Maintenance dosing: what is licensed, what is practised, and what is evidenced
A survey of the maintenance evidence, which is shorter than the survey of the withdrawal evidence.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Everything filed in July 2025, the month of Volume 2, Number 7. The issue itself — cover, editor’s letter and table of contents — is here.
A survey of the maintenance evidence, which is shorter than the survey of the withdrawal evidence.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
The observation that closes a facility is rarely the dramatic one.
Two signatures — one who performed the work, one who approved its release — are the ordinary regulated convention and are almost unknown here.
The clinical effect profile is almost fully predictable from where the receptor is expressed, which is unusual and useful.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The report states the gradient, the wavelength and the integration threshold, which is more than most.
A compendial sterility test takes fourteen days of incubation and consumes the containers tested. That timescale is incompatible with the business model that made…
Grading six widely repeated claims against the studies actually behind them.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.
What the published pharmacokinetics permit, what the labels state, and where the two diverge.
The interval between manufacture and analysis is the most under-read figure on the page, and the one most likely to matter by the time a vial is opened.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
The observation that closes a facility is rarely the dramatic one.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
The glucagon arm raises energy expenditure and also raises hepatic glucose output. Balancing those is the whole engineering problem.
Multiple-dose vials are designed for a defined number of punctures. Nobody counts, and the elastomer does not care whether anybody counts.
One omitted dose is a labelling question. Four omitted doses is a clinical one. The two are routinely conflated.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The Journal submitted split samples from single lots to three assay services, under names unconnected to this publication, and published each method alongside each result.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
Storage instructions in this market are close to uniform and almost never accompanied by the study that would justify them. Uniformity is a sign of convention, not of…
Why the reason for stopping changes what happens afterwards.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
A reminder that a purity figure is the output of a method, and that methods differ.
Baseline placement under a tailing peak is a judgement call with a direct effect on the area. It is one of the few places where two competent analysts genuinely disagree.
Reduced intake is a plausible mechanism for deficiency. Reduced absorption is not, and the two are conflated in most of the advice.