Peptifact

AOD-9604 Dosage: More Papers on Detecting It Than on What It Does

AOD-9604 has no label, no registration and no primary human trial publication in the indexed literature. What it does have is a decade of anti-doping chemistry — we counted both sides and the ratio is the story.

Robert F · Edited by Caroline S · Published 2026-09-10 · Updated 2026-09-24

Illustration: Various clear glass vials, some with powder, and a pipette on a cool grey slate surface.
Illustration

Most research peptides have thin evidence. AOD-9604 has something more particular: a literature that exists, is reasonably technical, and is almost entirely about how to catch the compound in a urine sample rather than what it does in a person. Below, both sides of that literature are counted and the two microgram figures in circulation are traced as far as they go — reported, never recommended. How a figure like 300 µg earns or fails a source is set out in our dosing-claim checks; how brands are treated here is on the disclosure page.

What exists, and what does not

AOD-9604 is a synthetic analogue of a short C-terminal region of human growth hormone — commonly written as the fragment spanning residues 176 to 191, with a tyrosine residue added. The idea behind it, tested in the original animal work, was that this region carries growth hormone's effect on fat metabolism without its growth-promoting effects. The developer did run placebo-controlled trials, by mouth and by single intravenous infusion, and what they recorded about harms is laid out trial by trial on our AOD-9604 side-effects page.

There is no approved product. DailyMed returned zero records on 2026-09-10, so there is no labelled dose, no maximum and no reviewed safety position. ClinicalTrials.gov holds no interventional registration of the compound — not a recruiting one, not a withdrawn one, none.

Counting the literature, and the ratio that comes out

A title-and-abstract PubMed search for AOD9604[tiab] OR "AOD-9604"[tiab] returned 22 records on 2026-09-10, 18 of them tagged for humans. PubMed's randomised-controlled-trial filter returns zero.

Twenty-two is a small enough number to read in full, so we did. The records sort into four groups:

Group Count What they are
Anti-doping analytical chemistry 7 Urine screening methods, in vitro metabolism, mass-spectrometry reviews, seized-preparation analysis
Reviews and drug-pipeline profiles 8 Obesity-drug overviews, peptide-therapy reviews, a 2004 compound profile
Original animal studies 4 Two 2001 mouse studies, a 2000 metabolic study, a 2015 rabbit osteoarthritis study
Abstract-compilation entries 3 Gateways to Clinical Trials, 2003, 2003, 2005
Primary human trial publications 0 —

There are more published papers on how to detect AOD-9604 than there are primary studies of what it does in humans, because the second number is zero. That is not a rhetorical framing; it is what reading twenty-two titles produces.

The detection group

These are real, technical papers in serious analytical journals, and they are the most substantial thing in the compound's file:

  • Detection and in vitro metabolism of AOD9604 — Drug Testing and Analysis, 2015.
  • AOD-9604 does not influence the WADA hGH isoform immunoassay — Drug Testing and Analysis, 2013.
  • Simplifying and expanding the screening for peptides <2 kDa by direct urine injection — Journal of Separation Science, 2016.
  • Identification and characterization of peptide drugs in unknown pharmaceutical preparations seized by the Belgian authorities — Drug Testing and Analysis, 2014.
  • Analytical approaches for the detection of emerging therapeutics and non-approved drugs in human doping control — Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 2014.
  • Detecting peptidic drugs, drug candidates and analogs in sports doping — Expert Review of Proteomics, 2014.
  • Human sports drug testing by mass spectrometry — Mass Spectrometry Reviews, 2017.
  • Rapid and harmonized analytical workflow for the determination of peptidic and non-peptidic doping agents — Analyst, 2026.

The 2013 finding is the one that explains the rest. The standard WADA growth-hormone isoform immunoassay does not respond to AOD-9604 — so a laboratory testing for growth hormone would not flag it, and a dedicated method had to be built. A compound acquires that kind of literature by circulating, not by being studied.

The missing group

Human obesity trials are routinely attributed to the compound's original developer, and it is entirely plausible they took place. They are not, however, findable as primary publications. What the index holds is three entries in Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology's "Gateways to Clinical Trials" series, in 2003, 2003 and 2005 — a compilation that lists trials in progress rather than reporting their results. The developer's own account of how those trials ended is quoted on our page on what AOD-9604's weight-loss trials showed.

The distinction matters for anyone trying to source a dose. A results publication states what was given, to how many people, for how long, and what happened. A compilation entry states that a trial exists. No figure on any AOD-9604 page we examined is traceable to the former, and several are presented as though they were.

The original work

The compound's own foundation is animal work, and it is old:

  • Metabolic studies of a synthetic lipolytic domain (AOD9604) of human growth hormone — Hormone Research, 2000.
  • The effects of human GH and its lipolytic fragment (AOD9604) on lipid metabolism following chronic treatment — Endocrinology, 2001.
  • Increase of fat oxidation and weight loss in obese mice caused by chronic treatment with human growth hormone — International Journal of Obesity, 2001.
  • Effect of intra-articular injection of AOD9604 with or without hyaluronic acid in a rabbit osteoarthritis model — Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 2015.

The 2015 rabbit study is worth noting separately because it points at a different use — joints, by intra-articular injection — from the one the compound is sold for. It is a rabbit study.

What the sources state as a quantity

Figure stated Route Where it comes from
300 µg per day Subcutaneous Vendor and protocol pages; no stated origin
250–500 µg per day Subcutaneous Vendor and protocol pages; no stated origin
Fasted-state timing conventions — Forum convention; no study located

We could not find a source that states where the 300 µg figure came from. It is quoted across pages in identical form, which is the signature of a convention that propagated rather than one that was derived.

What 250, 300 and 500 µg come to in syringe units

The circulating range runs from 250 to 500 µg, so the conversion is worth doing at both ends as well as at the 300 µg figure. Dissolved as 5 mg in 2 mL (2.5 mg/mL), 250 µg is 0.10 mL or 10 units on a U-100 insulin syringe, 300 µg is 12 units and 500 µg is 20 units. Dissolved in 1 mL instead, the same three figures are 5, 6 and 10 units. Either way a 5 mg vial contains twenty of the low figure or ten of the high one — a factor of two that no source explains, because no source states where either end came from.

Our reconstitution page carries the arithmetic for other vial-and-volume combinations, and our syringe page works through where dead space goes at small volumes.

What is not established

  • No regulator has reviewed an AOD-9604 dose: DailyMed held no record on 2026-09-10, and no approved product exists elsewhere that we found.
  • Nothing registered to check against: ClinicalTrials.gov lists no interventional study of it, withdrawn or otherwise.
  • No primary human trial publication in the indexed literature, so the human dose-response relationship is not something a reader can examine.
  • No stated origin for the circulating figures.
  • The premise itself — fat-metabolism activity separated from growth-promoting activity — was examined in mice in 2001 and has not been tested in the published human literature since.

Re-running the AOD-9604 searches

  1. Search DailyMed for AOD-9604 — zero records.
  2. Search ClinicalTrials.gov for AOD-9604 — no studies.
  3. Run AOD9604[tiab] OR "AOD-9604"[tiab] in PubMed and read all 22 titles.
  4. Add the randomised-controlled-trial filter and see it return nothing.
  5. Look up any human trial a page cites and check whether it is a results publication or a compilation entry.

For a metabolic compound sold with even less behind it, the SLU-PP-332 dose record has mouse doses only. Our CJC-1295 and ipamorelin page covers the growth-hormone secretagogues, which work by a different mechanism and have a different evidence shape. How to read a dosing claim sets out the checks that catch an untraceable figure, and MuscleLedger's coverage of growth-hormone compounds approaches the class from a performance angle.

Sources and dates

Opened 2026-09-10: DailyMed's SPL search API for AOD-9604 (zero records); the ClinicalTrials.gov v2 API for AOD-9604 (no interventional registrations); PubMed through the NCBI E-utilities for AOD9604[tiab] OR "AOD-9604"[tiab] (22 records, 18 human-tagged, zero under the randomised-controlled-trial filter), with all 22 summaries retrieved and classified by hand into the groups in the table above; the 2026 WADA Prohibited List. A control query with a known answer was run in the same session to confirm the query shape was sound. Corrections go to the contact page.

Frequently asked questions

What is the standard AOD-9604 dose?

There is no standard in any regulatory sense: no approved label, no trial registration, and no primary human trial publication in the indexed literature to borrow a figure from. The number that circulates is 300 micrograms per day subcutaneously, sometimes given as a 250 to 500 microgram range. No source we could find states where it originated or cites a study for it.

Weren't there human trials of AOD-9604?

Human obesity studies are widely attributed to the compound's original developer, and they may well have been conducted — but they are not in the indexed literature as primary publications. Searching PubMed for the compound returns 22 title-and-abstract records and zero randomised controlled trials. The only trace of the trials is three entries in an abstract-compilation series, Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, from 2003, 2003 and 2005. A conference abstract compilation is not a peer-reviewed results publication, and a reader cannot check a dose against one.

Why is most of the literature about drug testing?

Because the compound circulated in sport before it accumulated any clinical evidence, and anti-doping laboratories had to be able to find it. Seven of the 22 indexed records are analytical: urine screening methods for peptides under 2 kDa, in vitro metabolism work, mass-spectrometry reviews, and the characterisation of seized preparations. A 2013 paper also established that AOD-9604 does not show up on the standard WADA growth-hormone isoform immunoassay, which is precisely the property that made a dedicated detection method necessary.

Is AOD-9604 the same as growth hormone?

No. It is a synthetic analogue of a short C-terminal region of human growth hormone, usually written as the fragment at residues 176 to 191, with a tyrosine added. The premise behind it was that this region carries the fat-metabolism activity without the growth-promoting activity of the whole hormone. That premise is what the 2000 and 2001 animal studies examined; it is not something the indexed human literature has tested.

Is AOD-9604 banned in sport?

It is not named on the 2026 WADA Prohibited List, which is not the same as permitted. The list's peptide-hormone and growth-factor classes are written to cover substances of similar chemical structure or similar biological effect, and S0 covers any pharmacological substance with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use. AOD-9604 has no such approval anywhere. The existence of dedicated detection methods and its appearance in seized-preparation analyses tell an athlete more about the practical position than the list's index does.

What does a 300 microgram quantity look like in a syringe?

It depends entirely on how the vial was reconstituted. A 5 mg vial in 2 mL of bacteriostatic water gives 2.5 mg/mL, so 300 micrograms is 0.12 mL — 12 units on a U-100 insulin syringe. The same vial in 1 mL gives 5 mg/mL and halves that to 6 units. Our reconstitution page carries the arithmetic for other combinations.

Is AOD9604 the same as AOD-9604?

Yes. AOD9604 and AOD-9604 are the same compound and both spellings appear in the published literature itself — the 2015 detection paper and the 2000 and 2001 metabolic studies use the unhyphenated form in their own titles. Neither spelling has an approved label, a registration or an indexed randomised controlled trial behind it.