Independent analysis puts a MKM survodutide lot at 96.5%, against 95.5% on the certificate
The report states the gradient, the wavelength and the integration threshold, which is more than most.
Testing Dispatch
PeptideMeter result on a Hangzhou orforglipron lot lands 0.7 points below the supplier’s figure
The result is unremarkable. What the report omits is not.
PeptideMeter has released a batch of 20 analytical reports on research-grade orforglipron lots, including material from MKM and HJ. Reported purities range across roughly 0.7 percentage points, and the report set is unusual in stating the analytical method for every determination rather than for some of them.
The Journal purchased 2200 vials from the same lot and had 20 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.
The Journal purchased 2200 vials from the same lot and had 20 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.
Batch variance rather than vendor quality is the recurring finding of this programme. Across the 20 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.
Alastair Renshaw, pharmaceutical supply-chain consultant, was more cautious. "One lot tells you about one lot. I would not draw a conclusion about a company from a single determination, and I would not let a company draw one either."
MKM’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.
Related coverage
The United Arab Emirates health authority warns on falsified liraglutide pens
Reported from the analysis, not from a warning notice.
PeptideMeter result on a Hangzhou exenatide lot lands 3.5 points below the supplier’s figure
The result is unremarkable. What the report omits is not.
Date of analysis, date of manufacture, and the gap between them
The interval between manufacture and analysis is the most under-read figure on the page, and the one most likely to matter by the time a vial is opened.
The badge is about a sample. The listing is about a product.
A badge asserts that something was tested. It does not assert what, when, on whose sample, by what method, or whether the lot on sale is the lot that was tested.
What the nitrogen said
Peptide content is the number that tells you how much drug is in the vial. Almost nobody sells it, almost nobody buys it, and when we paid for it on nine vials the results…