not held1.45 (1.30 to 1.59)Pooled estimate1.51 (1.33 to 1.70)
Study estimatePooled estimate
Figure 1. Illustrative. Contributing estimates plotted against the line of no effect. The point estimates and intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the contributing evidence on a common ratio scale, generated deterministically from the record identifiers; they are not the published estimates, which appear in their own units in the included-studies table and on each trial abstract. The figure is published to convey the dispersion of the evidence base, not to supply a number.

§4.3Certainty assessment for the anchor outcome

Certainty assessment by domainDowngrading decision recorded for each certainty domain.Certainty domainNo concernSeriousVery seriousEffect on ratingRisk of biasdowngrade one levelInconsistencyno downgradeIndirectnessno downgradeImprecisionno downgradePublication biasdowngrade one levelTotal downgrading: 2 levelsLow certainty
Figure 2. Domain-by-domain certainty assessment for the anchor outcome of this review.

Table 8. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain for the anchor outcome.

DomainRatingReasoning
Risk of biasSeriousAllocation concealment is not described in one contributing report.
InconsistencyNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
IndirectnessNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
ImprecisionNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Publication biasSeriousToo few contributing studies for a formal assessment; the risk cannot be excluded.
Overall: Low certainty. Confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate.

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. 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. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2006;91(3):799–805. doi:10.1210/jc.2005-1536 · PMID 16352683
  2. Prakash A, Goa KL. Sermorelin: a review of its use in the diagnosis and treatment of children with idiopathic growth hormone deficiency. BioDrugs 1999;12(2):139–157. doi:10.2165/00063030-199912020-00007 · PMID 18031173

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.