Independent analysis puts a ERP orforglipron lot at 97.4%, against 93.4% on the certificate

Two laboratories analysing vials from the same orforglipron lot have returned figures 2.5 percentage points apart. Medutest reported 97.4%; VendorInvestigate 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 15 vials from the same lot at retail and had four 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.

Four independent services — Medutest, VendorInvestigate, and the two others operating in this market — carry the analytical burden for a trade that has no release-testing obligation of its own. Each is paid by whoever submits the sample, which is usually the vendor. The Journal’s position is that a submitter-pays model is workable but that its incentive structure has to be stated whenever a result is quoted as verification.

"Content is the number that matters if you are doing arithmetic with a vial, and content is the number nobody sells," said Dr Sirichai Boonmee, peptide chemist, Chulalongkorn University. "Purity is what you can afford. Content is what you need."

ERP’s dossier has been updated with this determination and with the company’s response to it. The dossier’s ordering box records the lead times, the minimum quantities and what a buyer should ask for at the point of order.