South Korea declines to reimburse tirzepatide outside a specialist service
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Page 4 of 5 of this archive, newest first.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.
Both the reassuring reading and the alarming reading are supportable from the same tables. This piece sets out which is which.
What the renal and hepatic outcome programmes actually measured, and over what duration.
What the regulatory dossiers actually contain on dose selection is remarkably thin, and worth knowing before treating the ladder as settled science.
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The trials studied planned withdrawal. Almost nobody stops that way.
The commonest real-world strategy in this drug class is the least studied one.
Reported from the analysis, not from a warning notice.
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.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
Three randomised withdrawal designs have tested what happens when treatment stops. Their results are consistent and they are consistently misreported.
An in-use period is established by a dedicated study on a specific formulation in a specific container at a specific concentration. Borrowing one from a marketed product is…
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
Reported from the analysis, not from a warning notice.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
Follow the resin, not the catalogue.
The condition on arrival is recorded by some services and not others, and it is one of the more informative lines in a report.
The evidence base is one secondary analysis, several small studies and a large amount of extrapolation from bariatric surgery.
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 route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
What was supervised, at what frequency, at what intensity, and for how long.
An effect is dose-limiting when it prevents adequate intake, prevents normal activity, or produces a risk of its own. Discomfort alone is not the test.
The receptor is expressed in more tissues than the popular account allows, and that is the whole story.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Two years ago we ran an anonymised version of this comparison and promised a named one. This is it, with every method printed in full.
The Journal has read several hundred certificates from twenty companies. The number is almost always there; the method behind it almost never is.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Follow the resin, not the catalogue.