CJC-1295 with DAC vs without — the half-life difference is the whole story, isn't it?
Trying to state this cleanly because the naming is a mess.
CJC-1295 with DAC has a drug affinity complex that binds albumin, which extends the half-life dramatically — days rather than minutes.
CJC-1295 without DAC is essentially Mod GRF(1-29), a short-acting GHRH analogue. Half-life measured in minutes.
The consequence people care about: the with-DAC version produces a sustained elevation, the no-DAC version produces something closer to a pulse. GH secretion is naturally pulsatile, and the argument for the short-acting version is that it preserves that pattern rather than flattening it.
Whether the pulsatile pattern actually matters for outcomes is the part I can't resolve from the literature. It matters a lot in the underlying GH physiology. Whether it matters for what people are interested in here is a different question and I don't think it's settled.
Evidence note: the half-life characterisation is reasonably solid. The "pulsatility matters therefore short-acting is better" step is inference, not a demonstrated outcome difference.