Janoshik result on a Hong Kong cagrilintide lot lands 3.6 points below the supplier’s 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.

"The useful thing in that report is not the percentage, it is the system suitability data," said Sinéad Corrigan, patient advocate and former trial participant. "It is the only part that tells you whether the percentage means anything."

Homopeptide’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.