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
Publisher & Editorial Independence
The Peptide Desk Reference is published by Peptide Desk Reference, an independently operated clinical reference service. Peptide Desk Reference is owned and operated by Peptide Association LLC, which also operates a commercial platform for healthcare providers, a pharmacy directory, and a supplier network for credentialed practitioners.
The PDR editorial team operates under independent editorial standards. Commercial relationships maintained by Peptide Association LLC — including provider directory listings, supplier network arrangements, and pharmacy partnerships — have no influence on evidence grades, compound selection, safety reporting, or editorial decisions in this reference.
No compound is included or excluded based on any commercial relationship. No evidence grade is influenced by any vendor, supplier, or provider. Safety signals are reported regardless of any association between a compound and entities operating within the Peptide Association platform.
Our sole source of revenue for this reference is subscriber fees. We do not accept sponsored content, advertorial placements, or vendor-funded reviews.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Peptide Desk Reference is editorially independent and operated under separate editorial standards from its parent organization, Peptide Association LLC. Full disclosure of organizational relationships is available above.
Clinical Advisory Board
All monographs are reviewed by credentialed clinicians and researchers with relevant domain expertise. Advisory board members disclose any conflicts of interest prior to review assignments.
[PLACEHOLDER] Sarah Chen, MD, FACP
Internal Medicine, Endocrinology
[University Affiliation TBD]
Evidence Grading Reviewer — Metabolic Compounds
[PLACEHOLDER] James Okafor, PharmD, BCPS
Clinical Pharmacology, Peptide Therapeutics
[Institution TBD]
Safety Signal Reviewer — Drug Interactions & Adverse Events
[PLACEHOLDER] Maria Torres, MD, PhD
Regenerative Medicine, Musculoskeletal Research
Monograph Reviewer — Recovery & Tissue Repair Compounds
[PLACEHOLDER] David Park, NP, DNP
Integrative Medicine, Hormone Optimization
[Clinical Practice TBD]
Clinical Relevance Reviewer — GH-axis & Longevity Compounds
* Placeholder names shown. Real advisory board members will be listed upon confirmation.
Medical Review Process
Every monograph undergoes a structured medical review before publication. This process is designed to ensure clinical accuracy, appropriate evidence grading, and responsible presentation of safety data.
Review Steps
- 1Draft review. A credentialed clinician or pharmacologist with relevant domain expertise reviews the monograph for factual accuracy and clinical relevance.
- 2Evidence grade validation. The assigned evidence grade (A through D) is independently verified against our grading criteria by a second reviewer.
- 3Safety signal check. Contraindications, adverse events, and active safety signals are cross-referenced against FDA databases and recent pharmacovigilance reports.
- 4Publication. Approved monographs are published with a “last reviewed” date and version number. Reviewer credentials are disclosed at the advisory board level.
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 operated by Peptide Association LLC.