Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Growth hormone axis

GHRP-2

One of the original growth-hormone secretagogue peptides — real pharmacology, no approved physique indication, and formal FDA compounding safety concerns.

L2Animal / lab studiesResearch / unapproved supplyUnclear
How settled this rating is:
very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Not established · Subcutaneous injection, Nasal (marketed but never approved)
Also known as:
pralmorelin, growth hormone releasing peptide-2
Last reviewed:
2026-08-23
Jump to section

Evidence passport

GHRP-2

A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.

Reviewed 2026-08-23
Evidence level
L2Animal / lab studies
Confidence
Very low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Research / unapproved supply
Development status
Unclear

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence25 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Human safety evidence12 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.

Evidence base
Mostly animal and laboratory research
Furthest established stage
Not established
Human research maturity
Historical human pharmacology studies; no approved therapeutic programme
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection· unapprovedNasal· unapproved

Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells

The supporting research for GHRP-2 is predominantly preclinical (Level 1–2). That is a legitimate starting point for science and a poor basis for personal decisions. Human results are not simply a scaled-up version of mouse results.

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength25 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength50 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength12 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Historical human pharmacology studies; no approved therapeutic programme

Routes & formulations

Marketed / research routes — never approved

SC injection· unapprovedNasal· unapproved

FDA material describes injectable and nasal marketed products. These are unapproved routes for the marketed claims; their availability is not evidence of efficacy.

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

UnclearFurthest stage not established in our curated record

Historical clinical pharmacology research exists; no established current development programme in the curated record.

What it is

A synthetic hexapeptide that stimulates growth hormone release via the ghrelin receptor, part of the first wave of GH secretagogue research.

What people claim

  • Raises growth hormone for muscle gain and fat loss
  • Anti-ageing GH restoration

What the evidence actually says

GHRP-2 genuinely raises GH and IGF-1 — that was established in early human pharmacology studies. What was never established is the part people buy it for: no controlled trials demonstrate body-composition, performance or anti-ageing benefit. A hormone change is a surrogate, not an outcome.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Early human pharmacology studies confirming GH release.
  • Published serious adverse event case reports noted by the FDA; case reports signal possible harm but do not by themselves prove causation for every event.
  • No controlled trials supporting physique, performance or anti-ageing claims.

Preclinical evidence

  • Ghrelin-receptor pharmacology and animal GH-axis studies.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • GHSR-1a agonism on pituitary somatotrophs and hypothalamic circuits drives GH pulses.

Safety and unknowns

  • The FDA flags immunogenicity and impurity concerns and cites published serious adverse event case reports for compounded use.
  • Chronic GH-axis stimulation has unresolved long-term safety questions.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

Theoretical / mechanistic concern only

Sustained IGF-1 elevation is a theoretical proliferation concern shared across the GH axis. No human cancer outcome data exist for GHRP-2 itself.

Regulatory status

Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.

Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.

Not an FDA-approved medicine. The FDA's compounding safety material flags GHRP-2 across injectable and nasal routes, citing immunogenicity and impurity concerns and published serious adverse event case reports.

Evidence grade

L2Animal / lab studiesVery low confidence in rating

Documented compound-specific animal or laboratory outcome findings, without qualifying human evidence for the assessed benefit.

What would change our rating?

  • Controlled trials with functional or body-composition endpoints.
  • A modern systematic safety dataset.

References and sources

Source transparency

A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.

Sources fully curated
Last editorial review
2026-08-23
Recently reviewed · 54 days ago
Linked curated sources
1
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Regulatory / label: 1

Review provenance

Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.

Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-08-23.