Client Results

A telehealth clinic prescribing compounded semaglutide was scaling its program and wanted independent verification before volume increased. The clinic had been relying on supplier-issued COAs claiming purity in the 98–99% range. They submitted samples from three active suppliers for expanded purity, LC-MS identity, and potency testing. Two of the three submissions returned HPLC purity below 90%. One of those two also returned a mass spectrometry mismatch — the compound was not confirmed as semaglutide against the reference standard. The clinic suspended orders from both suppliers before any of the affected inventory reached patients.

A 503A pharmacy compounding injectable peptides was preparing for a state board inspection and needed sterility and endotoxin documentation with method suitability on file. Their previous laboratory had been running USP 71 sterility only — no method suitability studies for either sterility or endotoxin, no heavy metals panel, no potency verification. The pharmacy had no analytically defensible documentation for the compounds they had been releasing. Atumnus Labs ran the full injectable panel on the current batch, including sterility and endotoxin method suitability studies concurrent with sample testing. Results were returned via Celsis in 7 days. The pharmacy walked into inspection with a complete COA package for the active batch and method suitability documentation on file.

A research peptide vendor was experiencing resistance from wholesale buyers who were asking for COAs from named independent laboratories rather than accepting supplier-issued documentation. The vendor had internal analytical capabilities but buyers were specifically requesting third-party verification. They began running batch verification with Atumnus Labs on every new lot — expanded purity, LC-MS identity, and heavy metals — and published the independent COAs on their product pages alongside the supplier documentation. The vendor reported improved conversion on wholesale inquiries in the first month of publishing independent COAs.

A clinic network operating across multiple locations was sourcing compounded tirzepatide from two competing suppliers and needed a structured comparison before committing to a primary vendor relationship. They submitted matched lots from both suppliers for the Standard QC panel — expanded purity, potency, and heavy metals. Results across the two suppliers showed a 6-point purity differential at the HPLC level and a potency variance that exceeded acceptable limits on one supplier's submission. The clinic network used the comparative COA data to select a primary supplier and established quarterly batch verification as a condition of the ongoing vendor relationship.