GHK-Cu: evidence brief
Trace the finding back to the study
Choose a source to connect the material tested, the population or model, and the reported outcome. Keep the study limits attached to the finding.
Brief version: 2026-10-05.1
Selected study: Mulder et al., 1994 · PMID 17147644
- Material tested
- Authors' topical GHK–Cu gel versus vehicle; exact formulation unavailable in the abstract.
- Population or model
- People with diabetic neuropathic ulcers.
- Reported finding
- Plantar-ulcer median area closure: 98.5% versus 60.8% with vehicle (p<0.05). These are area changes, not percentages of patients completely healed.
- Study design
- Multicenter randomized, evaluator-blinded comparison; standardized wound care in both groups.
- Sample and comparison
- Randomized/analyzed counts and follow-up timepoint not reported in the retrieved abstract.
- Limits of this evidence
- Abstract-only subgroup result with unknown denominators and precision; no systemic or injectable inference.
Source access: Primary PubMed and publisher abstracts inspected; full text and funding disclosures unavailable.
A map of selected study conditions, not a molecular structure or a ranking of treatments. Different preparations, populations and endpoints are not interchangeable.
What was actually studied
An ulcer-gel report favored area closure, while a small post-laser trial found no significant objective difference. A cell study compared bound/free forms. These selected studies leave systemic/injectable efficacy and safety unestablished; missing clinical methods limit confidence.
- Version
- 2026-10-05.1
- Snapshot updated
Prepared by Peptides Codex. Independent review by a qualified subject specialist is pending.
Scope of this brief
Selected older reports concerning copper-bound Gly-His-Lys, copper-free GHK and specific topical formulations. These materials are not interchangeable. This is not an exhaustive or systematic review, a dosing guide or batch authentication; qualified scientific review remains pending.
Mulder et al., 1994 · PMID 17147644
- Material tested
- Authors' topical GHK–Cu gel versus vehicle; exact formulation unavailable in the abstract.
- Model or population
- People with diabetic neuropathic ulcers.
- Study design
- Multicenter randomized, evaluator-blinded comparison; standardized wound care in both groups.
- Sample and comparison
- Randomized/analyzed counts and follow-up timepoint not reported in the retrieved abstract.
- Reported finding
- Plantar-ulcer median area closure: 98.5% versus 60.8% with vehicle (p<0.05). These are area changes, not percentages of patients completely healed.
- Limits of this evidence
- Abstract-only subgroup result with unknown denominators and precision; no systemic or injectable inference.
Source access: Primary PubMed and publisher abstracts inspected; full text and funding disclosures unavailable.
Miller et al., 2006 · PMID 16847171
- Material tested
- Topical regimens with or without GHK–Cu; concentration and complete product composition unavailable.
- Model or population
- Patients after circumoral CO₂ laser resurfacing.
- Study design
- Randomized comparison; blinded/image-based erythema assessment and 12-week skin assessments.
- Sample and comparison
- 13 completed; randomized total and arm counts unavailable in the abstract.
- Reported finding
- No significant between-group difference in erythema, wrinkles or objective skin quality; questionnaire-reported skin improvement favored GHK–Cu (p=0.04).
- Limits of this evidence
- Small completer sample; subjective improvement does not establish objective benefit or equivalence. Topical post-laser findings cannot validate injections.
Source access: Primary PubMed and publisher abstracts inspected; full text and funding disclosures unavailable. A linked correction could not be retrieved.
Gruchlik et al., 2014 · PMID 25745767
- Material tested
- Reported equimolar GHK–Cu(II) preparation; copper-free GHK and CuCl₂ comparators.
- Model or population
- Commercial normal human dermal fibroblast cultures.
- Study design
- 24-hour cell-culture comparison; IGF-2-stimulated total TGF-β1 measured by ELISA.
- Sample and comparison
- Key comparison: n=4 experiments, not patients; donor count unspecified.
- Reported finding
- GHK–Cu and CuCl₂ reduced stimulated secretion more than GHK alone; no change was detected in unstimulated secretion in the tested low-serum condition.
- Limits of this evidence
- Cell marker, not clinical scar or wound outcomes; no systemic efficacy/safety evidence.
Source access: Primary full text inspected; Medical University of Silesia funding reported.
A finding applies to the material, model and conditions studied. It does not establish safety or effectiveness in other settings.
Help review this exact version
Qualified scientific review is pending. Source-backed corrections are welcome; a correction submission does not itself constitute expert approval.
Review reference: ghk-cu · 2026-10-05.1
What a reviewer should check
- Does the reported material match the preparation actually studied?
- Do population, participant counts and analysis denominators match the source?
- Are estimates, endpoints, uncertainty and missing-data methods represented accurately?
- Do limitations, source-access boundaries and English/French text preserve the same conclusion?
Study records in this version
In your message, include this brief reference, the study identifier, the source citation and the proposed change. If offering scientific review, include your relevant specialty and conflicts of interest. Omit patient information and confidential research material.
Recording a qualified review requires verified qualifications, an agreed scope and approval of the identified version. Public reviewer attribution requires separate permission. Review status remains pending until that process is complete.
Send source-backed feedback →To save this brief as a PDF, use your browser’s Print command and choose Save as PDF. The study details and source URLs are included in the print layout.