Copper(II)-binding tripeptide complex
GHK-Cu is a copper-binding tripeptide studied mostly in topical wound and skin settings. Human findings are mixed and formulation-specific. A new topical Phase 2 wound trial is recruiting, while standalone injectable benefits and safety remain unestablished.
Built by the community
Every structured report adds useful context about research setup, outcomes, and unwanted effects as the community dataset grows.
Publicly anonymous by default. Your account keeps reports editable and helps reduce duplicate submissions.Research at a glance
Depth and confidence summarize the research record—not effectiveness, safety, or a recommendation.
Several controlled topical studies, a recruiting split-wound trial, mixed-formulation reports, and laboratory mechanism work are available.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
Some wound findings are encouraging, others are negative or mixed, and none establishes systemic injection benefits.
Confidence describes how reliable and consistent the conclusions are. It can be high for one outcome and low for another.
The strongest evidence type shows what the best-supported conclusions are actually based on.
Human findings are more directly relevant than animal or laboratory results, but they still apply only to the populations and outcomes studied.
Route-specific record
These are exposures used in cited research for a specific route and population—not a suggested amount.
Half-life describes how long it takes the measured amount in the body to fall by half. It is not a dosing recommendation.
Evidence can change by administration method. Findings from one route should not automatically be applied to another.
Evidence boundary: Different creams, gels, vehicles, wounds, and co-interventions cannot be pooled into one universal topical effect or amount. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
Practical starting point
Common goals and questions—not recommendations or promises of benefit.
The overview, studies, and source ledger below explain what supports each label—and where the evidence stops.
What the evidence says
Randomized topical wound studies provide the strongest direct evidence, but results conflict by condition and formulation: a diabetic plantar-ulcer analysis was positive, while a venous-stasis-ulcer comparison was negative.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Standalone injectable pharmacokinetics, efficacy, repeated-exposure safety, immunogenicity, long-term topical outcomes, and whether older formulation-specific wound findings replicate in modern trials.
Keeping the main uncertainty visible prevents an early or promising finding from looking more settled than it is.
The evidence story
Importance shows how much an item changes the evidence story. Quality shows how much confidence the design deserves. A strong negative study can score highly on both.
Importance and quality answer different questions. A rigorous study can be highly important even when it challenges a popular claim.
Recruiting as of July 25, 2026. No results were posted.
The registry marks the study completed, but no results were posted on ClinicalTrials.gov by the review cutoff.
The uncontrolled study reported improved hair measures and tolerability for the multi-component formulation.
Objective group comparisons did not show significant differences in wrinkles or overall skin quality, and the copper regimen did not significantly reduce post-treatment erythema. A patient questionnaire favored perceived overall skin quality.
Immediate topical treatment produced greater median closure in the plantar-ulcer analysis than vehicle (98.5% versus 60.8%). Delayed-treatment comparisons did not show the same benefit.
Administration and handling
Published controlled studies used specific topical creams or gels in defined wound and post-procedure settings. One uncontrolled hair study used intradermal injections of a six-component formulation and cannot establish GHK-Cu-alone administration. No FDA-approved subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous, intradermal, or topical drug dose, schedule, injection site, or reconstitution procedure was located.
No FDA-approved GHK-Cu drug label provides a universal consumer storage, stability, reconstitution, or beyond-use procedure. Stability depends on the exact copper-peptide identity, concentration, formulation, pH, excipients, container, light, oxidation, temperature, sterility, aggregation, and manufacturing controls. Instructions from one study product or supplier should not be transferred to another.
Primary-source ledger
2026-05-14
2026-02-27 · NCT07437586
2023-07-07 · NCT05932732
2018-02-26 · PMID 29482481 · DOI 10.1080/14764172.2018.1439965
2006-07-01 · PMID 16847171 · DOI 10.1001/archfaci.8.4.252
1994-10-01 · PMID 17147644 · DOI 10.1046/j.1524-475X.1994.20406.x
1992-09-01 · PMID 1495150 · DOI 10.1067/mva.1992.37086
1992-09-01 · PMID 1522753 · DOI 10.1016/0024-3205(92)90504-I
1988-08-29 · PMID 3169264 · DOI 10.1016/0014-5793(88)80509-X