Read This First
This page is not built on clinical evidence. Cost and access are commercial and legal facts, not scientific findings. They come from the regulatory record and the published literature on how this compound is sold, and they change on timescales of months.
CJC-1295 has no list price, no prescription route in the United States, no insurance pathway and no manufacturer, because no form of it is approved anywhere, the company that developed it abandoned it in 2006, and the FDA's advisory committee voted unanimously in December 2024 against letting pharmacies compound it.12
This page publishes no prices. What follows is what determines the money, and for this compound most of that turns on one word: stack.
Why There Is No Price
What a Price Normally Represents
For an approved medicine, a price sits on top of a known quantity of a known substance, made to a validated standard, for a stated indication, with a documented effect. Every element under the number is fixed, which is what makes numbers comparable.
For CJC-1295, none of that holds, and the first element fails in an unusual way. The FDA counted at least five distinct substances sold under the name.1 Two sellers quoting the same figure for "5 mg of CJC-1295" may be quoting for different molecules, different salts, and different amounts of peptide per milligram. The number is not a price of anything in particular.
What Is the Approved Comparator?
There is one, and it is the reason this compound's economics are strange.
Tesamorelin is a stabilised GHRH analogue, the same class as CJC-1295, approved by the FDA in 2010 for visceral fat in HIV-associated lipodystrophy, and later for other indications. It was developed in the same era, for the same first indication, by a competitor; its Phase 3 programme continued after ConjuChem's trial was halted, and it finished.3
So a person who wants a GHRH analogue with a prescription, a label, a validated manufacturer and a published trial record can have one. The ONPEPS tesamorelin entry covers what that costs and requires. CJC-1295 exists commercially in the space where tesamorelin is too expensive, too restricted, or not what the buyer was told to want.
Access
Is There a Legal Route?
Not in the United States. No form of CJC-1295 is approved or a component of an approved drug, and none is on the 503A bulks list. It was considered for that list on 4 December 2024, with the FDA proposing against every form and the committee voting 0 to 13 against four of the five and 1 to 12 against the fifth.2
A pharmacy that compounded it between 2018 and 2020 is the subject of a federal prosecution cited in the FDA's review, and no outsourcing facility has reported compounding it since 2020.1
There is no clinical trial to join. The one trial in patients was terminated in 2006 and nothing has been registered since.4
Does Insurance Cover It?
No, and there is nothing to appeal. Payers reimburse approved products for approved indications. With no approval anywhere there is no covered indication and no billing code attached to one.
Can HSA or FSA Funds Be Used?
Tax-advantaged health accounts cover qualified medical expenses, which generally requires a legitimate medical purpose and often a provider's documentation. A product that cannot lawfully be dispensed for human use sits poorly against that. The account holder carries the consequences of a disallowed expense; the question belongs with the plan administrator.
What About a "Peptide Clinic"?
A prescription cannot authorise what federal law does not permit to be compounded. The FDA's review found no pharmacy currently marketing any form of the compound; the supply that clinics dispense comes from the same research-labelled channel as everything else.1 A clinical setting makes an unlawful supply feel like a medical one. It does not make it one, and it does not change what is in the vial.
What the Money Buys
Why Is It Almost Always Sold in a Stack?
Because on its own the compound is hard to sell.
CJC-1295 raises growth hormone and IGF-1 in healthy men; that is the whole of the human evidence.5 No study has measured body composition, strength, recovery, sleep or fat. Paired with ipamorelin, a secretagogue acting on a different receptor, it becomes "CJC/Ipa," a protocol with a rationale, a dosing schedule and a price, none of which attaches to either compound individually. The FDA's review documented blends of CJC-1295 with ipamorelin, and with ipamorelin and tesamorelin, sold as single products.1
The commercial logic is that a stack's price cannot be attributed to any one component, so no component is examined alone. The evidential logic runs the other way. No study has tested the combination, so the stack is not more evidence-based than its weakest member, and its weakest member is a molecule that has never been given to a person under observation.
Where Does the Spread Between Sellers Come From?
| Cost component | Present in | What it buys |
|---|---|---|
| Consultation and clinician time | Clinics, telehealth | A history, an examination, a record, and someone accountable |
| Premises, staff and liability | Clinics | Overhead and recourse, not product |
| Bundling into a "CJC/Ipa" or growth hormone protocol | Clinics, vendors | A second compound and a schedule, priced together so neither is examined alone |
| The DAC premium | Vendors | A molecule with a week-long half-life and the only human data, usually sold at a higher figure than the non-DAC form, which has no human data at all |
| Marketing and affiliate commission | All channels, often invisible | Nothing for the buyer |
| The compound itself | All channels | Raw material of unverified identity, at a cost small relative to the components above it. ONPEPS publishes no prices; read this as reasoning about cost structure rather than a measured breakdown |
None of the spread buys verified product quality, because no channel offers that. A higher price buys service and accountability where those exist. It does not buy identity, and for a compound with five identities, that is the thing worth paying for.
Does Frequency Change the Cost?
Yes, and in a direction that is rarely priced honestly.
The DAC form is dosed weekly, because it lasts about a week.5 The non-DAC form, by analogy with sermorelin, lasts minutes, and community protocols inject it two or three times a day, often alongside ipamorelin at each injection. A vial of the non-DAC form is therefore consumed several times faster than the same nominal quantity of the DAC form, and a per-vial comparison between them is not a comparison of a month's supply.
The non-DAC form is usually the cheaper vial. It is not obviously the cheaper month, and it is the form without a single human study behind it.
The Spending Decision
What Result Is Being Paid For?
The product copy promises growth hormone release leading to muscle, fat loss, recovery and sleep. The first half of that is documented: in healthy men, mostly after one dose, the DAC compound raised growth hormone and IGF-1 for days.56 The second half has never been measured for this compound in anyone.
So what the money buys, at best, is a hormone level. Whether a raised hormone level over months produces the outcomes on the product page is the question the 2006 patient trial was meant to answer, and the trial ended with a death and no dataset.1
A blood test showing raised IGF-1 after a few weeks confirms that something active was in the vial. It does not confirm what, and it does not confirm that the raised level is doing anything the buyer wants.
What Is the Risk Side of the Ledger?
Three things belong alongside the price.
The documented adverse effects in healthy volunteers: injection-site reactions in about 70 percent, headache in 63 percent, diarrhoea in 43 percent, flushing with transient low blood pressure in 30 percent, and a dose-dependent rise in heart rate.1 The FDA noted these might matter for "those at risk for falls or those with heart disease" and that a compounded product carries no label to say so.
The animal findings: injection-site necrosis at every dose in rats and dogs, and DNA damage in pituitary cells with no carcinogenicity study to bound it.17
And the sport prohibition. WADA names CJC-1295 under S2, and a validated urine method for it and its metabolites exists.89 For a tested athlete, that cost dwarfs the vial.
What Should Be Asked Before Paying?
Which CJC-1295? DAC or not, and which salt? If the seller cannot answer, the product is not identified.
Are you aware the FDA's advisory committee voted unanimously against compounding this in December 2024, and on what legal basis are you supplying it?2
Can I see a certificate of analysis matched to the batch I will receive, naming the exact substance, with identity testing and not only purity?
What is the price of each component of the stack separately, and per month at the injection frequency you recommend?
What happens if I develop an injection-site reaction, and who assesses it?
Does anyone here earn commission on product sales?
The first question is the informative one. A seller who does not know which of five substances they are selling is not competent to sell it. A seller who knows and does not say has told you why.
What Would Change This Page
Approval, a Trial, or a Reversal
None is in prospect. No company is developing any form of CJC-1295, no trial is registered, and the FDA's compounding process has taken it up and declined it.2 The July 2026 advisory votes that changed the conversation for other peptides did not include it.
Publication of the 2006 trial data would change what is known, though not what is legal. Twenty years on, that is not likely.
A Note on "Cheaper Than Growth Hormone"
The comparison is common and it is not a comparison. Recombinant growth hormone is an approved drug with a defined dose, a defined effect and a defined risk profile. CJC-1295 is an unverified substance sold on the premise that it produces some fraction of that effect. A price ratio between them says nothing about value, because the denominator has no measured effect to divide by. ONPEPS does not make the comparison.
Related ONPEPS Coverage
CJC-1295 library entry: the trials, the death and the December 2024 vote
CJC-1295 sourcing and quality: five molecules, nine names and no reference product
Sources
US Food and Drug Administration. CJC-1295-related bulk drug substances: FDA review for the December 4, 2024 meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee. Docket FDA-2024-N-4777. fda.gov
US Food and Drug Administration. Final Summary Minutes of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee Meeting, December 4, 2024. Approved 21 February 2025. fda.gov
Bernard EJ. Lipodystrophy study halted after patient death. aidsmap. 31 July 2006. News report. aidsmap.com
ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00267527. A Study to Evaluate CJC 1295 in HIV Patients With Visceral Obesity. Sponsor ConjuChem. Phase 2, terminated, no results posted. Record retrieved 16 September 2026. clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00267527
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. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(3):799-805. Open access. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16352683
Ionescu M, Frohman LA. Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(12):4792-4797. Open access. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17018654
Ben-Shlomo A, Deng N, Ding E, Yamamoto M, Mamelak A, Chesnokova V, et al. DNA damage and growth hormone hypersecretion in pituitary somatotroph adenomas. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(11):5738-5755. Open access. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32673291
World Anti-Doping Agency. The Prohibited List, section S2. Current edition. wada-ama.org
Memdouh S, Gavrilović I, Ng K, Cowan D, Abbate V. Advances in the detection of growth hormone releasing hormone synthetic analogs. Drug Test Anal. 2021;13(11-12):1871-1887. Open access. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34665524
Not Medical or Financial Advice
No form of CJC-1295 is approved for human use in any jurisdiction. Treatment decisions belong with a qualified healthcare provider. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy or not to buy anything; it is an account of what is known about what the money would be spent on.
Sources verified 16 September 2026. Regulatory status changes and a registered trial would change parts of this page. Re-verify before relying on anything here.