Research Journal
An editorial evidence library. We summarise the trials that this field cites, state what each one actually found, and — the part usually missing — state what it does not prove.
This is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. It is an editorial evidence library: structured summaries of the primary literature, written so that a non-specialist can see exactly how far a result stretches and where it stops. Every entry names the funder, the design, the population, and the boundary of the evidence. We do not invent citations, DOIs or results.
Study summaries
SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-1: tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity…
New England Journal of Medicine · June 2022
SURMOUNT-5
SURMOUNT-5: tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity…
New England Journal of Medicine · May 2025
STEP-1
STEP 1: once-weekly semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity…
New England Journal of Medicine · March 2021
SELECT
SELECT: semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes…
New England Journal of Medicine · December 2023
Also in the Research Journal
Why every entry has a "what this does not prove" section
| Trial | Arm | Result | Duration | Comparator | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SURMOUNT-1 | Tirzepatide 15 mg | −20.9% | 72 weeks | Placebo −3.1% | NEJM 2022 (Jastreboff et al.) |
| SURMOUNT-1 | Tirzepatide 10 mg | −19.5% | 72 weeks | NEJM 2022 | |
| SURMOUNT-1 | Tirzepatide 5 mg | −15.0% | 72 weeks | NEJM 2022 | |
| SURMOUNT-5 | Tirzepatide (max tolerated) | −20.2% | 72 weeks | vs semaglutide −13.7% | NEJM 2025 (Aronne et al.) |
| STEP 1 | Semaglutide 2.4 mg | −14.9% | 68 weeks | Placebo −2.4% | NEJM 2021 (Wilding et al.) |
| STEP 8 | Semaglutide 2.4 mg | −15.8% | 68 weeks | vs liraglutide 3.0 mg −6.4% | JAMA 2022 (Rubino et al.) |
| SCALE | Liraglutide 3.0 mg | −8.0% | 56 weeks | Placebo −2.6% | NEJM 2015 |
| SELECT | Semaglutide 2.4 mg | 20% MACE reduction | ~40 months | Cardiovascular outcomes | NEJM 2023 |
What we verify, and what we do not
Two claims on any telehealth page look identical and are not. "This provider uses a licensed pharmacy" may mean we checked a state board database, or it may mean the provider said so. Those are different epistemic states and we label them differently.
| Label | Means | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Verified | We hold a dated capture or a primary-source confirmation | LillyDirect's $299 — from Lilly's own pricing page |
| Reported — pending verification | A provider or third party reports it; we have NOT captured it ourselves | Competitor prices from the July 2026 dataset; every pharmacy relationship on this site |
| Evaluation in progress | Verification pending. We are not asserting the fact at all | Cancellation terms we could not obtain in writing |
We do not upgrade a price to Verified because another comparison site published it. Sites in this category contradict each other routinely — the dataset behind this site corrected a stored TrimRx figure of $259 that matched no current tier, and an Eden brand-Zepbound figure of $299 that was actually LillyDirect's price rather than Eden's real $1,399. A number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
Three facts that apply to everything in this section
Brand prices collapsed, and most comparison pages have not updated. Brand Zepbound is $299-$449 through LillyDirect. Brand Wegovy is $349 through NovoCare, and the oral Wegovy tablet is $149. Foundayo, Lilly's approved oral GLP-1, starts at $149. With commercial coverage either brand can be roughly $25 a month. Against that, a compounded programme priced above $299 is charging more than the FDA-approved drug — and several are.
The legal basis for compounding narrowed sharply in 2025. The FDA declared both shortages resolved and enforcement discretion ended for every class of compounder between February and May 2025. The surviving route requires a prescriber to document a clinical difference for the individual patient — which is what "personalized dosing" and "microdose" programmes are, as a matter of regulatory mechanics rather than clinical innovation.
The trial evidence applies to injections. Every efficacy figure in this field — SURMOUNT, STEP, SELECT — comes from an FDA-approved subcutaneous injection. None of it was collected on a compounded preparation, a microdose, or an orally disintegrating tablet. The evidence is strong exactly where it was gathered and silent everywhere else, and the gap between those two things is where most of the marketing in this industry operates.
Questions to ask about the pharmacy
The pharmacy matters more than the telehealth brand on the front of the website. The telehealth company arranges the consultation; the pharmacy makes the medicine you inject.
- Which specific pharmacy will fill my prescription? Not "our network" — the name of the facility.
- Is it a 503A state-licensed pharmacy or a 503B FDA-registered outsourcing facility? These are different regulatory categories with different oversight, and a company can use both for different products.
- In which state is it licensed, and can I look up the licence? State boards of pharmacy publish licensee databases.
- What is the exact salt form and concentration? Semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate are not the same active ingredient as the semaglutide base in approved products, and the FDA has said they are not appropriate for compounding.
- Is the vial single-dose or multi-dose? A multi-dose vial requires you to measure each dose yourself, which is the most common source of the dosing errors behind reported adverse events.
- Will you provide a certificate of analysis?
- Has the pharmacy received any FDA warning letter or state board action?
A provider that answers all seven in writing is demonstrating something real. A provider that will not name its pharmacy has given you an answer, whether it intended to or not.
How we grade evidence
| Tier | Source type | How we treat it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | FDA labels, safety communications, official guidance | Authoritative for regulatory status |
| 2 | Randomised controlled trials in PubMed-indexed journals | Primary evidence for efficacy |
| 3 | Systematic reviews and meta-analyses | Strongest for synthesis |
| 4 | ClinicalTrials.gov registrations | For design and status; not results |
| 5 | Professional society guidelines | For standard of care |
| 6 | Government sources (CDC, CMS, NPI registry, state boards) | For verification of entities |
| 7 | Provider's own pages | For that provider's prices and claims ONLY |
| — | Reddit, forums, patient anecdote | Never as evidence of price, safety or efficacy. Labelled as anecdote if cited at all |
| — | Affiliate comparison sites | Never as proof of a medical claim. A price they publish is Reported, not Verified |
| — | Animal studies | Never as proof of human clinical effect |