Glossary

The words this site uses, defined

69 terms from peptide pharmacology, compounding and telehealth pricing, each written to be read on its own. This page defines what a word means and stops there.

By Nora Castellan, Standards Editor · Updated September 2026

peptide

A peptide is a short chain of amino acids, which describes a molecule’s structure rather than a category of medicine.

Amino acids link together in chains. Short chains are called peptides, and long ones are called proteins. The line between the two is a matter of convention rather than a hard rule.

Because the word describes structure, it carries no information about approval, evidence or safety. Insulin is a peptide. So are semaglutide and tirzepatide. So is a compound sold in a vial labeled for research use only. An argument that peptides as a class are safe, natural or effective is an argument from the shape of a molecule.

growth hormone secretagogue

A compound that prompts the body to release its own growth hormone, rather than supplying growth hormone directly.

Secretagogue means a substance that makes a gland secrete something. In this market the term covers compounds acting on either of two receptor systems upstream of growth hormone release.

The distinction from growth hormone itself is the point of the category. Growth hormone is an approved drug with defined indications. A secretagogue is an upstream signal, and the two are not two strengths of one treatment. A secretagogue moving a hormone level is a measurement, not a result someone would notice.

GHRH analog

A synthetic molecule built to act on the growth-hormone-releasing hormone receptor, the body’s own upstream signal for growth hormone.

Growth-hormone-releasing hormone is made in the hypothalamus and tells the pituitary to release growth hormone. An analog is a laboratory version designed to bind the same receptor. Sermorelin, CJC-1295 and tesamorelin all sit in this class.

Members of the class share a receptor and differ in other ways. How long a molecule circulates varies, and so does whether an approved product exists behind the name. Sharing a receptor does not make two compounds interchangeable.

ghrelin receptor agonist

A compound that binds the ghrelin receptor, a second and separate route to growth hormone release.

Ghrelin is a hormone best known for signaling hunger. Its receptor is also called the growth hormone secretagogue receptor, because binding it triggers growth hormone release. Ipamorelin is the example most often sold.

This is a different receptor from the one a GHRH analog acts on, which is why the two classes are frequently sold as a pair. Reaching one hormone by two routes is real pharmacology. It is not by itself evidence that the pairing produces a result anyone would notice.

sermorelin

Sermorelin is a synthetic fragment of growth-hormone-releasing hormone, not growth hormone itself.

It acts on the GHRH receptor, and its effect on the growth hormone axis is real and reproducible. Sermorelin was once sold in the United States as an approved product, which was discontinued. What is offered through telehealth now is a compounded preparation.

This site grades sermorelin limited evidence. The mechanism is measurable, and the controlled trials that would show it changes how an adult sleeps, recovers, looks or ages have not been published. A rising IGF-1 level is a marker moving.

Who sells Sermorelin, scored

ipamorelin

Ipamorelin is a synthetic peptide that acts on the ghrelin receptor to prompt growth hormone release.

It is usually sold beside a GHRH analog rather than alone. Its distinguishing feature in the literature is selectivity. It triggers growth hormone release with much less effect on cortisol and prolactin than earlier compounds in the class.

This site grades ipamorelin limited evidence. There is a defined receptor target and short-term human pharmacology behind it. The long-term controlled human data that the recovery and anti-aging claims would require has not been published.

Why the Ipamorelin board ranks no provider

CJC-1295

CJC-1295 is a synthetic growth-hormone-releasing hormone analog, sold under one name that covers two different molecules.

It acts on the GHRH receptor. The name is where the confusion starts, because the market uses it both for a long-acting version and for a shorter-acting one that is a different molecule.

This site grades CJC-1295 limited evidence. The growth hormone mechanism is real and measurable. The human outcome data that consumer marketing claims would require has not been published, and short-term hormone measurements are not outcomes.

Why the CJC-1295 board ranks no provider

CJC-1295 with DAC vs without DAC

Two different molecules sold under one name: the long-acting version carries a drug affinity complex, the other does not.

DAC stands for drug affinity complex, a modification that binds the peptide to a blood protein and extends how long it circulates. The version without it is modified GRF(1-29), a shorter-acting molecule with a different profile.

The distinction matters because the human work behind the name was done on the long-acting version, while the version commonly sold is the other one. Two products sharing a label are not therefore the same article. Which one a provider means is worth reading for.

Why the CJC-1295 board ranks no provider

tesamorelin

Tesamorelin is a growth-hormone-releasing hormone analog with an FDA-approved product behind one specific indication.

It is in the same class as sermorelin. The approval covers reducing excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy, and the approved labeling states the product is not a weight-loss drug.

That is a narrow indication in a defined population, and it is usually not the reason the compound is offered through telehealth. This site grades tesamorelin limited evidence. Use outside the approved indication has not been tested in the trials that would support it.

Who sells Tesamorelin, scored

NAD+

NAD+ is a coenzyme every cell uses in energy metabolism, sold as an injection, an intravenous drip or an oral precursor.

The molecule is not taken into cells intact. It is broken down outside the cell and rebuilt inside from smaller pieces, which is why the delivery route is a real question rather than a preference.

This site grades NAD+ limited evidence, and the grade is earned mostly by the oral precursor research. Raising a measurable NAD+ level is well documented. It has not reliably translated into the results the category is marketed on, and the intravenous route is the one with the least published outcome evidence behind it.

Who sells NAD+, scored

NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide)

NMN is a small molecule the body can convert along the salvage pathway that builds NAD+ inside cells.

It appears in the consumer wellness market alongside other NAD+ precursors. Chemically it sits one step from nicotinamide riboside on that same pathway.

The point a reader needs is the one that runs through this whole category. A precursor that raises a laboratory measurement has moved a marker. Whether that produces a change anyone would notice is a separate question, answered by trials rather than by biochemistry.

nicotinamide riboside

Nicotinamide riboside is an oral NAD+ precursor, a form of vitamin B3 the body converts toward NAD+.

It is the precursor with the most published human work behind it in this category. Taken by mouth, it has repeatedly been shown to raise measurable NAD+ levels in people.

That is a pharmacokinetic finding. It establishes that the molecule reaches the pathway, which is not the same as establishing that anyone feels or functions differently. The second result is what the marketing rests on, and it has not followed from the first.

GHK-Cu

GHK-Cu is a naturally occurring three-amino-acid peptide bound to copper, where the copper is part of the active molecule.

It has a large published literature, and that literature is overwhelmingly cell-culture and animal work. The human evidence that does exist is topical and cosmetic.

This site grades GHK-Cu no controlled human evidence. Skin-cream research does not transfer to an injected product, and no controlled human trial establishes benefit for the injectable uses it is marketed for. Much of the injectable material in circulation is labeled for research use only.

Who sells GHK-Cu, scored

BPC-157

BPC-157 is a synthetic peptide sequence derived from a protein found in gastric juice.

It is discussed in connection with soft-tissue and gut injury. The published work behind it is animal research, mostly rodent injury models.

This site grades BPC-157 no controlled human evidence. The grade describes what has been measured rather than claiming the compound is dangerous. Where this compound stands with regulators moves, and it is recorded with its date on the compound status page rather than here.

Why the BPC-157 board ranks no provider

TB-500

TB-500 is a synthetic version of a fragment of thymosin beta-4, a protein involved in cell movement and tissue repair.

It sells through the research-chemical channel, usually grouped in listings with the compounds it is marketed beside.

This site grades TB-500 no controlled human evidence. What exists is preclinical work in cells and animals, plus a long tail of user reports that are not evidence in any usable sense. Being under-studied is not the same as being shown to be harmful, and it is presented here as neither.

Why the TB-500 board ranks no provider

PT-141

PT-141 is bremelanotide, a melanocortin receptor agonist that acts centrally rather than on blood flow.

An FDA-approved bremelanotide product exists for one indication in one population, acquired generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder in premenopausal women. That product carries a reviewed safety label.

The peptide market generally sells the molecule for neither that indication nor that population. This site grades PT-141 no controlled human evidence for those other uses, which is a statement about the uses rather than about the molecule.

Who sells PT-141, scored

MOTS-c

MOTS-c is a short peptide encoded in mitochondrial DNA, so the body produces it natively.

It is studied in connection with metabolic and exercise physiology. What is sold under the name is a synthetic copy.

This site grades MOTS-c limited evidence, because the underlying biology is real and has been measured in people. How an injected synthetic version behaves over time in humans has not been measured. Marketing copy runs those two things together, and they are kept apart here on purpose.

Why the MOTS-c board ranks no provider

KPV

KPV is a three-amino-acid fragment of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone, a hormone the body already makes.

It comes up mainly in an inflammation context. The work behind it is laboratory and animal research on inflammatory signaling.

This site grades KPV no controlled human evidence. That describes the published record and is not a safety finding. Almost everything claimed for KPV in the consumer market runs ahead of what has been measured.

Why the KPV board ranks no provider

glutathione

Glutathione is a three-amino-acid peptide the body makes and uses in every cell.

Swallowed glutathione is broken down in digestion, which is the reason injectable products exist. A delivery problem being solved is not a benefit being demonstrated.

The detox, skin-lightening and energy claims attached to injected glutathione have no controlled human trial support. The strongest controlled work on the injected form comes from Parkinson’s disease research, and it did not establish a benefit.

Who sells Glutathione, scored

alpha-MSH

A hormone the body makes that drives pigment production and, separately, dampens inflammatory signaling.

Alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone is a short peptide the body cuts out of a larger precursor protein. Two products in this market trace back to it. KPV is its last three amino acids, sold on the inflammation side of what the hormone does. PT-141 descends from the same hormone by a different route, on the pigment-receptor side.

The parent hormone being real and well described says nothing about either fragment. A piece of a signaling molecule can keep one property, lose another, or behave in ways the whole molecule never does. Each fragment has to be tested on its own, and neither of these two has been.

melanocortin receptor

A family of five related receptors that alpha-MSH and its relatives act on, each governing a different job.

The family members sit in different tissues and control different things: skin pigment, adrenal signaling, appetite and energy balance, immune activity. One hormone reaches several of them. That is why a molecule built for one job can produce an unrelated effect somewhere else in the body.

The spread is the practical point. PT-141 acts within this family and is sold for sexual desire, while skin-darkening effects come from a neighboring receptor in the same system. Naming the family locates a compound. It does not predict which member matters for a given claim.

mitochondrial-derived peptide

A peptide encoded in mitochondrial DNA rather than in the cell nucleus, so it comes from the cell’s own power plants.

Mitochondria carry a small genome of their own, separate from the chromosomes in the nucleus. A handful of short peptides are read from that genome and released into the body, and MOTS-c is the one this market sells. Their existence connects the state of a cell’s mitochondria to signaling elsewhere.

The category is genuinely novel biology, and novelty is not evidence. Human research on these peptides has mostly measured how much of one is circulating rather than what happens when one is injected. A molecule that reflects what mitochondria are doing is a readout. Whether adding more of it changes anything is a separate question.

coenzyme

A helper molecule an enzyme cannot work without, supplied by the cell and usually recycled after each reaction.

Enzymes do the chemistry, and many of them need a partner molecule to carry an electron, a chemical group or a packet of energy from one reaction to the next. NAD+ is the example this market sells, cycling between two forms as metabolism runs.

Being essential is not the same as being in short supply, and marketing runs the two together constantly. A cell that already has enough of a coenzyme gains nothing from more. Some enzymes do consume NAD+ rather than recycling it, which is the real reason supply is worth studying — and studying it is not the same as showing an injection helps.

antioxidant

A molecule that gives up an electron to neutralize a reactive compound before it damages something.

Reactive molecules are produced constantly by normal metabolism, and cells run several systems to keep them in check. Glutathione is the central one inside human cells. The chemistry is straightforward and easy to demonstrate in a test tube.

Antioxidant names a chemical behavior, not a health outcome. Reactive molecules also carry useful signals, so suppressing them is not automatically good. Supplement research has made that point the hard way: the benefits the chemistry predicted have repeatedly failed to appear, and pooled analyses of high-dose vitamin E pointed toward higher mortality rather than lower.

precursor

A molecule the body converts into the one actually wanted, used when the target itself cannot get where it needs to go.

Some molecules never cross into a cell intact. NAD+ and glutathione are both taken apart outside the cell and rebuilt inside from the pieces, so supplying a building block can do more than supplying the finished molecule.

That is why the precursor route often carries the better evidence. Acetylcysteine is an approved injectable drug, and its mechanism is supplying the cysteine that glutathione synthesis depends on. A product sold as the finished molecule at a premium is not automatically the stronger version of a cheaper precursor, and in these two categories the reverse has often been closer to true.

salvage pathway

The recycling route cells use to rebuild NAD+ from fragments instead of making it from scratch.

Building NAD+ from raw materials is expensive, so cells mostly recover it instead. Enzymes that consume NAD+ leave nicotinamide behind, and the salvage pathway converts that back into NAD+ by way of nicotinamide mononucleotide. NMN and nicotinamide riboside are sold because they feed into this route.

The pathway explains why an NAD+ injection is a delivery of parts rather than of the molecule on the label. It does not establish that those parts are what anyone is short of. A recycling system running normally is not a system waiting for a top-up.

analog

A laboratory-built molecule designed to resemble a natural one closely enough to act on the same target.

Chemists alter a natural molecule to fix a specific problem with it, most often how quickly the body destroys it. The result binds the same receptor and differs everywhere the change was made.

The word carries no quality claim of its own. An analog can be an approved drug or a research chemical. Two analogs of one hormone are not two strengths of a single treatment: tesamorelin and CJC-1295 are both analogs of growth-hormone-releasing hormone, and the human evidence behind them looks nothing alike.

endogenous

Produced by the body itself, rather than manufactured and administered from outside it.

Many compounds in this market are copies of molecules a person already makes — a hormone fragment, a mitochondrial peptide, a small antioxidant. The synthetic copy can be the same sequence, atom for atom.

Being endogenous is not a safety argument, and it is the argument made most often. The body releases its own molecules in small amounts, at particular times, under feedback control. An injection matches none of those conditions. Insulin and thyroid hormone are endogenous too, and both are dangerous given wrongly.

receptor agonist

A molecule that binds a receptor and switches it on, as opposed to one that binds it and blocks the natural signal.

A receptor is a protein switch on or inside a cell. An agonist fits it and turns it on, producing the same kind of response the body’s own signal would produce. An antagonist fits and does nothing except keep the natural signal out.

Naming an agonist tells you where a compound acts. It does not tell you how strongly, for how long, or whether the response matters to anyone. Two agonists at one receptor can differ in every one of those. Knowing the target is the start of a pharmacology question, not the answer to a clinical one.

selectivity

How narrowly a molecule acts on its intended target instead of on the related receptors around it.

Receptors come in families with similar shapes, so a molecule built for one often touches its relatives. A selective compound does much less of that. Ipamorelin is described as selective because it triggers growth hormone release with far less effect on cortisol and prolactin than earlier compounds in its class.

Selectivity describes side effects, not benefit. A cleaner compound is one doing fewer unintended things, which says nothing about whether the intended thing is worth having. A selective molecule with no outcome evidence is a precise instrument aimed at an untested claim.

half-life

The time it takes for half of an administered substance to be cleared from the blood.

It is the standard measure of how long a molecule sticks around. Natural growth-hormone-releasing hormone is cleared within minutes, which is why every synthetic version in this market is modified to last longer. A drug affinity complex and a stabilized backbone are two ways of moving the same number.

A longer half-life changes convenience and total exposure. It does not create a benefit that was not there. Marketing regularly presents duration as potency, and they are separate properties. Longer also means an unwanted effect lasts longer, which is the half of the trade rarely mentioned.

compounded drug

A medication prepared to order by a pharmacy rather than supplied finished by a manufacturer, and not an FDA-approved product.

Compounding solves real problems. A patient cannot swallow a tablet, a child needs a strength no product offers, someone reacts to a dye, or a drug is in shortage. The practice is old and legitimate.

What it is not is manufacturing. A manufacturer submits a product to the FDA, which reviews the evidence for safety and effectiveness and inspects how the product is made. A compounded preparation goes through none of that, whatever standards the pharmacy holds itself to. That is true of every compounded peptide, from every pharmacy, sold by every provider.

503A compounding pharmacy

A traditional compounding pharmacy that prepares a medication for one identified patient at a time, against a prescription written for that person.

The name comes from a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The patient-specific requirement is the defining feature of the category.

A 503A pharmacy is exempt from several requirements that apply to drug manufacturers, including FDA approval of what it makes and the federal manufacturing practice rules that govern factories. Its day-to-day regulator is the state board of pharmacy that licenses and inspects it. Most telehealth peptide prescriptions run through this category, because the model matches: one patient, one prescriber, one prescription.

503B outsourcing facility

An outsourcing facility that compounds in batches without a prescription naming an individual patient, and registers with the FDA.

Batch compounding is what makes it possible to supply a clinic with stock on the shelf. The trade for that freedom is a heavier set of obligations. A 503B facility registers with the FDA, complies with current good manufacturing practice, is inspected on a risk-based schedule, and reports adverse events to the agency.

The category exists because of a disaster. Contaminated injections prepared by a compounding pharmacy caused a national fungal meningitis outbreak, and people died. Congress created the outsourcing facility category in the Drug Quality and Security Act so that large-scale sterile compounding would sit under federal manufacturing rules. Being held to those rules is meaningful, and it is still not FDA approval of the product.

bulk drug substances list

The FDA-maintained list of bulk substances permitted for use in compounding, which substances reach through a public rulemaking process.

A pharmacy cannot compound with any powder it likes. In general terms a starting substance qualifies in one of three ways. It is a component of an FDA-approved drug, it has a monograph in the official pharmacopeia setting out its standards, or the FDA has placed it on this list. Outsourcing facilities work from a separate list of their own.

The mechanism is what this entry defines. Whether a particular compound appears on a list, and what stage any process about it has reached, is a moving fact that needs a date attached to be worth anything. Those facts are tracked per compound elsewhere on this site and are deliberately not restated here.

research-use-only vial

A vial sold as a laboratory chemical rather than as a medicine, usually labeled as not for human consumption.

The label describes what is being sold and to which market. It is not a warning added to a medicine. No prescriber, licensed pharmacy, pharmacist or prescription sits behind the transaction, so the material sits outside the prescription supply chain entirely.

Everything that supply chain does has therefore been left out. Nothing establishes the identity, strength, purity or sterility of the contents, and nothing establishes that the vial holds what the label says. A certificate of analysis supplied by the seller is the seller’s assurance about the seller’s own product, not independent verification. Whether a given purchase is lawful turns on the substance, the transaction and the jurisdiction, and it is a question for a lawyer rather than for a comparison site.

certificate of analysis

A document reporting laboratory test results for one specific batch of material, issued by or for whoever produced it.

A useful one names the batch, the tests run, the method used for each, the acceptance limits and the laboratory that ran them. Identity, purity and — for anything injectable — sterility and endotoxin are the entries that carry weight. Those four answer different questions and one does not stand in for another.

It is the seller’s assurance about the seller’s own product, not independent verification, and it describes a batch rather than the vial in front of you. A document with no batch number, no laboratory name or no stated method is decoration. Its presence is not approval, and a research-labeled vial does not become a medicine because a certificate travels with it.

lyophilized powder

A medication freeze-dried into a dry powder so it stays stable in the vial until it is mixed back into liquid.

Lyophilization removes water under vacuum from a frozen solution. Many peptides are supplied this way because the dry form keeps better than a solution does.

The consequence for a reader comparing offers is simple. A vial of powder is not a finished product in the way a filled syringe is, so a step sits between the vial and the patient. What that step involves comes from the prescriber and from the labeling supplied with the medication.

reconstitution

Reconstitution is mixing a dry medication with a liquid to return it to solution before it can be given.

The word names a step, and this entry defines the concept only. Directions for that step come from the prescriber and from the labeling supplied with the medication, and none appear anywhere on this site.

The term matters to a buyer for one reason. A product that arrives as a powder involves a step a reader should know exists, and a price quoted per vial of powder describes something different from a price quoted per month.

bacteriostatic water

A sterile water preparation containing a preservative that limits bacterial growth, used in pharmacy and clinical settings with certain injectable medications.

The preservative is what separates it from plain sterile water, and it is why the two are not interchangeable. That is the whole of the definition.

This entry describes what the product is. It does not describe how any medication is prepared, and no part of this site does. Those directions come from the prescriber and from the labeling in the package the medication arrives in.

subcutaneous, intramuscular and intravenous

Three routes for giving an injected medication: into the fat under the skin, into muscle, or directly into a vein.

The routes differ in how quickly and how completely a medication reaches the bloodstream. A compound offered by two routes is not the same offer twice, which is why the route belongs beside the price rather than in the small print.

Route also drives cost. An intravenous drip is given in a clinic over a period of time and is priced accordingly. A more expensive route is not therefore a more effective one, and in this market the most expensive route sometimes has the least published outcome evidence behind it. Which route suits anyone is a clinical question for a prescriber.

controlled trial

A study that compares a treated group against a control group, so the treatment’s effect can be separated from everything else.

The control is the point. Without one there is nothing to attribute a change to, because people improve on their own, expectations shape what gets reported, and conditions come and go. Randomization and blinding strengthen the comparison further.

When this site says no controlled human trial has been published for a use, it is describing what exists in the literature. User reports, clinic testimonials and before-and-after photographs are not a weaker version of a trial. They are a different kind of thing, with no control in them.

randomization

Assigning participants to groups by chance, so the groups differ only in the treatment being tested.

People who choose a treatment differ from people who do not — in health, motivation, income and a hundred things nobody thought to record. Assigning by chance breaks that link. The groups end up comparable on everything, measured or not, which is what allows a later difference to be attributed to the treatment.

Without it a study can describe what happened but cannot say why. That is the gap between the literature people cite for most compounds here and the evidence a claim needs. Enthusiastic uncontrolled reports and no randomized comparison is the normal state of this market.

blinding

Keeping participants, and ideally whoever assesses them, unaware of which group received the treatment.

Expectation changes what people report and what assessors record. Energy, sleep quality, recovery and desire are all judged by the person experiencing them, which makes them the outcomes most vulnerable to knowing what you were given.

Peptide marketing sells almost entirely on outcomes of that kind. An unblinded study cannot separate the compound from the anticipation, and neither can a testimonial. Blinding does not make a trial correct. It removes one specific way of being wrong, and it is the way that matters most here.

case series

A report describing what happened to a handful of patients who received a treatment, with no comparison group.

It is a record of observations, and it is often the first published human material about a compound. Several peptides sold here have one: a clinician treated some patients and wrote down how they got on.

With no comparison group there is nothing to attribute an outcome to. Injuries heal, symptoms fluctuate, and people who seek out an unproven treatment are not an average sample. A case series can make a question worth asking. Counting it as proof that something works is the most common error in how these compounds are discussed.

trial registration

A public entry describing a planned trial’s design and main outcome measure before any results are known.

Registries exist so a study’s plan is on the record in advance. That makes it harder to quietly swap the main outcome after seeing the data, and it means a trial that never reports leaves a visible gap instead of disappearing.

A registration is a plan, not a result, and reading it as one is a live problem in this market. A recruiting study supports nothing at all. It does cut both ways: a compound with registered trials has somebody committed to finding out, and a compound with none does not.

preclinical

Research done before human trials, in cells or in animals, which tests an idea rather than establishing a result in people.

Preclinical work is where most compounds in this market have their published record. It is genuine research. A rodent injury model or a cell-culture assay is a real experiment that answers a real question.

The failure mode is presenting it as though it were clinical. Most claims a reader meets for the less-studied compounds rest on animal or laboratory findings, quoted in language that sounds like a human result. A finding in a dish is a reason to run a trial, not a substitute for one.

pharmacokinetics vs outcomes

Pharmacokinetics measures what a drug does to a number in the blood; an outcome is a change a person would actually notice.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic work shows that a compound reaches the body, hits its target and moves a measurement. That is real evidence, and it answers a real question. It answers whether the molecule does something, not whether it does anything for you.

The gap between the two is where most peptide marketing lives. A rising growth hormone level, a rising IGF-1 level and a rising NAD+ level are markers moving. Whether sleep, recovery, body composition or energy changed is a separate finding, and showing it takes a trial with a control group.

off-label

Prescribing an approved medication for a use its approved labeling does not cover, which is a routine part of medical practice.

Off-label use is neither a loophole nor a scandal. A prescriber may judge that an approved product suits a problem the label does not list, and doing so is ordinary.

What off-label use does not do is move the evidence. The trials behind an approval tested the approved indication in the population studied. Outside that, the approval is not carrying the claim, and whatever evidence exists has to be found somewhere else. Several compounds in this market are marketed on the reputation of an approval that covers something different.

approved indication

The specific use, in a specific population, that the FDA reviewed and approved a product for.

An approval is narrow by construction. It names a condition, often a patient group, and it rests on the trial program submitted for that use. Tesamorelin’s approval covers reducing excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy, and its labeling states the product is not a weight-loss drug.

Two adjacent phrases are not approvals. FDA-registered means a facility told the agency it exists and is subject to inspection. A pharmacy license means a state licensed the pharmacy. Neither means a product was reviewed and cleared for a use, and a site that presents one as the other is trading on a distinction the reader is not expected to know.

limitations of use

The part of an approved drug label that states, in the manufacturer’s own words, what the approval does not cover.

An FDA-approved label carries the indication and, frequently, a short section immediately after it marking the boundary. Tesamorelin’s says the product is not indicated for weight-loss management, and that its long-term cardiovascular safety has not been established.

That section is written by the manufacturer and cleared by the regulator, which makes it the most reliable available statement about where the evidence stops. It is also the part never quoted in marketing. When a seller cites an approval, the limitations printed beside it are usually the more informative half.

Strong evidence

This site’s top evidence tier: an FDA-approved indication with randomized controlled trial data behind it.

Semaglutide and tirzepatide carry this grade. The tier renders as a word, alongside a three-segment meter filled left to right, and no color is used to distinguish one tier from another.

A strong grade describes the state of the published evidence for an approved use. It is not a recommendation, and it says nothing about whether a particular provider is a good place to buy.

Limited evidence

This site’s middle evidence tier: a real, mechanistically plausible effect with thin long-term outcome data behind it.

Compounds graded this way include sermorelin, NAD+, tesamorelin, CJC-1295, ipamorelin and MOTS-c. In each case something measurable happens, and the thing measured is usually a hormone or a marker rather than a result.

The tier exists to keep two ideas apart. A mechanism being real is not nothing, and it is also not a demonstrated benefit. Most marketing in this category treats the first as though it were the second.

No controlled human evidence

This site’s lowest evidence tier: little to no human trial data, which describes the published record rather than alleging harm.

BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, and PT-141 outside its approved indication carry this grade. The published work behind them is preclinical, or belongs to a different route or a different population than the one being sold.

The tier is deliberately a statement about measurement. Under-studied is not the same as proven harmful, and one is never used here to imply the other. That is also why no color is attached to the tiers, since a red, amber and green meter would read as a safety traffic light.

cash-pay

Paid out of pocket rather than billed to insurance, which is how compounded peptide treatment is generally sold.

Compounded preparations are not FDA-approved products, and coverage for them is not the norm. In practice the advertised price is the price, with no benefit design absorbing part of it.

One consequence follows for anyone comparing offers. The published number is the whole number to compare, so the charges left off that page are exactly what makes two quotes look closer than they are.

subscription

A recurring charge that continues on a billing cycle until it is canceled, which is how most telehealth peptide plans are sold.

A subscription price answers what is paid in a billing cycle. That is a different question from what one vial costs, and it is the more useful one when a treatment continues.

The terms around it repay reading before signing up: the length of the cycle, whether the plan is prepaid for several months, what happens to the rate at renewal, and how cancellation works. A monthly figure attached to a prepaid term usually reverts if the plan is renewed month to month.

membership fee

A charge for access to the clinical service, billed separately from the medication by some providers and folded into one price by others.

Neither structure is inherently better, and the split is the reason two quotes can look different while costing the same.

What a membership covers varies, and it is worth asking rather than assuming. It may include the clinician review, follow-up visits, dose adjustments, messaging and shipping. It may exclude every one of those, and it frequently excludes the medication itself. The comparable figure is the total paid in a month with everything included.

starting-at price

A real price for the cheapest configuration a seller offers, flagged by wording such as starting at, from, or as low as.

It typically reflects some combination of the lowest strength on the menu, the first billing cycle rather than the ongoing one, and the longest prepaid commitment available. Sometimes it also assumes a promotional code applied at checkout.

That does not make it dishonest. It makes it a floor rather than a forecast. The number that describes the cost of a treatment is the steady-state monthly figure at the strength a person ends up on, and it is often published less prominently.

per-vial, per-month and per-milligram

The three units a peptide price can be quoted in, each answering a different question and none of them interchangeable.

A per-vial price is what one container costs. A per-month price is what is paid in a billing cycle. A per-milligram price is what the drug itself costs by quantity. Comparing a vial price against a monthly price compares nothing at all.

Per milligram is the comparable unit, within limits. Dividing the price by the milligrams in the container normalizes across vial sizes, and it compares two sellers of the same compound. It never compares two compounds, because different compounds are used in very different quantities.

introductory rate

A price that covers a first period and then steps up to the seller’s standard rate.

It is one of a small number of moving parts that separate an advertised price from an ongoing one. The others are a dose that rises over time, a promotional discount that expires on a schedule, and a prepaid plan whose monthly figure reverts on renewal.

Each of those is checkable before signing up. The practical consequence is that the first charge is often the least representative one a buyer will see.

provider score

The zero-to-ten number beside each provider on a board, measuring what that provider publishes about itself.

It is a disclosure and transparency rubric, computed from four declared facts and nothing else. It prints as text in a real table, with one decimal, so the ordering can be checked rather than taken on trust.

It says nothing about the quality of care a company delivers, the skill of its prescribers, or the safety of what it dispenses. Those are clinical questions. A commercial relationship never enters the score, and neither does an FDA warning letter.

rubric flag

One of the four true-or-false facts behind a provider score: pharmacy named, price published, all fifty states, labs included.

Each is recorded as a plain true or false on the provider record, and nothing else feeds the score. Price published means a price appears on the provider’s own site with the qualifier that makes it true. Labs included means lab work sits inside the published price rather than being billed separately.

A false flag means the provider does not publish that fact. It is not a claim that the fact is untrue. A company may name its pharmacy on a call with a new patient, and if the name is not published, a buyer cannot check it before paying. No published state list is not the same as nationwide, and the board prints the difference.

pharmacy named

The disclosure of which compounding pharmacy fills a provider’s prescriptions, published on the provider’s own site.

The pharmacy is the party that actually makes the preparation. A telehealth brand runs the website, the intake and the billing, and usually compounds nothing. A named pharmacy tells a reader which state licensed the facility and which regulator holds its inspection record, and anyone can look it up in a state board license database.

It is a disclosure standard rather than an accusation. A provider that does not name its pharmacy has not been shown to use a bad one, and has declined to let the question be asked. Naming one also proves less than it appears. It does not mean the preparation was tested, that the compound is approved, or that the same pharmacy will be the supplier next quarter.

price qualifier

The wording stored beside every price here that makes the number true: a billing cycle, a plan term, or a starting rate.

A price without its qualifier is a figure nobody can check. The qualifier is a required field on every price record on this site, so a monthly rate is never printed as though it were a vial price.

Prices here are dated snapshots of what a provider published on a stated day. They change without notice, the provider’s own page is the authority, and no figure on this site is an offer, a quote, or a promise of what anyone will be charged.

verification date

The date a price was read from a provider’s own published page, stored alongside every price on this site.

It is how staleness gets judged, and it is never advanced without reading the source again. A seller writing in to say its price is lower is a reason to re-check the page, not a price in itself.

Dates render as a month and a year for a reader while the full date stays in the record. A price with no verification date behind it is a number with no way to tell how old it is.

paid partner

A provider whose outbound link can pay this site a commission, at no extra cost to the reader.

Commission is the only way the site earns. No provider pays for a review, a score, a rank, or a place on a board. Every outbound provider link takes the same redirect through this site whether the provider pays or not, so the two look identical in the address bar.

That is why the partner count is computed from the provider list rather than typed, and why a short disclosure sits beside every call to action. Placement can be commercial. The assessment is not, and where the two pull against each other the assessment stands and the placement moves.

pending board

A compound board that lists no providers on purpose, because the conditions for filling it have not been met.

A pending board renders zero rows, no call to action and no partner link. The page still carries what is known about the compound: what it is, how this site grades its evidence, and a dated note on where the compound stands.

Such a board fills in only when a licensed US telehealth provider dispenses the compound with its pharmacy named, its price published and its states disclosed. Until then it stays empty, which is a decision rather than an oversight.

FDA warning letter

A notice from the FDA that it considers something a company did to be a violation, most commonly concerning marketing and labeling claims.

The large majority concern how a product was promoted or presented rather than the contents of a vial. A letter is not a finding that a medication is unsafe, contaminated or ineffective, and it is not a recall.

On this site a letter is disclosed on the provider’s review, with what it concerned, whether or not that provider is a paid partner. It never enters the score, the verdict, or the ranking position. A letter discloses, and it does not disqualify.

evidence grade

The tier this site assigns to a compound’s published evidence: strong, limited, or no controlled human evidence.

The grade belongs to the compound and never to the seller. Sermorelin’s grade does not change depending on who sells it, so it renders once near the top of a board and never beside each provider row.

It is a different instrument from the provider score, which grades what a vendor publishes about itself. A vendor can score well while selling a compound with weak evidence, and a page has to be able to say both at once. No commercial relationship moves a grade.