Source standards
The hierarchy of sources we rely on, and what we will not cite.
Source hierarchy
| Tier | Sources |
|---|---|
| Tier 1 — primary | FDA labels and guidance, NIH, ClinicalTrials.gov, peer-reviewed trials, state pharmacy boards, CMS/NPI records |
| Tier 2 — synthesis | Professional medical societies, systematic reviews, academic medical centers |
| Tier 3 — provider records | Provider websites, terms, pharmacy disclosures, direct correspondence |
| Tier 4 — user signals | Consumer reviews and forums — used only for service-quality patterns, never clinical proof |
What we will not cite
We do not cite competitor blogs for clinical claims, research-chemical sellers, or marketing copy presented as evidence. We do not link to sources that facilitate unlawful purchase of unapproved drugs.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Every price carries a status. Verified means we hold a dated capture of the provider's own page. Reported — pending verification means a provider or third party reports it and we have not captured it ourselves. Evaluation in progress means we are not asserting it. We do not upgrade a price to Verified because a comparison site published it — sites in this category contradict each other routinely, and a number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
Every medical claim traces to a primary source. FDA labels and guidance for regulatory status; PubMed-indexed randomised trials for efficacy; ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design. Reddit and patient forums are never used as evidence of price, safety, efficacy or legitimacy — they may be described as anecdotal sentiment, labelled as such. Animal research is never presented as proof of a human clinical effect.
Every ranking shows its arithmetic. Where a provider we have a commercial relationship with ranks well, the calculation that produced that result is printed on the page. If the arithmetic is wrong, you can see that it is wrong, and tell us.
Commercial relationships and what they do not buy
The publisher and certain principals have financial relationships with some of the telehealth providers listed on this site, and we may earn a commission when readers use certain links. That is how this publication is funded, and we state it in the footer of every page rather than burying it.
What compensation does not do: it does not change a score, a rank, an inclusion decision, or a negative finding. Providers cannot pay for placement, cannot suppress an accurate criticism, and cannot review their own page before publication. Where a commercially-related provider loses a category, we say so — a comparison in which one provider wins everything is an advertisement, and the fastest way to tell the difference is to look for the losses.
Corrections
We publish prices in a market that changes them frequently, and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct the page, date the correction, and say what changed — we do not quietly edit a number and pretend it was always right. Both readers and providers can submit corrections with evidence, through the same process and to the same standard.
Our own record so far includes removing a set of provider prices we had sourced from a third-party comparison site and could not substantiate, and correcting brand-pricing figures that had gone stale after a manufacturer price cut. Both corrections made the site less flattering to conclusions we had already published. That is the point.
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
Tirzepatide carries a boxed warning for thyroid C-cell tumours, based on rodent data. It is contraindicated in anyone with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia syndrome type 2. This is not a precaution to weigh; it is a hard stop.
Serious but less common risks include pancreatitis, gallbladder disease (cholelithiasis and cholecystitis), acute kidney injury secondary to dehydration from vomiting or diarrhoea, diabetic retinopathy complications in people with existing retinopathy, and hypoglycaemia when combined with insulin or a sulfonylurea. Severe abdominal pain radiating to the back warrants urgent assessment for pancreatitis, not a message to a chat widget.
Before starting, a clinician should establish a baseline: weight and BMI, blood pressure, HbA1c or fasting glucose, a lipid panel, and renal and hepatic function. During treatment, tolerance should be reviewed at each escalation step rather than escalated automatically on a calendar.
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.
In SURMOUNT-4 — the randomised withdrawal trial — participants taken off tirzepatide after a 36-week lead-in regained roughly 14% of body weight over the following year, while those who continued lost a further ~5%. This is the trial that most changes the arithmetic of treatment, and it is almost never cited on a pricing page.
The consequence is financial as much as clinical. If holding the result requires holding the medication, then the figure that matters is not the introductory price, and not even the annual price. It is the indefinite monthly price. Anyone selecting a provider on the strength of a first-month rate is optimising the wrong variable entirely.
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 tirzepatide (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.