About the Peptide Desk Reference
The Peptide Desk Reference (PDR) is an independent, evidence-graded reference library for peptide therapy compounds. It exists to give clinicians, researchers, and informed patients a single source of structured, cited, and unbiased information about peptides used in clinical and research settings.
We catalog FDA-approved drugs, investigational compounds in clinical trials, and grey-market peptides that patients are already using. We do not endorse, recommend, or facilitate the use of any compound. We provide the evidence so clinicians can make informed decisions.
Editorial Standards
Every monograph in the PDR follows a standardized structure designed to present information consistently and transparently. Our editorial standards are modeled on established medical reference frameworks including the Physicians' Desk Reference, UpToDate, and the Cochrane Collaboration.
Monograph Development Process
- 1Literature review. PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA databases, and EMA resources are searched for all available clinical, preclinical, and regulatory data on each compound.
- 2Evidence grading. Each compound receives an evidence grade (A through D) based on the quality, quantity, and consistency of available human clinical data. See the grading methodology below.
- 3Dual-audience writing. Every monograph includes both a clinical summary (written for healthcare professionals) and a plain-language summary (written for informed patients).
- 4Safety-first approach. Contraindications, adverse events, interactions, and active safety signals are given prominent placement. We do not bury risks.
- 5Review and versioning. Each monograph carries a “last reviewed” date and version number. Published monographs are updated when material new evidence emerges.
Evidence Grading Methodology
Our evidence grading system assigns each compound a letter grade reflecting the strength of available clinical evidence. This is not a recommendation; it is an assessment of how much we know.
Strong Evidence
- FDA or EMA approved for at least one indication
- Multiple well-designed Phase 3 RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals
- Post-marketing safety surveillance data available
- Mechanism of action well characterized
- Prescribing information with established dosing
Examples: Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, Tesamorelin, Bremelanotide
Moderate Evidence
- Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial data in humans
- Mechanism characterized with supporting pharmacodynamic data
- May have regulatory approval in some jurisdictions but not FDA/EMA
- Safety profile partially characterized through clinical exposure
Examples: Retatrutide, CagriSema, Thymosin Alpha-1, Kisspeptin, MK-677
Limited Evidence
- Primarily preclinical (animal and in vitro) data
- Limited or no controlled human trials
- Mechanism proposed but not fully validated in humans
- Safety profile not systematically assessed in human populations
- Common designation for grey-market compounds
Examples: BPC-157, TB-500, CJC-1295, Ipamorelin, Semax, Selank
Very Limited Evidence
- Minimal published data, often from a single research group
- Claims not independently replicated
- No human clinical data or only case reports/anecdotes
- High uncertainty about both efficacy and safety
- Mechanism speculative or poorly characterized
Examples: Epitalon, FOX04-DRI, DSIP, Dihexa
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
The Peptide Desk Reference has no financial relationships with any peptide manufacturer, distributor, compounding pharmacy, clinic, or vendor.
- We do not accept sponsored content or advertorial placements.
- We do not receive referral fees, affiliate commissions, or revenue sharing from any product or service mentioned in our monographs.
- Our sole revenue source is subscription fees paid by users who choose to access the full reference library.
- We do not provide sourcing information, vendor recommendations, or pricing for any compound.
- Evidence grades are assigned based on published data, not commercial interest or popularity.
Content Guardrails
The following constraints are applied to every piece of content in the PDR. They are non-negotiable and exist to protect both patients and clinicians.
No sourcing or vendor information
We are a reference, not a marketplace
No compounding or reconstitution instructions
Preparation is a licensed pharmacy function
No personalized dosing recommendations
Dosing requires individual clinical assessment
No injection technique guidance
Administration training is a clinical responsibility
No claims beyond published evidence
We report what studies show, not what we hope
No suppression of safety data
Risks are presented with the same rigor as benefits
Update Policy
Monographs are reviewed and updated on a rolling basis. Updates are triggered by:
- Publication of new clinical trial results (Phase 2 or higher)
- FDA or EMA regulatory actions (approvals, warnings, label changes)
- New safety signals from pharmacovigilance systems
- Publication of systematic reviews or meta-analyses
- Changes in regulatory or compounding status
Each monograph displays its “last reviewed” date and version number. Changes between versions are logged internally and significant changes are highlighted in the “Trending Updates” section of the home page.
Editorial Inquiries
For corrections, evidence submissions, or editorial questions, contact the PDR editorial team. We review all submissions and prioritize corrections to safety-related content.
The PDR is a product of the Peptide Association.