Baseline entry: discontinued clinical development recorded in the profile.
L2Animal / lab studiesBaseline entry
Trials in postoperative ileus did not meet endpoints and development stopped. Physique claims have never been trialled.
Growth hormone axis
Ipamorelin
A selective growth hormone secretagogue discontinued after its trials missed their endpoints — now sold for physique and recovery claims no trial ever tested.
L2Animal / lab studiesResearch / unapproved supplyDiscontinued — efficacyLast reviewed 2026-08-23
- How settled this rating is:
- very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Subcutaneous injection
- Also known as:
- ghrelin receptor agonist, GHRP
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-08-23
Jump to section
Evidence passport
Ipamorelin
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
- Discontinued — efficacy
Evidence strength
Human efficacy evidence22 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 evidence25 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
- Discontinued clinical development
- Source curation
- Source curation pending
Routes recorded
SC injection
Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells
The supporting research for Ipamorelin 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 strength22 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 strength58 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 strength25 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: Discontinued clinical development
Routes & formulations
Studied / approved routes
SC injection
Clinical trials used subcutaneous injection. No approved formulation exists; route-specific outcomes beyond hormonal effects were never established.
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
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Approved
Discontinued — efficacyFurthest stage not established in our curated record
Clinical development was discontinued after trials in postoperative ileus did not meet their endpoints. The exact stage reached is not established in our curated record.
Why development stopped: Did not meet endpoints. Trials failed to show the benefit they were designed to detect.
Last documented development: 2009 — second phase 2 trial in postoperative ileus completed; results published in 2014 showed no benefit over placebo, and no further development is identified in the curated record.
What it is
A synthetic pentapeptide that mimics ghrelin at the growth hormone secretagogue receptor, selected for releasing GH with relatively little effect on cortisol or prolactin.
What people claim
- Lean muscle gain
- Fat loss
- Better sleep and recovery
- Gentle, side-effect-free GH boost
What the evidence actually says
It reliably raises growth hormone, and its selectivity profile is genuinely better than older secretagogues. But the clinical programme that would have proven benefit was abandoned after failing its endpoints in a different indication, and no trials support the physique and recovery claims made online.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
CJC-1295 evidence profile
A long-acting GHRH analogue abandoned after early human studies — it reliably raises growth hormone, but the outcomes it is sold for were never tested.
- Compare
Compare Ipamorelin vs CJC-1295 evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Checked claim
Claim review: “Peptides that raise growth hormone will build muscle in healthy adults.”
A closely related claim we have graded, from Growth hormone axis.
- Context
Discontinued & Abandoned Peptides
Why programmes stop or stall — and why neither status is automatically a safety verdict.
Human evidence
- Clinical trials in postoperative ileus that did not meet primary endpoints; development discontinued.
- No controlled trials supporting muscle, fat-loss or recovery claims.
Preclinical evidence
- Animal studies characterising selective GH release with limited cortisol and prolactin elevation.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- GHS-R1a agonism triggers pituitary GH release, complementary to GHRH signalling.
- Relatively selective compared with earlier GHRPs.
Safety and unknowns
- Ghrelin-receptor agonism can increase appetite — often the opposite of what buyers expect.
- Injection-site reactions, headache and water retention reported.
- No long-term human safety data for the way it is actually used.
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
Indirect IGF-1 elevation carries the same theoretical proliferation concern as the rest of the GH axis. No human cancer outcome data exist for this compound.
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 approved. Clinical development was discontinued after trials in postoperative ileus did not meet endpoints. Prohibited in sport.
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 body-composition or functional endpoints.
- Modern safety data for chronic administration.
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.
- Last editorial review
- 2026-08-23
- Recently reviewed · 54 days ago
- Linked curated sources
- 0
- Sources still pending
- 1
- External specialist reviews
- 0
- None recorded for this profile
To be curated: 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.
- To be curatedSources to be curated
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.
- Change 1 of 1