Independent analysis puts a HJ tirzepatide lot at 97.3%, against 94.2% on the certificate

Two laboratories analysing vials from the same tirzepatide lot have returned figures 2.0 percentage points apart. VendorInvestigate reported 97.3%; PeptideMeter reported a lower number on a shallower gradient with a tighter integration threshold. Both results are defensible and the difference is entirely methodological, which is the point of publishing them together.

The Journal purchased 3700 vials from the same lot and had 13 of them analysed separately, in order to distinguish vial-to-vial variation from method variation. Vial-to-vial agreement was within 0.4 percentage points. Method-to-method disagreement was an order of magnitude larger.

Content by elemental nitrogen determination returned 87% of the labelled nominal mass, which on a 5 mg vial corresponds to roughly 5.57 mg of peptide rather than the labelled figure. The remainder is accounted for by counter-ion, residual water and residual solvent, none of which is visible chromatographically.

Discrepancies of one to two percentage points between a supplier’s figure and an independent determination are common and usually explicable: a faster gradient resolves fewer impurities, a higher integration threshold discards more small peaks, and a wider solvent-front exclusion window removes early-eluting fragments from the calculation altogether. None of that is misconduct. All of it is invisible unless the method is disclosed.

Havel Novotný, independent laboratory quality manager, said the gap was predictable from the methods alone. "You can reconstruct almost the whole difference from the integration threshold. What you cannot reconstruct is why anyone thinks a number without a threshold is comparable to a number with one."

HJ’s dossier has been updated with this determination and with the date of the request for comment. The dossier’s "what we could not verify" box records the questions still outstanding.