Melanotan I dosage and evidence

What is Melanotan I?

How does Melanotan I work?

It switches on the melanocortin-1 receptor in the skin. That makes skin cells produce more eumelanin, the dark pigment that shields skin from light.

What have studies in people found about Melanotan I?

Afamelanotide, the approved form of Melanotan I, has the strongest record in people of any compound in this group. Two studies in 168 patients led to its approval for EPP, a rare disease that makes sunlight painful. Three follow-up studies have tracked more than 400 more patients for up to eight years. A separate study tested it in vitiligo, where skin loses its colour. All of it is in those two diseases. None of it is about tanning.

• EPP approval studies, Europe and the US, 2015, 168 patients (74 in Europe, 94 in the US): half got a 16 mg implant under the skin every 60 days, and half got a dummy implant. The main measure was hours in direct sunlight without pain, which patients wrote in a diary. In the US study, the typical patient on the drug logged 69.4 hours against 40.8 on the dummy over six months. In the European study it was 6.0 hours against 0.8 over nine months, with 77 painful sun reactions against 146. Side effects were mostly mild. The maker, Clinuvel, helped pay for both.
• German safety registry, 2025, 200 patients, all on the drug: quality of life rose compared with where they started, and 91 in 100 who started were still on it. People over 70 had the same safety record as everyone else. Several authors get research money from Clinuvel, the maker, three are paid by the company, and one of them owns its stock. The paper says all of this. With nobody left untreated, there is no group to compare against.
• Dutch follow-up ordered by European regulators, 2020, 117 patients (59 of them women, average age 43) tracked for about two years: 115 were still on it. Time spent outside rose by 6.1 hours a week, and quality of life by about 14 percent. Painful sun reactions hurt less, but they came just as often and lasted just as long. The authors had no ties to the company.
• Clinics in Rome and Zurich, 2015, 115 patients given 1,023 implants over up to eight years: quality of life scores went from 31 percent of the best possible to 74 percent, and stayed there. Three patients said it fell short of what they hoped. 23 percent stopped for other reasons, mostly pregnancy or cost. Side effects were minor, mostly nausea. There was no comparison group.
• Vitiligo, 2015, 55 adults with 15 to 50 percent of their skin affected: 28 got a 16 mg implant each month for four months on top of UV light therapy, and 27 got light therapy alone. By day 168, colour had come back to 48.64 percent of the patches, against 33.26 percent on light alone. The face and arms responded sooner (41 days against 61 on the face, 46 against 69 on the arms). The gain showed in people with darker skin. In lighter skin there was no clear difference.

What this does not tell you: Every study here is in EPP or vitiligo, in patients seeing a specialist, using a 16 mg slow-release implant put in by a doctor. None tests the unapproved powder sold online, the doses people use with it, or the reason they use it. The main measure in the approval studies was sun time from patients' own diaries. The three long follow-ups had no untreated group, and two of them were required by European regulators and paid for by the company. In the Dutch follow-up, sun reactions hurt less but did not come less often or end sooner. The vitiligo study was 55 people for 168 days, and in lighter skin it did no better than light therapy alone.

What do people who took Melanotan I report?

This is what real people say happened to them, good and bad. Nobody measured it. A report cannot tell a real effect from the lift people get just from expecting it to work, from a diet or training change made at the same time, or from what was really in the vial. We still put it near the top. It is the next best thing to a study in people: what happens when real people use it, including what goes wrong.

• Almost all of the lived experience in these forums is with Melanotan II rather than Melanotan I, and Melanotan I mostly appears as the thing people consider switching to after Melanotan II goes badly. Any dose figures circulating in these threads, commonly in the low hundreds of micrograms, belong to the second compound and not this one.
• The comparison people make is that this one is described as slower to produce visible tanning and as having a narrower side effect profile, the reasoning offered being that it does not reach the brain the way the cyclic version does. That reasoning is actively disputed in the same forums, with posters pointing out that it acts on more targets in the body than the marketing implies, and that this hormone system is not well understood.
• Nausea is the side effect described most consistently across both compounds, reported as arriving some time after injection and lasting a short period, with the usual workarounds described being dosing before bed or after a meal.
• Tinnitus, eye floaters, anxiety and low mood are raised repeatedly, and in the harm reduction discussions specifically these are treated as reasons to take the whole class seriously rather than as rare curiosities. Loss of enjoyment is described by some long-term users of the related compound as the effect that made them stop.
• One poster reporting severe problems on product independently verified as high purity is used in these threads to argue that contamination is not the whole explanation, which cuts against the usual purity defence.
• Reports of nothing happening are scarce here, and the discussion is dominated by people reporting complications. That skew is a feature of a harm reduction board and should be read as such rather than as a frequency estimate.

Sources: Melanotan comparison and safety threads on Bluelight, and melanocortin threads on ExcelMale, found by site-restricted search and read in September 2026. Nothing above is attributed to any specific post and no post is reproduced.

The state of the research

The evidence, in charts

The studies we cite

• Study in people2015
  Afamelanotide for erythropoietic protoporphyria

  This is the evidence that got afamelanotide approved, and it is real. Two trials, one European and one American, gave implants or a dummy to people with a rare condition that makes sunlight painful. In the American trial, people on the drug managed 69.4 hours in the sun without pain against 40.8 on the dummy. In the European trial the figures were 6.0 hours against 0.8. Painful reactions were less frequent. Both trials were small and this is one rare disease.

  Two RCTs (74 EU and 94 US patients): pain-free sun exposure was longer with afamelanotide implants (US median 69.4 vs 40.8 hours; EU 6.0 vs 0.8 hours) with fewer phototoxic reactions.

  PMID 26132941 New England Journal of Medicine
• Study in people2024
  Scenesse (afamelanotide) implant: prescribing information

  This is the regulator's instruction sheet, not a study. It approves a 16 mg implant for adults with a rare inherited condition that makes sunlight burn and blister them, and only for those who have already had such reactions. The purpose is to increase the time they can spend in light without pain. It was approved in October 2019. It is not approved for tanning, and none of it applies to the unlicensed peptides sold under similar names.

  FDA-approved label (original approval October 2019): 16 mg implant to increase pain-free light exposure in adults with a history of phototoxic reactions from EPP.

  Source U.S. FDA (Drugs@FDA label)
• Study in people2015
  Long-term observational study of afamelanotide in 115 patients with erythropoietic protoporphyria.

  People with a painful light-intolerance disease felt far better on afamelanotide, but nobody got a dummy implant. 115 patients received just over a thousand implants across up to eight years at clinics in Rome and Zurich. Their quality of life scores started at about a third of the best possible and rose to roughly three quarters, then stayed there. Three patients said it had not met their hopes, and about a quarter stopped for other reasons, mostly pregnancy or cost. Side effects were minor, mainly nausea.

  115 patients given 1,023 implants over up to eight years at porphyria centres in Rome and Zurich. Disease-specific quality of life rose from 31 percent plus or minus 24 of maximum before treatment to 74 percent and held there. Three patients said it had not met their expectations and 23 percent stopped for other reasons, mostly pregnancy or cost. Adverse events were minor, predominantly nausea. Observational, with no control group.

  PMID 25494545 British Journal of Dermatology
• Study in people2020
  Association of Afamelanotide With Improved Outcomes in Patients With Erythropoietic Protoporphyria in Clinical Practice.

  Regulators ordered this follow-up study, and it found real gains in daily life. 117 patients at one hospital were tracked for about two years. On average they gained roughly six more hours outside each week, and their quality of life scores rose. Painful sun reactions still happened as often and lasted as long; they just hurt less. Everyone in the study was on the drug, so there is no untreated group to compare against. The authors had no financial ties to declare.

  Single-centre post-authorisation cohort directed and approved by the European Medicines Agency: 117 patients, median follow-up 2.0 years. Time outside rose 6.1 hours per week (95% CI 3.62 to 8.67) and quality of life 14.01 percent (95% CI 4.53 to 23.50). Phototoxic reactions were less painful but their number and duration did not differ significantly. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

  PMID 32186677 JAMA Dermatology
• Study in people2025
  German Cohort Observational Study to Investigate the Short- and Long-Term Safety and Clinical Effectiveness of Afamelanotide 16 mg (SCENESSE) in Patients With Erythropoietic Protoporphyria (EPP).

  A safety study required by European regulators, and the company that sells the drug is all over it. 200 patients were treated and nobody was left untreated, so there is no comparison group. Quality of life scores rose against where patients started, and about nine in ten who began treatment were still on it. Several authors receive research support from CLINUVEL for entering registry data, three are salaried employees, and one of those also holds company stock. All of that was disclosed in the paper.

  The German arm of the post-authorisation safety study (EUPAS13004) imposed as a condition of the European marketing authorisation: 200 treated patients and no untreated comparator. Quality of life rose against baseline (p<0.0001) and 91.0 percent of patients who started remained on treatment. Several authors receive CLINUVEL research support for registry data entry and three are salaried by the company, one also holding stock; all disclosed in the paper.

  PMID 40082741 Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine
• Study in people2015
  Afamelanotide and narrowband UV-B phototherapy for the treatment of vitiligo: a randomized multicenter trial.

  Adding afamelanotide to light therapy put more colour back into vitiligo skin, and faster. 55 adults were split by chance into two groups. One got a monthly afamelanotide implant along with UV light therapy. The other got the light alone. By day 168 the group on both had about half the affected area back to normal colour, against roughly a third on light alone. The face and arms responded sooner. The gain held in people with darker skin and was not clear in lighter skin. The study was small.

  55 adults with nonsegmental vitiligo randomized to afamelanotide 16 mg monthly plus narrowband UV-B (n=28) or narrowband UV-B alone (n=27). Repigmentation at day 168 was 48.64 percent against 33.26 percent, and came faster on the face (41.0 against 61.0 days, P=.001) and upper extremities (46.0 against 69.0 days, P=.003). The difference held in Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI and was not significant in type III. Registered as NCT01430195.

  PMID 25230094 JAMA Dermatology