What a laboratory knows about the material it receives
A result on one vial generalises to a batch only if the vial was drawn in a way that makes it representative — and nobody records how it was drawn.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Page 12 of 25 of this archive, newest first.
A result on one vial generalises to a batch only if the vial was drawn in a way that makes it representative — and nobody records how it was drawn.
The evidence on stopping is better than the evidence on almost anything else in this field, because somebody deliberately randomised it.
Real-world persistence figures, with their definitions stated, because the definitions are doing most of the work.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
What a laboratory can and cannot know about the provenance, storage history and representativeness of what lands on its bench.
Lot-level verification with a public report is a real and achievable thing. It exists in this market, on a minority of listings.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
A survey of the maintenance evidence, which is shorter than the survey of the withdrawal evidence.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Chain of custody, in a regulated setting, begins at sampling. Here it begins when the package arrives.
Every withdrawal trial compared full dose against nothing. The clinically interesting comparison — full dose against a reduced one — has not been randomised.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
What a laboratory can and cannot know about the provenance, storage history and representativeness of what lands on its bench.
The evidence on stopping is better than the evidence on almost anything else in this field, because somebody deliberately randomised it.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
The regain trajectories, arm by arm, with the estimands named.