Content review calendar
How often each type of page is re-checked, and why some need it far more than others.
Review cadence
| Content type | Review cadence | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Provider pricing | Every 14-30 days | Changes constantly; the fastest-decaying content we publish |
| Brand pricing | Every 30 days | Manufacturer programmes change with little notice |
| Regulatory / compounding status | Monthly, and on any FDA action | Litigation and rulemaking are both live |
| Clinical trial content | Every 6 months, and on new publication | Slow-moving, but head-to-head trials do appear |
| Safety content | On any FDA safety communication | Cannot wait for a scheduled cycle |
| Methodology and policy | Annually, and on any change | Should be stable; changes are versioned |
What we do about stale content
Every page carries the date its figures were captured. Pricing pages are re-checked on a rolling schedule, with the highest-traffic and fastest-moving pages checked most often, because a price in this market can move within weeks.
When a figure changes, the page is updated and the change is recorded rather than silently edited. When a figure cannot be re-confirmed at source, its evidence grade is downgraded rather than left standing at its previous confidence.
Where a page has fallen behind, the honest remedy is to say so on the page rather than to let a stale capture date imply currency it does not have.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Commercial relationships and what they do not buy
No provider pays for placement, position or inclusion. Rankings are computed by sorting the published dataset on a stated criterion, which means the order can be reproduced independently rather than taken on trust.
That is a deliberately higher standard than a disclosure statement. A disclosure asks you to believe the publisher; a reproducible computation does not require you to. If you sort the data on the stated criterion and get a different order, we are wrong, and the discrepancy is checkable in minutes.
Corrections
Jastreboff AM et al., N Engl J Med 2022 (NCT04184622), n=2,539. Dose-response is real: the effect rises with dose. These are FDA-APPROVED SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION doses — they do not transfer to compounded, microdose or ODT products. Trial means are not individual promises.
The trial record
| Trial | Design | n | Dose | Duration | Primary result | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SURMOUNT-1 | Phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled | 2,539 | 5 / 10 / 15 mg SC weekly | 72 wks | −15.0% / −19.5% / −20.9% vs −3.1% placebo | Jastreboff, NEJM 2022; NCT04184622 |
| SURMOUNT-2 | Phase 3, RCT, in type 2 diabetes | 938 | 10 / 15 mg SC weekly | 72 wks | −12.8% / −14.7% vs −3.2% placebo | Garvey, Lancet 2023; NCT04657003 |
| SURMOUNT-3 | Phase 3, RCT, after 12-wk intensive lifestyle lead-in | 806 | Max tolerated (10/15 mg) | 72 wks | −18.4% additional, vs +2.5% placebo | Wadden, Nat Med 2023; NCT04657016 |
| SURMOUNT-4 | Randomised WITHDRAWAL after 36-wk open-label lead-in | 670 | Max tolerated | 88 wks | Continue: −5.5% further. Withdraw to placebo: +14.0% REGAINED | Aronne, JAMA 2024; NCT04660643 |
| SURMOUNT-5 | Phase 3b, OPEN-LABEL, active-controlled head-to-head | 751 | Max tolerated vs semaglutide | 72 wks | −20.2% vs semaglutide −13.7%, p<0.001 | Aronne, NEJM 2025; NCT05822830 |
| SURPASS-2 | Phase 3, RCT, type 2 diabetes, active-controlled | 1,879 | 5 / 10 / 15 mg vs semaglutide 1 mg | 40 wks | HbA1c −2.01 to −2.30% vs −1.86% | Frías, NEJM 2021; NCT03987919 |
| SURPASS-CVOT | Phase 3, cardiovascular outcomes, vs dulaglutide | 13,299 | Max tolerated | ~4.5 yrs | Non-inferior for MACE; not superiority vs placebo | Nicholls, 2024; NCT04255433 |
1. They are means, not promises. A −20.9% mean in SURMOUNT-1 contains people who lost far more and people who lost almost nothing. A trial average tells you what happened to a population; it does not tell you what will happen to you.
2. Every one is an FDA-APPROVED SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION. No trial in this table tested a compounded preparation, a microdose regimen, or an orally disintegrating tablet. When these figures appear on a page selling a compounded ODT, evidence has been moved across a dosage form without justification.
3. All were funded by Eli Lilly, which manufactures tirzepatide. That is normal in drug development and does not make the results false — these are large, peer-reviewed studies. It belongs in the citation anyway, and it matters most in SURMOUNT-5, where the funder made the winning drug and the trial was open-label.
Jastreboff AM et al., N Engl J Med 2022, n=2,539 (NCT04184622). The effect rises with dose — which is precisely why a ~1mg 'microdose' cannot be expected to produce the headline result. FDA-approved subcutaneous injection.
The evidence is strong exactly where it was gathered and silent everywhere else. The gap between those two things is where most of the marketing in this industry operates, and recognising it is the single most useful skill a patient in this market can have.
Dosing, titration, and what it does to your bill
| Period | Dose | What it is for |
|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1–4 | 2.5 mg | Tolerance-building only. This dose is not intended to produce weight loss. If your provider's price is quoted at 2.5 mg, that is not the price of treatment. |
| Weeks 5–8 | 5 mg | First therapeutic dose (−15.0% in SURMOUNT-1). |
| Weeks 9–12 | 7.5 mg | Escalate only if tolerated. |
| Weeks 13–16 | 10 mg | A common maintenance dose (−19.5%). |
| Weeks 17–20 | 12.5 mg | Escalate only if tolerated. |
| Week 21+ | 15 mg | Maximum maintenance dose (−20.9%). |
The advertised price is usually the 2.5 mg price. On a programme that escalates with dose, the rate you are quoted at signup is for a dose the label explicitly describes as a starting dose — not a treatment dose. Ask what you will pay at 10 mg, and compare that number instead.
A 'microdose' of ~1 mg/week sits below every dose in SURMOUNT. The trials used 5, 10 and 15 mg. A microdose is not a discounted route to the SURMOUNT result; it is a different product with a smaller expected effect and no equivalent trial evidence.
Safety, contraindications and monitoring
Percentage of participants reporting each event. Gastrointestinal effects dominate, are usually mild-to-moderate, and are most pronounced during dose escalation. Source: SURMOUNT-1, N Engl J Med 2022.
Discontinuation: what the withdrawal trial found
Aronne LJ et al., JAMA 2024, n=670 (NCT04660643). After a 36-week open-label lead-in, participants randomised to placebo regained ~14% of body weight over the following 52 weeks; those who continued lost a further ~5%. This is the single most important trial for understanding the true cost of treatment.
Questions to ask your clinician
- Given my history — specifically thyroid, pancreatic and gallbladder — is a GLP-1 appropriate for me at all?
- What baseline laboratory work will you order before I start?
- What is my target dose, and how quickly will we escalate?
- Which side effects should make me call you rather than wait it out?
- What is the plan for maintenance, and what happens if I stop?
- Will I see the same clinician at each follow-up, or a different one each time?
Compounded, brand, microdose, ODT — four different products
These words are used interchangeably in marketing and they are not interchangeable at all. The distinction decides what evidence applies to what you are actually buying.
| Product | Regulatory status | Trial evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Brand Zepbound / Mounjaro (injection) | FDA-approved. Reviewed for safety, effectiveness and quality before marketing. | Direct. SURMOUNT and SURPASS tested exactly this product. |
| Brand Foundayo (oral, orforglipron) | FDA-approved. Its own trial programme. | Direct, for that product. |
| Compounded Semaglutide (injection, full dose) | NOT FDA-approved. No premarket review of safety, effectiveness or quality. | None for the compounded product itself. Same molecule, same route — but the product in your hand was never in a trial. |
| Microdose (~1 mg/wk) | NOT FDA-approved. | None. Sits BELOW every dose in SURMOUNT (5/10/15 mg). Expect a smaller effect. |
| ODT / oral compounded | NOT FDA-approved. | NONE. No trial has ever tested it. Oral bioavailability for these peptides is a real pharmacological problem and is unpublished for this product. |
The evidence is strong exactly where it was gathered and silent everywhere else. The gap between those two things is where most of the marketing in this industry operates, and recognising it is the single most useful skill a patient in this market can have.
The numbers behind this page
How this page is kept current
Every price quoted in this page comes from the programme's own pricing page and carries the date it was captured. Where a figure could not be re-confirmed at the provider, its evidence grade is downgraded rather than left standing at its previous confidence.
Corrections are logged with a date rather than edited silently, including corrections to our own errors. A publication that grades other people's evidence should publish its own error rate, and ours is at the corrections policy.
No provider pays for placement, position or inclusion here. Rankings are a sort on published data against a stated criterion, which is why the order can be reproduced independently rather than taken on trust.
Reading the price against the market
Why the spread is this wide
The figures in this page sit inside a market with a measurable shape, and that shape is what makes any single price readable.
The molecule is chemically identical across every programme in the range. The $166 a month between the cheapest and dearest semaglutide programme is not a difference in medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing, margin, and how far a programme will go to make an advertised number look lower than a billed one.
Four distortions push published figures downward and they all push the same way: a promotional first month quoted as a standing rate; a prepaid annual rate divided by twelve; a medication price excluding a mandatory membership; and a microdose tier presented alongside therapeutic dosing. Each is individually defensible and together they compound.
Which is why the cheapest-looking programme in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated, and why every figure here carries its plan term, its dose class and its capture date rather than standing alone.
Why the spread is this wide
The figures in this page sit inside a market with a measurable shape, and that shape is what makes any single price readable.
The molecule is chemically identical across every programme in the range. The $166 a month between the cheapest and dearest semaglutide programme is not a difference in medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing, margin, and how far a programme will go to make an advertised number look lower than a billed one.
Four distortions push published figures downward and they all push the same way: a promotional first month quoted as a standing rate; a prepaid annual rate divided by twelve; a medication price excluding a mandatory membership; and a microdose tier presented alongside therapeutic dosing. Each is individually defensible and together they compound.
Which is why the cheapest-looking programme in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated, and why every figure here carries its plan term, its dose class and its capture date rather than standing alone.
Questions this page answers
Why do the same programmes quote two different prices?
Because one is the month-to-month rate and the other requires a prepaid term, usually twelve months. We rank on the month-to-month figure and state the prepaid rate separately, since a rate requiring a year's commitment is not the same offer.
Where do these prices come from?
Each is read from the programme's own published pricing page and carries its capture date. The full set of 24 standard-dose records is at /api/prices.json with molecule and dose class on every record.
What is the cheapest verified GLP-1 programme?
Oak Longevity at $133 a month for semaglutide and Found at $169 for tirzepatide, both at standard therapeutic dosing.
Are compounded GLP-1 medicines FDA-approved?
No. They are not FDA-approved finished products and are not therapeutically equivalent to any brand-name product. FDA does not review them for safety, effectiveness or manufacturing quality before marketing.