Tirzepatide (GLP-2 / LY3298176): specifications and price per milligram

Identity and aliases

Tirzepatide is a synthetic 39-amino-acid peptide acting as a dual agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptors. Its structure is based on the native GIP sequence and carries a C20 fatty di-acid modification (Coskun et al., Molecular Metabolism 2018). CAS 2023788-19-2; parent-peptide molecular weight around 4813.5 g/mol.

Catalog aliases in this market include GLP-2 and LY3298176.

Regulatory status of the molecule, and of this material

The molecule has been approved by the United States FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2022 and for chronic weight management in 2023, under sponsor brand names. Published phase 3 literature includes the SURPASS program, which examined glycaemic parameters, and the SURMOUNT program, which examined body-weight regulation (Jastreboff et al., New England Journal of Medicine 2022).

Certificate requirements

• Mass spectrometry identity consistent with the di-acid-modified parent peptide.
• HPLC purity as area percent with the chromatogram attached.
• Lot number matching the vial.

Price per milligram across the size ladder

The ladder runs 10mg, 30mg and 60mg. List prices are $5.00, $2.00 and $1.83 per milligram. See the metabolic price comparison for the same rows beside dated competitor prices.

The dual-agonist design

Tirzepatide is a single modified peptide designed to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors. The 2018 discovery paper characterizes receptor activity in cell systems and reports preclinical experiments. Dual agonist describes the design and measured receptor activity; it is not a general quality grade for any material carrying the name.

Its 39-residue backbone is based on GIP and includes substitutions plus a fatty di-acid side chain. Those features affect the expected molecular mass and chromatographic behavior. An identity test has to resolve the intended modified molecule, not simply a partial peptide backbone.

The compound name is more reliable than the GLP-2 catalog alias. Endogenous GLP-2 is a different hormone with a different sequence and receptor. A specification should use tirzepatide or LY3298176 as the primary identity and list GLP-2 only as a market alias.

The alias problem is analytical, not cosmetic

Ambiguous naming can propagate from a supplier quote to a sample submission and then to a certificate. Once that happens, a report may appear internally consistent while never stating which molecule the laboratory was asked to identify.

The remedy is simple: place the full intended name, sequence definition, modifications, expected mass and reference material on the specification before the sample is sent. The laboratory result can then test an explicit target rather than interpreting a nickname.

This also improves price comparison. A cheap listing under an ambiguous alias should not be treated as a matched offer until the seller confirms the same defined analyte.

Approved finished products and research material are different objects

FDA approval applies to named finished products manufactured under their approved applications. It covers formulation, facilities, controls, labeling and release systems in addition to the active molecule. It does not transfer to a third-party research vial because the molecule has the same nonproprietary name.

That boundary should remain explicit wherever the clinical literature is discussed. The SURPASS and SURMOUNT programs can establish findings about the sponsor's products under their study protocols. They do not certify a catalog listing and they do not replace a lot-specific identity and purity record.

For the same reason, this page does not turn study schedules into guidance. Clinical protocol details belong to the interpretation of the paper, not to instructions for research material.

How to read a large phase 3 result

The 2022 SURMOUNT-1 publication is a randomized controlled trial with a defined population, comparator, duration and endpoint plan. Reading it well requires more than copying the largest number from the abstract. Enrollment criteria determine who was studied, and the estimand and missing-data method determine what the reported comparison means.

Adverse-event reporting, discontinuations and the difference between primary and supportive endpoints belong beside the efficacy result. A long trial with several groups produces many numbers; prespecification helps distinguish the questions the trial was built to answer from later observations.

The publication is valuable evidence for the regulated development record. Its scale does not remove the need to verify the identity of a separate laboratory material.

Analytical work for a modified 39-mer

A long, lipidated peptide can contain related substances that are close in mass or retention time. A useful result package therefore combines methods: mass spectrometry for molecular consistency and HPLC for the distribution of detected chromatographic components.

• State whether the expected mass includes the intended side chain and all substitutions.
• Show the chromatogram and integrated peak table beside the reported area percentage.
• Report measured quantity separately from chromatographic purity.
• Keep the sample identifier linked to the received lot and retained inventory.
• Record any method limitation rather than converting it into an unqualified pass.

A specification can also define when an orthogonal method is needed. The purpose is not to collect the longest report; it is to resolve the material risks that follow from the structure.

Quantity, purity and price answer different questions

Nominal vial mass is the commercial promise used to calculate the displayed price per milligram. Measured mass is an observation for a submitted sample. Purity is a composition result under a stated method. They should occupy separate columns because their denominators and uncertainty are different.

If a vendor advertises a 60mg vial, the public unit price should use 60mg even if one historical test measured above that value. Otherwise a single favorable sample quietly changes the advertised offer. Release decisions may use measured data; comparison pages should use the offer the buyer is actually promised.

Shipping thresholds, membership fees and temporary discounts are additional dimensions. A transparent comparison dates the observed price and states which access condition produced it.

A record another reviewer can reproduce

1. Save the exact product page, price date, vial size and access condition.
2. Confirm that the listing means tirzepatide rather than endogenous GLP-2.
3. Match the sample identifier, lot record and vial label before accepting analytical data.
4. Retain the complete report privately even if the public summary is deliberately limited.
5. Recheck regulatory and price statements on a scheduled date because both can change.

That record separates durable facts, such as molecular identity, from time-sensitive facts, such as price and regulatory status. It also lets a later reviewer see which claim came from which source.

Primary records used for this overview

• Coskun et al., 2018, discovery and dual-receptor pharmacology: PubMed record.
• Jastreboff et al., 2022, SURMOUNT-1 randomized trial: PubMed record.

Reference standards and mass conventions

A modified peptide can generate several expected mass values depending on whether a report uses average molecular mass, monoisotopic mass, neutral species or a charged ion. A useful certificate names the convention and shows how the observed signal maps back to the intended molecule.

The reference standard also needs traceability appropriate to the method. Comparing an unknown sample with a poorly characterized material can produce a consistent answer to the wrong question. Standard identity and qualification belong in the laboratory record.

These details are not meant to turn a public shopper into an analytical chemist. They let the person releasing inventory decide whether the identity statement is specific enough to support the label.

Separate the molecule, formulation and manufacturing process

The active molecular identity is one layer of a finished pharmaceutical product. Excipients, concentration, container, manufacturing controls, sterility assurance where applicable, stability and approved labeling are additional layers. Matching the first layer does not establish the rest.

Research material should therefore be compared with its own specification and intended laboratory scope. Brand references may help identify clinical publications, but they should not be used to imply equivalence, endorsement or shared quality systems.

This separation also keeps regulatory language accurate. Approval attaches to a product under an application, while a molecular paper can study a compound before or after those decisions.

Interpreting subgroup and secondary analyses

Large trials often publish subgroup, extension and secondary analyses. These can answer useful questions, but their interpretation depends on prespecification, sample size, multiplicity and whether the comparison was designed to be confirmatory or exploratory.

A subgroup difference should not be inferred from one subgroup reaching a threshold while another does not. The interaction itself must be assessed. Likewise, an extension study may have a selected continuing population that differs from the original randomized group.

The research hub should link a primary trial record first and add secondary papers only when their question and limits can be stated clearly. More citations are not automatically more certainty.

Keeping a regulatory statement current

Regulatory status can vary by indication, product and jurisdiction. A dated page should identify the authority and avoid turning one approval into a global statement. Sponsor announcements are useful for milestones, while regulator databases are the authority for approval status.

The status of a finished product does not resolve the legal or analytical status of independently sourced research material. Both questions must be answered separately and updated from the appropriate record.

When the underlying status changes, the page should update its review date and source link. That makes the change visible instead of allowing an evergreen search page to preserve stale language.

A structured source hierarchy

Different sources answer different questions. The discovery paper is the primary source for the original molecular design and receptor experiments. A randomized trial publication is the source for its defined clinical comparison. A regulator database is the source for approval status, and a lot report is the source for an inventory result.

Substituting one source type for another creates predictable errors. A sponsor page cannot establish the identity of an independently sourced vial. A certificate cannot establish a clinical endpoint. A review cannot change the approval status recorded by a regulator.

The hub uses the narrowest source that directly supports each statement. That keeps updates manageable and makes it clear what new evidence would be needed to change a conclusion.

Comparing evidence across vendors

Vendor documentation can be compared as a set of fields rather than as a badge. Does the page define the molecule, show the public price and unit, state research-only scope, identify whether testing is historical or lot-matched, and connect any current certificate to the offered batch?

A polished certificate image does not compensate for a missing lot link, and a low price does not compensate for an ambiguous GLP-2 alias. Conversely, a higher price does not prove stronger testing. Each dimension needs its own evidence.

Using the same checklist for Effect and competitors keeps the comparison fair. The purpose is to expose what is known, what is time-sensitive and what remains unverified, not to award points for presentation.