The short answer
On 30 April 2026 the FDA proposed permanently excluding semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide from the 503B Bulk Drug Substances List. If finalised, that closes the last legal pathway for most large-scale compounded GLP-1s. It followed 30 warning letters to telehealth companies in March 2026.
Key facts
- Proposal date
- 30 April 2026
- Compounds named
- Semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide
- Mechanism
- Removal from the 503B Bulks List
- Warning letters
- 30 to telehealth companies, March 2026
- Comment period
- Closed end of June 2026
- Trigger
- Shortage declared over, 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- United States, not the UK
Why compounding was legal in the first place
US compounding law permits pharmacies to prepare a version of a commercially available drug in defined circumstances, one of which is a declared shortage. When demand for semaglutide and tirzepatide outran supply, that exemption opened, and a large compounding industry grew inside it, much of it distributing through telehealth platforms rather than traditional pharmacy.
What changed
The FDA declared the semaglutide shortage over on 21 February 2025, which removed the main legal basis for compounding it. Enforcement escalated through 2026: 30 warning letters went to telehealth companies in March, and on 30 April the agency proposed removing semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide from the 503B Bulk Drug Substances List (the list of ingredients large outsourcing facilities are permitted to use). A comment period ran to the end of June 2026.
Research material referenced
Retatrutide 10mg, third-party HPLC tested
The safety record behind it
The FDA had received more than 455 adverse event reports linked to compounded semaglutide and more than 320 linked to compounded tirzepatide as of early 2025. A substantial share involved dosing errors, several requiring hospitalisation, arising from patients drawing doses themselves from multi-dose vials rather than using a metered pen. That is a failure mode created by the presentation rather than by the molecule.
Why this is not a UK story, and why it matters here anyway
The 503B Bulks List is a US regulatory instrument with no UK equivalent, and the MHRA operates a different framework. But the underlying pattern is the same one the MHRA acted on when it opened investigations into UK retailers making therapeutic claims about peptides in April 2026: demand for incretin compounds outrunning licensed supply, and a grey market forming in the gap.
The distinction that matters most
Compounded GLP-1, licensed GLP-1 and research material are three different things and should never be conflated. A compounded preparation is made by a pharmacy for administration to a person. A licensed product has a marketing authorisation. Material supplied for laboratory research is neither: it is not a medicine, not a compounded preparation, not an alternative to either, and not supplied for human use. Nothing in this regulatory story creates a route from one category to another.
What happens next
Finalising the proposal could take months, and the outcome was not settled at the time of writing. If it is finalised, the practical effect is that mass compounding of these three compounds ends in the United States, leaving licensed products and clinical trials as the routes to them.
Frequently asked questions
- Does this affect the UK?
- Not directly. The 503B Bulks List is a US instrument. The MHRA operates a separate framework, though it has taken its own enforcement action in this area.
- Why were compounded versions available at all?
- US law permits compounding of a commercially available drug during a declared shortage. The semaglutide shortage was declared over in February 2025, removing that basis.
- Is research material a form of compounded GLP-1?
- No. Compounded preparations are made by pharmacies for administration to people. Research material is supplied for laboratory use only and is not an alternative to any medicine.
Extended research context
The Research & Regulatory News deep dive
Deep dive: why 2026 was the year the incretin field split in two
For a decade every meaningful GLP-1 medicine was a peptide, and every one of them was injected. 2026 broke that pattern in both directions at once. In August the MHRA authorised orforglipron, a small molecule with no peptide bonds that works as an ordinary daily tablet. Three months earlier, retatrutide's TRIUMPH-1 reported a 28.3% mean weight reduction. That is the largest figure yet from a single molecule, and achievable only with a peptide capable of engaging three receptors at once. The field is not converging on one answer. It is separating into a convenience track and a magnitude track, and those tracks have different chemistry.
Deep dive: what a marketing authorisation actually means
An authorisation is granted to a specific product, in a specific formulation, for a specific indication, by a specific regulator. It is not a statement about a compound class and it does not transfer. Orforglipron being licensed in the UK tells you nothing about the legal or regulatory status of any other incretin, and nothing at all about compounds that remain investigational. Authorisation is also separate from funding: a licensed medicine is not automatically available on the NHS, which requires a further NICE appraisal.
Deep dive: reading trial results without being misled
Headline percentages are the least transferable part of a trial. A figure is only meaningful alongside its population, its duration, its comparator and its dropout rate. TRIUMPH-1's 28.3% came from an 80-week study in a relatively uncomplicated obesity population; TRIUMPH-3's 22.6% came from adults with severe obesity and established cardiovascular disease, and the gap between those two numbers is mostly population, not potency. Discontinuation rates deserve the same attention as efficacy: 11.3% of the TRIUMPH-1 12 mg arm stopped due to adverse events against 4.9% on placebo, and that figure is routinely dropped from summaries.
Research applications
- ▸Tracking regulatory status of investigational incretin compounds
- ▸Understanding the difference between authorisation, NICE appraisal and NHS availability
- ▸Comparing peptide and non-peptide receptor agonist pharmacology
- ▸Interpreting Phase 3 topline releases before peer-reviewed publication
- ▸Verifying trial identity against ClinicalTrials.gov registrations
Handling checklist
- ✓Check the compound named in a trial registration matches the compound being discussed
- ✓Confirm the NCT identifier resolves to the acronym being cited
- ✓Read topline press releases as preliminary until peer-reviewed publication
- ✓Separate the trial population from the headline percentage before comparing studies
- ✓Treat authorisation in one jurisdiction as saying nothing about status in another
Common research-handling mistakes
Learnt from thousands of researcher orders across our UK labs.
✗ Treating a positive Phase 3 as approval
Fix: Filing begins a review that commonly takes a year or more and can end in a request for more data.
✗ Comparing weight-reduction percentages across different trials
Fix: Population, duration and comparator differ; the numbers are not interchangeable.
✗ Assuming one incretin's approval legitimises another compound
Fix: Authorisations are product-specific and do not transfer between compounds.
✗ Citing a TRIUMPH number without checking the NCT identifier
Fix: Verify against ClinicalTrials.gov, as the numbering has been widely misreported.
✗ Reading research material as an alternative to a licensed medicine
Fix: Research material is supplied for laboratory use only and is not a substitute for anything prescribed.
Continue researching
Peer-reviewed guides, comparators and matched reference materials.
Related questions researchers ask
- Is orforglipron a peptide?
- Has retatrutide been approved by the MHRA?
- What did TRIUMPH-1 actually report?
- Why can orforglipron be taken as a tablet when peptides cannot?
- Are research peptides legal in the UK?
- What is the difference between MHRA authorisation and NHS availability?
Primary sources & clinical trials
Peer-reviewed research and registered trials from PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubChem, FDA and NIH. All links open in a new tab and point to the primary source, so every claim can be verified at origin.
- FDAFDA: clarifying policies for compounders as GLP-1 supply stabilisesfda.gov
- RefFDA to restrict ingredients used in mass-marketed compounded GLP-1s. AJMCajmc.com
- RefFDA proposes end to mass GLP-1 compounding. Medscapemedscape.com
- RefMHRA: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agencygov.uk
- RefNICE · National Institute for Health and Care Excellencenice.org.uk
- TrialClinicalTrials.gov · TRIUMPH-1 (NCT05929066). Retatrutide pivotal obesity trialclinicaltrials.gov
- TrialClinicalTrials.gov · ATTAIN-1 (NCT05869903). Orforglipron in obesity/overweightclinicaltrials.gov
- RefEli Lilly · TRIUMPH-1 topline results (May 2026)investor.lilly.com
- PubMedOrforglipron: A Comprehensive Review. Int J Mol Sci 2026 (PMID 41683830)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- RefMHRA Yellow Card: report a defective or falsified medicineyellowcard.mhra.gov.uk
- GuidelineGoogle: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first contentdevelopers.google.com
Written and reviewed by
The UK Peptides Editorial Team · Research library, UK Peptides
The editorial team is responsible for supplier selection, batch release decisions and the content published in this research library. Every article here is sourced to primary literature and every product page to a signed third-party certificate. Corrections are made in place and the review date updated.
More Research & Regulatory News articles
- MHRA Drug Safety Update: Semaglutide and NAIONOn 5 February 2026 the MHRA warned of a likely association between semaglutide and NAION, a rare optic neuropathy, estimated at up to 1 in 10,000 users.
- Target Trial Emulation: Making Observational Data BehaveA method for analysing routine health records as though a trial had been designed. Why it exists, what it fixes, and what it cannot fix.
- What the Cardiovascular and Kidney Data Actually IsA 2025 target trial emulation examined GLP-1 outcomes in adults with obesity. What that design can support, and how it differs from a randomised trial.
- Tirzepatide in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection FractionA target trial emulation in Nature Communications examined tirzepatide in HFpEF. Why this population is studied and what the design supports.
- The Correction Nobody ReadsThe aleniglipron Phase 2b carries a publisher correction. So does the survodutide comparison. Checking for one is a step almost everyone skips.
Popular across the research hub
One flagship guide from every other research category.
- Retatrutide ResearchDoes Retatrutide Affect Testosterone?
- GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)The 4,000 Genes Claim, Examined
- TB-500 (Thymosin β4 fragment)LKKTETQ: The Actin-Binding Motif
- BPC-157 (Pentadecapeptide)The Proline Problem in BPC-157 Synthesis
- CJC-1295 & IpamorelinThe Teichman 2006 CJC-1295 Study
- Peptide ReferenceNet Peptide Content: The Number That Says How Much You Have
- Bacteriostatic WaterBacteriostatic Water for Reconstitution
- GLP-1 & Incretin ScienceWhat Open-Label Does to a Weight-Loss Trial
- MOTS-c (Mitochondrial Peptide)MOTS-c CAS Number and Chemical Identity
- Semax (ACTH Fragment Peptide)Semax Regulatory Status: Registered Where, and Why It Matters
- Selank (Tuftsin Analogue)Selank CAS Number and Chemical Identity
- DSIP (Delta Sleep-Inducing Peptide)Does DSIP Actually Induce Sleep? What the Evidence Shows
- KLOW (Blend)The Fourth Component: What KPV Actually Adds
- GLOW (Blend)Storing a Blend: The Weakest Component Governs
- MT-2 (Melanotan II)Is Melanotan 2 Safe? What Has Actually Been Published
- IGF-1 LR3IGF Binding Proteins and the Free Fraction
- GlutathioneIs Glutathione a Peptide? Yes, and an Unusual One
- NAD+Is NAD+ a Peptide? No, It Is a Dinucleotide
- KPVAlpha-MSH: Pigmentation and Inflammation in One Hormone