Looks
Does it actually tan you?
Melanin density measured on the skin, which is one of the few cosmetic endpoints that is objective.
3
people in trials
2
human studies
0
compounds, animal or cell only
0
trials found nothing
Measured in people
Ranked by how many people, which is a fact about the evidence and not a judgement about the compound. The one at the top is the most studied, which is not the same as the best. Counts are never added across compounds, because the same person can appear in more than one trial.
- 3 people1 human study
Three male volunteers dosed subcutaneously for two weeks: increased pigmentation, mild nausea at most doses, somnolence and fatigue at 0.03 mg/kg, and spontaneous penile erections lasting 1 to 5 hours after dosing.
Life Sciences, 1996 · 3 people
- no headcount stated1 human study
Randomised open-label crossover in healthy adults, 10 to 60 mg. Median time to peak 24 hours at 10 to 30 mg and 2 to 4 hours at 45 to 60 mg; mean terminal half-life 19.6 to 57.1 hours; dose-related falls in serum iron and transferrin saturation. Injection site erythema and pruritus were the treatment-related adverse events in 10 percent or more.
Drugs in R and D, 2024 · no headcount in the line
Why the trial record looks like this
A missing trial is usually a missing sponsor. Nobody runs a nine-figure programme on a molecule they cannot own, so the compounds with the thinnest human records are often the oldest and most freely available ones rather than the weakest. Taking Rusfertide as the example, because it states the problem most clearly:
Rusfertide reached approval on a clean and conventional path: a venture-backed originator (Protagonist) ran the phase 1 and phase 2 work and the phase 3, and a large company (Takeda) holds the US application. Every study on this page was paid for by one of them and the Leukemia Research and Clinical Therapeutics papers have Protagonist employees as authors, all of which is disclosed in the papers. That is how new drugs are made and it is not a criticism, but it means there is no independent trial of rusfertide anywhere.
The more important thing to hold in mind is what kind of drug this is. Polycythaemia vera is a clonal blood cancer driven almost always by a JAK2 mutation. Interferon and ruxolitinib act on the clone; phlebotomy and rusfertide act on the red cell count. Rusfertide is, in the phrase used by a 2023 review, a chemical phlebotomy: it does what the needle does without the needle and without the iron deficiency. The 2026 Blood Reviews assessment states the limit precisely, that the evidence rests on surrogate haematological endpoints and the effect on thrombosis and disease course is undefined. A profile that implied disease modification would be wrong. The label's warning about new or worsening thrombocytosis is the other side of the same coin: suppressing red cells does not suppress the clone's platelet output, and 8 percent of treated patients developed thrombocytosis against 0.7 percent on placebo.
A compound appears here only when a citation on its own page states this outcome and reports a result for it; naming it is not enough. Human, animal and cell work are counted separately and never merged. Participant counts are read from the study lines and deliberately undercount. Nothing here is advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to take or to avoid anything.