Janoshik result on a Hong Kong cagrilintide lot lands 3.6 points above the supplier’s stated figure

Two laboratories analysing vials from the same cagrilintide lot have returned figures 3.6 percentage points apart. Janoshik 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.

Reported figures across the set were: highest 97.3%, lowest 95.5%, median close to the midpoint of the two. Every report in the set stated a detection wavelength, and 8 of them stated an integration threshold. The Journal has asked the laboratory to publish thresholds on all reports as a matter of routine.

Batch variance rather than vendor quality is the recurring finding of this programme. Across the 8 determinations the Journal has commissioned to date, within-vendor spread has been wider than between-vendor spread for two thirds of the companies tracked, which is an argument against rating any supplier on a single number.

"Content is the number that matters if you are doing arithmetic with a vial, and content is the number nobody sells," said Lorcan Feeney, analytical services director at an independent laboratory. "Purity is what you can afford. Content is what you need."

Homopeptide’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.