Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Growth hormone axis

Tesamorelin

An approved medicine for one specific indication, routinely marketed for a much broader one.

L4Good human trialsApproved for a specific indication · FDA (US)Approved
How settled this rating is:
moderate confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Subcutaneous injection
Also known as:
Egrifta, TH9507, GHRH analogue
Last reviewed:
2026-08-23
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Tesamorelin

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
L4Good human trials
Confidence
Moderate confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Approved for a specific indication · See jurisdiction details
Development status
Approved

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence70 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 evidence65 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
Includes human studies
Furthest established stage
Approved
Human research maturity
Approved for a defined indication with Phase 3 support
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength70 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 strength70 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 strength65 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: Approved for a defined indication with Phase 3 support

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injection

The approved product is a subcutaneous injection studied in the labelled HIV-associated lipodystrophy population.

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

Approved

Approved for HIV-associated lipodystrophy; broader uses remain unapproved.

What it is

A stabilised analogue of growth-hormone-releasing hormone that stimulates the pituitary to release growth hormone in a relatively physiological pattern.

What people claim

  • Reduces visceral fat
  • Improves body composition in healthy adults
  • Anti-ageing and cognitive benefits

What the evidence actually says

Within its approved indication, tesamorelin has real randomised evidence for reducing visceral adipose tissue. Outside it, the evidence thins quickly: studies in healthy or general populations are limited, and the anti-ageing framing runs well past the data. Visceral fat reduction is also a surrogate endpoint, not a guaranteed health outcome.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Randomised placebo-controlled trials in HIV-associated lipodystrophy showing visceral fat reduction.
  • Smaller exploratory studies in other populations, including cognition-related work, that are not practice-changing.

Preclinical evidence

  • Established GHRH-receptor pharmacology and growth-hormone axis physiology.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • GHRH receptor agonism at the pituitary increases pulsatile growth hormone release.
  • Downstream IGF-1 elevation drives lipolysis in visceral fat.

Safety and unknowns

  • Common: injection-site reactions, joint pain, fluid retention, paraesthesia.
  • Raises IGF-1, requiring monitoring; effects on glucose metabolism can be unfavourable in some people.
  • Benefits reverse after stopping.

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.

Monitored in trials; not demonstrated in humans

Elevating growth hormone and IGF-1 is a mechanistically meaningful concern because IGF-1 signalling supports cell proliferation, and epidemiology links higher IGF-1 with some cancer risks. Trials in the approved indication have not demonstrated increased cancer incidence, but this is a monitored consideration rather than a settled question.

Regulatory status

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

Named regulators: FDA (US)

Approved in the US (Egrifta WR) for reduction of excess abdominal fat in HIV-infected adult patients with lipodystrophy. The label states it is not indicated for weight-loss management and that long-term cardiovascular safety has not been established. General body-recomposition or anti-ageing use is off-label.

  • Baseline · United States

    Approved for excess visceral abdominal fat in HIV-associated lipodystrophy only.

Evidence grade

L4Good human trialsModerate confidence in rating

Completed, adequately informative controlled human trials supporting a specified outcome; replication and longer-term safety may remain uncertain.

What would change our rating?

  • Long-term outcome data beyond surrogate imaging endpoints.
  • Controlled trials in non-HIV populations.

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.