Performance-enhancing peptides modulating the GH-IGF1 axis present significant risks of endocrine and metabolic disturbancesRisks and evidence levels for popular performance enhancing peptides

Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) marketed as “research compounds” include unregulated peptides intended to modulate the growth hormone–insulin-like growth factor-1 (GH–IGF-1) axis. The agents most commonly encountered in clinical practice and online self-administration protocols include growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) analogues (e.g., sermorelin, tesamorelin, CJC-1295 with Drug Affinity Complex [DAC], CJC-1295 without DAC), growth hormone secretagogues (GHS; e.g., growth hormone-releasing peptide-2 (GHRP-2), growth hormone-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6), hexarelin, ipamorelin), the growth hormone (GH) fragment - AOD9604 (hGH 176–191), and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) analogues (e.g., pegylated mechano growth factor (PEG-MGF), IGF-1 Long R3 (IGF-1 LR3)). Reported adverse effects span endocrine and metabolic disturbances (including prolactin and cortisol elevations, appetite changes, and dysglycaemia), fluid retention syndromes, musculoskeletal symptoms (myalgia/arthralgia), and injection-site reactions. Given the absence of regulatory approval for physique- or performance-related indications and the uncertainty surrounding product composition, dose, and stacking practices in unregulated supply chains, clinicians increasingly require a pragmatic framework to interpret symptoms and laboratory abnormalities in patients using these compounds. This narrative review contrasts peer-reviewed pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and clinical evidence with commonly encountered online self-administration protocols, stratifying peptides into evidence tiers from regulatory-grade randomized trial data to a complete absence of human studies, and highlights the resulting uncertainty around putative performance and recomposition benefits. We summarise structural characteristics, pharmacologic effects, and commonly reported dosing patterns, and we synthesise clinically relevant adverse effects with particular attention to hormonal imbalance, endocrine–metabolic risk, and biologically plausible but unproven mitogenic concerns. Finally, we propose a clinically oriented assessment algorithm to support exposure history taking, triage of symptom domains, and risk communication without legitimising off-label peptide regimens.