Trellis Vitality Review: It Names the Pharmacy, Then Sells Four Things the Trials Never Tested
Trellis Vitality gets the hard part right and the easy part wrong. It names the pharmacy that fills your prescription — Vials Rx in Houston — which most of this category refuses to do, and it publishes its medical director's NPI, which resolves in the federal registry to an active licence. Then it sells subcutaneous NAD+ on a promise to "boost energy, sharpen focus… and regain youthful vitality," for which a search of the randomised-trial literature in August 2026 returned exactly one injected-route study, in heart failure. Its tesamorelin page is the most honest thing on the site and still reaches past what its own trials measured.
Dispenses
Compounded only
Evidence
Phase 3 trials
Pharmacy
Named
FDA letter
None found
By Grant Delaney, Research Editor·
Disclosure: Some links on this site are affiliate or referral links. If you start a treatment or buy a product through them, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. Read our full disclosure.
Opens trellisvitality.com. A link is not a recommendation to take anything.
Provenance
What Trellis Vitality actually dispenses
Regulatory category is the axis consumers are most reliably misled about, so it comes first. Every product below is sorted by what it legally is, not by what it costs.
Compounded (503A)5 products
Prepared by a state-licensed pharmacy against a prescription for a named patient. Compounded preparations are not FDA-approved and are not reviewed by FDA for safety, effectiveness or quality.
Compounded semaglutide (weight & metabolic program) — $150 a month on a one-month plan, $140 on three months, $133 on six. No membership fee, and Trellis states every dose is the same price.
Compounded tirzepatide (weight & metabolic program) — $199 a month on a one-month plan, $189 on three months, $179 on six, at any dose. The same no-membership structure applies.
Tesamorelin (compounded, prescribed off-label) — "Treatment plans starting at $299 per month." That is the floor across plan lengths; Trellis does not publish the one-month rate for this program.
NAD+ Injection (subcutaneous) — "Treatment plans starting at $129 per month," which is the floor across plan lengths rather than the monthly price. The one-month rate is not published.
Glutathione Injection (subcutaneous) — "Treatment plans starting at $93 per month" — again the floor, not the one-month rate.
Evidence
Is there a human trial at all?
One row per product, graded on how far the published human evidence goes for the use it is sold for — not for the molecule in general. A molecule with phase 3 evidence for one outcome has none for another, and that distinction is where peptide marketing lives.
Semaglutide · cmpd
Phase 3 trials
Tirzepatide · cmpd
Phase 3 trials
Tesamorelin · cmpd
Phase 3 trials
NAD+ · cmpd
No human trial
Glutathione · cmpd
No human trial
3
Products with a human trial
Out of 5 reviewed here.
4
Registry records cited
Each read live from ClinicalTrials.gov, never from memory.
The comparison
What they claim, against what the trials show
Each claim below is quoted verbatim from Trellis Vitality’s own page, with the page it came from. Grading a paraphrase would prove nothing.
“Where a clinician prescribes it, the medication is compounded and patient-specific — prepared per prescription by a state-licensed compounding pharmacy (Vials Rx). Compounded medications are not FDA-approved as finished products, and we don't describe them as equivalent to any branded product. We say this plainly because it matters.”
NCT03548935STEP 1 — Phase 3, completed, n=1,961. Tested the approved once-weekly 2.4 mg product in overweight or obese adults. No compounded semaglutide preparation, from Trellis or anyone else, has been through a registered trial.
This is the rarest verdict on this site, and Trellis earns it by declining a claim rather than making one. It states the preparation is not FDA-approved as a finished product and then explicitly refuses the equivalence argument every competitor leans on — "we don't describe them as equivalent to any branded product." It also describes the drug's mechanism as "the neutral mechanism, not a promise." Nothing on the page reaches past what the molecule's trials show.1
“They act on different receptors: semaglutide is a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and tirzepatide is a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist. Both affect appetite regulation and gastric emptying. Which one — if either — fits you is a clinical decision your clinician makes with you; we don't rank one as "best" or "strongest."”
NCT04184622SURMOUNT-1 — Phase 3, completed, n=2,539. Tested the approved tirzepatide product in adults with obesity or overweight. As with semaglutide, the compounded preparation itself has no registered trial.
A pharmacology statement with no efficacy promise attached, and an explicit refusal to rank the two compounds against each other. The evidence behind the molecule is a 2,539-participant phase 3 trial; the page claims nothing the trial does not support, and says the preparation it dispenses is not the approved product.2
Tesamorelin (compounded, prescribed off-label)
Claim reaches past the trials
“Its active is FDA-approved (as Egrifta SV) for visceral-fat reduction; we prescribe it as a compounded, clinician-guided protocol… Recovery & sleep: Growth hormone pulses during deep sleep. A restored pulse shows up as recovery and sleep quality — members often notice it before the scale moves. Energy & clarity: Executives report the 2pm floor lifting as the GH axis is supported — measured against labs, not mood.”
NCT00123253 — Phase 3, completed, n=412. The pivotal trial of TH9507 (tesamorelin) in HIV patients with excess abdominal fat accumulation. The outcome measured was visceral abdominal fat, in that population.
NCT00608023 — Phase 3, completed, n=263. The extension study in the same HIV-associated lipodystrophy population.
The first half is exactly right and unusually well put — the active really is FDA-approved, Trellis says out loud that it prescribes it compounded and off-label, and it calls this "the deepest human-RCT record" of anything it sells, which is true. The reach is in the population, not the pharmacology. Both phase 3 trials, 412 and 263 participants, were run in HIV-associated lipodystrophy and measured visceral abdominal fat. "Recovery and sleep quality" and "the 2pm floor lifting" in healthy executives is a different claim in a different group, and as of August 2026 a ClinicalTrials.gov search for tesamorelin returned 24 studies, of which none is registered under a recovery, longevity or healthy-aging condition.3,5
NAD+ Injection (subcutaneous)
No trial supports this claim
“Boost energy, sharpen focus, support cellular resilience, and regain youthful vitality with one of the most powerful ways to restore NAD⁺ as you age.”
As of August 2026, a PubMed search for "nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide" in the title or abstract, combined with an injected route (subcutaneous, injection or intravenous) and filtered to the randomised-controlled-trial publication type, returned exactly one record — a 2026 placebo-controlled trial of NAD+ in heart failure caused by ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Not energy, focus, sleep, recovery or resilience, and not in healthy adults. Removing the route filter raises the count to 70 records, none of which tests the subcutaneous preparation Trellis dispenses. A parallel ClinicalTrials.gov search for NAD+ as an intervention returned 261 studies, spread across lupus, mild cognitive impairment, hepatitis C, pulmonary hypertension and anaesthesia.
This is the flagship product and the one carrying the least evidence. Every element of the sentence is an outcome claim — energy, focus, resilience, vitality — and the randomised literature for NAD+ by an injected route consists of one trial in a cardiac population. The decline of NAD+ with age is real and the biochemistry on the page is accurately described; none of that is the same as a trial showing that injecting it changes how an adult feels. Note also the internal tension: the page's own "compare delivery methods" table grades oral precursors as "low — heavy first-pass metabolism," and the oral precursor literature is the only part of this field with substantial human trials behind it.4
Glutathione Injection (subcutaneous)
No trial supports this claim
“Glutathione is the antioxidant your cells make to protect themselves — and it draws down under stress, age, and metabolic load. We pair the protocol with a Vitality Lab Kit so you see your baseline, and the work, in range… Cellular recovery: Members in a recovery arc — post-illness, post-stress, post-travel — reach for it as part of getting their baseline back.”
As of August 2026, a PubMed search for glutathione combined with subcutaneous and filtered to the randomised-controlled-trial publication type returned nine records, and reading them is the finding rather than counting them. Four are veterinary — dairy cattle and goats given selenium or trace-element supplements. In the remainder, glutathione is a blood marker that was measured rather than a drug that was injected: a schistosomiasis vaccine trial, a methyl-B12 trial in children with autism, a vegetarian-diet trial, an allergen-immunotherapy study and a study of heparin after surgery. None tests subcutaneous glutathione as an intervention in healthy adults. On ClinicalTrials.gov, 268 studies list glutathione as an intervention; restricting to injected routes returns three, in mantle-cell lymphoma, acute liver failure and pneumonia.
The mechanism paragraph is textbook-accurate — glutathione is the principal intracellular antioxidant and it does decline under oxidative load. The product claim is that injecting it under the skin restores something a person notices, and the randomised literature for that route contains nothing in healthy adults. Trellis is careful in one specific place, and it deserves the credit: on skin it writes "a biomarker story, never a skin-lightening claim," which is precisely the claim FDA has acted against other sellers over.6
Trellis names its pharmacy in three places and gives a street address for it, which puts it ahead of most of this category before any other question is asked. The terms page reads: "Prescriptions are fulfilled by our state-licensed compounding pharmacy partner: VialsRX, 6220 Westpark Dr, Houston, TX 77057." The GLP-1 page repeats it — "Compounded by Vials Rx in the USA" — and the FAQ names it inside the answer about FDA status. The medical side is named too: care is delivered by clinicians of Arora Health & Aesthetics, LLC, and Trellis publishes its medical director's NPI, 1841729449, which resolves in the NPPES registry to an active MD record for Dr. Sean Arora at the same Seattle address Trellis prints. Trellis also states plainly that it "is not a medical group and does not practice medicine." The gap is on the pharmacy's own side rather than Trellis's: vials.ai publishes no state licence number, no list of states it is licensed in, and no certificate of analysis. Its strongest published statement about its own status is "Licensed and aligned with the highest regulatory standards."
Trellis publishes a four-test panel under a single heading — "Every batch quality tested for" — covering potency ("±10% concentration tolerance"), sterility ("USP <797> compliance"), pH balance and endotoxicity ("USP <85> compliance"), and describes the suite as a "USP <797> sterile compounding suite." Putting potency inside the every-batch heading is a stronger commitment than several better-known competitors make, some of which run potency only a few times a year and say so. The problem is that it is unverifiable from outside. No certificate of analysis is published for any lot, no testing laboratory is named, and no frequency is stated separately for any of the four tests — the whole claim rests on a graphic. The GLP-1 page adds that orders pass "four independent quality and accuracy tests" before shipping without saying who performs them or what "independent" means here.
Trellis claims all 50 states for its services generally; its own GLP-1 program page contradicts that for that program, naming Connecticut, Ohio and South Carolina as suppressed "at minimum"
A banner on every page reads "US board certified clinicians, all 50 states," and the NAD+ FAQ expands it: "Services are available in all 50 US states through affiliated medical providers and pharmacy partners operating in accordance with applicable state licensure requirements. Please note that certain medications, formulations, or fulfillment options may vary depending on state-specific pharmacy regulations and dispensing restrictions." The GLP-1 program page says something different about itself: the program "is not offered in every state — including certain states where we currently suppress it (Connecticut, Ohio, and South Carolina at minimum). Your eligibility is confirmed during the assessment." The three states recorded here are Trellis's own, and "at minimum" is its own qualifier — the real list may be longer. No pharmacy licence number was published for Vials Rx on either site, so nothing here was verified against a state board of pharmacy.
A search of the 113 warning letters issued to telehealth firms in the September 9, 2025, February 20, 2026 and June 8, 2026 enforcement waves — matched on full company name rather than substring, because a substring match attaches one company’s regulatory history to another — returns no entry for Trellis Vitality (Trellis Vitality, LLC). That is a statement about those three waves as of August 2026, not a claim that no action exists anywhere.
Assessment
What holds up, and what does not
What holds up
It names the pharmacy, with a street address — Vials Rx, 6220 Westpark Dr, Houston. Most of this category will only say "a licensed pharmacy in our network."
It publishes its medical director's NPI. 1841729449 resolves in the federal NPPES registry to an active MD record for Dr. Sean Arora at the Seattle address Trellis gives.
The tesamorelin page volunteers that the use it sells is off-label and compounded, rather than letting the FDA-approved active imply otherwise.
On the GLP-1s it refuses the equivalence claim outright: "we don't describe them as equivalent to any branded product."
It says out loud that Trellis "is not a medical group and does not practice medicine" and that prescribing sits with the Arora Health clinicians.
On glutathione and skin it writes "a biomarker story, never a skin-lightening claim" — pre-empting the exact claim regulators have acted on elsewhere.
What does not
The flagship product carries the least evidence. Injectable NAD+ is sold to "boost energy, sharpen focus… regain youthful vitality"; the randomised literature for that route is one 2026 trial in heart failure.
Subcutaneous glutathione is sold for recovery and redox balance. Of nine randomised trials matching the route, four are in dairy cattle and goats and the rest only measured glutathione rather than injecting it.
Tesamorelin's phase 3 evidence is real and was collected in HIV-associated lipodystrophy. Sleep, recovery and afternoon clarity in healthy executives were not measured in it.
"92% of patients see significant biomarker improvements within 90 days" appears on four pages with no study, sample size, or definition of "significant" anywhere on the site.
The every-batch testing claim is a graphic with nothing behind it — no certificate of analysis for any lot, no named laboratory, and no licence number for Vials Rx on either company's site.
A 4.7-star average and "5,000+ current patients" sit above four testimonials that repeat three times in the carousel, on a site whose About page says the company was founded in 2026.
Verdict
The bottom line
Trellis is unusually good at the questions this site normally has to force out of a provider, and no better than average at the one it sells hardest on. It names the pharmacy, prints a verifiable NPI, says the tesamorelin use is off-label, and declines the compounded-equals-branded argument that almost everyone else makes. Those are real. But the flagship is injectable NAD+, and the case for it is biochemistry rather than trial evidence — the decline of NAD+ with age is well established, and that is a different statement from a trial showing an injection changes how an adult feels. If you are buying the GLP-1 program, the molecule's evidence is strong and Trellis describes it accurately. If you are buying NAD+ or glutathione, you are buying a mechanism story from a company that was founded this year, with better disclosure than its competitors and no more proof.
Opens trellisvitality.com. A link is not a recommendation to take anything.
What Trellis gets right, and why it is worth saying first
The standard complaint about this category is that a telehealth brand is almost never the pharmacy, and the customer is never told which pharmacy it is. Trellis does not have that problem.
Its terms page names the pharmacy and gives a street address: "Prescriptions are fulfilled by our state-licensed compounding pharmacy partner: VialsRX, 6220 Westpark Dr, Houston, TX 77057." The GLP-1 page repeats it in the product graphic — "Compounded by Vials Rx in the USA" — and the FAQ names it again inside the answer about FDA status. Trellis also separates itself from the prescribing: "Trellis Vitality is a health-technology and care-coordination company; it is not a medical group and does not practice medicine."
Then it does something almost nobody does. It publishes an NPI. Its machine-readable llms.txt states that "[t]he designated medical group is Arora Health & Aesthetics, LLC (Medical Director: Dr. Sean Arora)" and the NAD+ FAQ gives the number: 1841729449. That number resolves in the federal NPPES registry to an active record — Dr. Sean Arora, MD, family medicine, 300 Lenora St, Seattle, WA — matching the address Trellis prints. A reader can check the clinical leadership of this company against a government database in under a minute, which is not true of most of the companies reviewed on this site.
One caution worth carrying forward: there are two doctors named Arora here. Sean Arora is the medical director whose NPI is published and was checked. Shannon Arora is named separately as Trellis Vitality's Chief Medical Officer, with no NPI published. Only one of the two was verified.
The flagship, and the one trial that exists
NAD+ is the product Trellis leads with. The page sells it in a single sentence: "Boost energy, sharpen focus, support cellular resilience, and regain youthful vitality with one of the most powerful ways to restore NAD⁺ as you age."
The biochemistry underneath is described accurately. NAD+ is a coenzyme, it is a substrate for sirtuins and PARPs, and it does decline with age. None of that is in dispute and none of it is the claim being made. The claim is that injecting it under the skin changes energy, focus and resilience in an adult.
As of August 2026, a PubMed search for "nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide" in the title or abstract, combined with an injected route and filtered to the randomised-controlled-trial publication type, returns one record. One. It is a 2026 placebo-controlled trial of NAD+ in heart failure caused by ischaemic cardiomyopathy. 4 Nothing about energy, focus, sleep or vitality, and nothing in healthy adults.
Dropping the route filter raises the count to 70, and ClinicalTrials.gov lists 261 studies with NAD+ as an intervention — in lupus, mild cognitive impairment, hepatitis C, pulmonary hypertension, anaesthesia. It is an active research field. It is not a field that has tested this product.
There is an irony on the page itself. Trellis's "compare delivery methods" table grades oral NAD+ precursors "low — heavy first-pass metabolism… cheap, but largely wasted," positioning its injection as the serious route. The oral precursor literature is the part of this field with the most human trial evidence behind it. The route Trellis rates highest for absorption is the one with the least evidence for effect.
Tesamorelin: the honest page that still reaches
The tesamorelin page is the best-written thing on the site, and it is worth reading closely because of how nearly it works.
It says the active "is FDA-approved (as Egrifta SV) for visceral-fat reduction," which is true. It says "[w]e prescribe it compounded and off-label for longevity goals — and we're transparent about exactly that," which is a sentence most competitors would never print. It calls tesamorelin "the strongest evidence pillar" of the peptides it offers, and on the evidence that is also true.
The trials are real and they are large by this category's standards. NCT00123253 randomised 412 participants; the extension study NCT00608023 added 263. Both completed, both phase 3, both run by Theratechnologies. 35
Both were run in HIV-associated lipodystrophy, and what they measured was visceral abdominal fat.
That is the whole gap. Trellis's page lists "Recovery & sleep" — "[a] restored pulse shows up as recovery and sleep quality" — and "Energy & clarity" — "[e]xecutives report the 2pm floor lifting." Those outcomes were not endpoints in the trials that produced the approval, and the population is not the one that was studied. As of August 2026, ClinicalTrials.gov returns 24 tesamorelin studies; none is registered under a recovery, longevity or healthy-aging condition, and a search for tesamorelin studies under a sleep condition returns two, neither in healthy adults seeking longevity work.
Off-label prescribing is lawful and often good medicine, and Trellis is right to name it as off-label. Naming it does not transfer the evidence from one population to another.
Glutathione, and what nine trials turn out to be
The glutathione page describes the molecule correctly — the principal intracellular antioxidant, drawn down by stress and age — and sells a subcutaneous injection for "cellular recovery" in members "post-illness, post-stress, post-travel."
As of August 2026, a PubMed search for glutathione combined with subcutaneous, filtered to randomised controlled trials, returns nine records. The count is not the finding; reading them is. Four are veterinary — selenium and trace-element supplementation in dairy cattle and dairy goats. In the other five, glutathione is a blood marker somebody measured, not a drug somebody injected: a schistosomiasis vaccine trial, a methyl-B12 trial in children with autism, a vegetarian-diet trial, an allergen-immunotherapy study, and a study of heparin after surgery. 6
Not one tests subcutaneous glutathione as an intervention in healthy adults. On ClinicalTrials.gov, 268 studies list glutathione as an intervention; restricting to injected routes leaves three, in mantle-cell lymphoma, acute liver failure and pneumonia.
Credit where it is due, though: on the one claim in this space that regulators have actually pursued, Trellis holds the line. Its page says some members notice skin changes and immediately frames it as "downstream of redox status — a biomarker story, never a skin-lightening claim." That is the right sentence, and it was written by someone who knew why it mattered.
The numbers with nothing behind them
Three figures appear across the home page and four product pages, in the largest type on each: "92% of patients see significant biomarker improvements within 90 days," "3.4 weeks average patient time saved," and "$4,000 average patient savings per year."
There is no study, no sample size, no definition of "significant," and no method anywhere on the site. The 92% carries a subtitle — "Confirmed on your 90-day re-test, not self-reported" — which describes how a future patient's own result would be measured, not how the 92% was arrived at. For a company whose About page says it was founded in 2026, a figure describing 90-day outcomes across a patient base is a claim that needs its working shown, and the working is not published.
The same goes for the 4.7-star average printed beside "5,000+ current patients," which sits above a testimonial carousel containing four quotes repeated three times each, with no review platform named and no way to read the other reviews.
None of this is evidence that the numbers are wrong. It is the observation that a company this careful about naming its pharmacy, its medical group and its regulatory status has published its four most persuasive figures with nothing attached to them at all.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Does Trellis say which pharmacy makes its medication?▾
Yes, by name and street address, which is unusual enough to be the main reason this review exists. The terms page says "[p]rescriptions are fulfilled by our state-licensed compounding pharmacy partner: VialsRX, 6220 Westpark Dr, Houston, TX 77057," and the GLP-1 product graphic repeats "Compounded by Vials Rx in the USA." What is missing sits on the pharmacy's side rather than Trellis's: vials.ai publishes no state licence number, no list of the states it is licensed in, and no certificate of analysis for any lot.
Is there evidence that injectable NAD+ does what Trellis says?▾
Not for the outcomes on the page. As of August 2026, a PubMed search for "nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide" combined with an injected route and filtered to randomised controlled trials returns one record — a 2026 placebo-controlled trial in heart failure caused by ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Not energy, not focus, not sleep, and not healthy adults. Removing the route filter gives 70 records, none testing the subcutaneous preparation; ClinicalTrials.gov lists 261 NAD+ intervention studies across lupus, cognitive impairment, hepatitis C and anaesthesia. The biochemistry Trellis describes — NAD+ as a coenzyme that declines with age — is accurate. That is a mechanism, not an outcome, and this site does not tell you what to take or say the product is unsafe.
Trellis says tesamorelin is FDA-approved. Is that true?▾
The active is; the product you would receive is not, and Trellis says so itself. Tesamorelin is approved as Egrifta SV for reducing excess visceral abdominal fat in HIV-associated lipodystrophy, and the trials behind it are genuinely substantial — NCT00123253 randomised 412 participants and its extension NCT00608023 added 263, both phase 3, both completed. Trellis prescribes it compounded and off-label and prints that plainly, which is more than most sellers do. The distinction that matters is the population: the approval and the trials are in HIV-associated lipodystrophy measuring visceral fat, not in healthy adults measuring sleep, recovery or afternoon clarity.
Has Trellis Vitality had an FDA warning letter?▾
No match was found. On August 7, 2026 the 113-letter telehealth warning-letter roster was screened for Trellis Vitality, for its medical group Arora Health & Aesthetics and for its pharmacy Vials Rx, on full company names rather than fragments. None of the three appears. Two bounds on that: the roster covers the telehealth enforcement waves rather than every letter FDA has ever issued, and Trellis's About page says the company was founded in 2026, so there is very little regulatory history of any kind to look at yet. Absence of a letter is not a clean inspection record.
Does Trellis ship to my state?▾
It depends which program, and Trellis's own pages disagree. Every page carries a banner reading "US board certified clinicians, all 50 states," and the NAD+ FAQ says services are available in all 50 through affiliated providers. The GLP-1 program page says the opposite about itself: that program "is not offered in every state — including certain states where we currently suppress it (Connecticut, Ohio, and South Carolina at minimum)." "At minimum" is Trellis's own qualifier, so the list may be longer than three. No pharmacy licence number is published for Vials Rx, so none of this could be checked against a state board of pharmacy.
What does Trellis test, and can I see the results?▾
It publishes a four-test panel — potency to a ±10% tolerance, sterility to USP <797>, pH balance, and endotoxicity to USP <85> — all four under one heading reading "Every batch quality tested for." Including potency in the every-batch claim is a stronger commitment than some better-known competitors make, several of which run potency only a few times a year. But no certificate of analysis is published for any lot, no testing laboratory is named, and the claim exists only as a graphic on the product pages. A company describing a testing programme and a company publishing a lot report you can read are making different claims.
Where do the 92% and $4,000 figures come from?▾
That is not published. "92% of patients see significant biomarker improvements within 90 days," "3.4 weeks average patient time saved" and "$4,000 average patient savings per year" appear in large type across the home page and four product pages with no study, no sample size, no definition of "significant" and no method. The 92% carries the subtitle "Confirmed on your 90-day re-test, not self-reported," which describes how a new patient's own result would be measured rather than how the figure itself was produced. Trellis's About page says the company was founded in 2026.
Glossary
Key terms
503A compounding pharmacy
A state-licensed pharmacy preparing a medicine against a prescription for a named patient. Compounded preparations are not FDA-approved and FDA does not review them for safety, effectiveness or quality. No pharmacy holds an "FDA-approved" or "FDA-licensed" status — the designation does not exist.
GHRH analogue
A molecule shaped like growth-hormone-releasing hormone, which prompts the pituitary to release growth hormone rather than supplying it directly. Tesamorelin is one. Stimulating the axis is a mechanism; what that produces in a given population is a separate question the trials have to answer.
Off-label prescribing
Prescribing an approved drug for a use, population or dose outside its approved labelling. It is lawful and routine. It also means the approval and the trials behind it were about something else, so the evidence does not automatically carry across.
NPI
National Provider Identifier — a ten-digit number issued to US healthcare providers and searchable free in the federal NPPES registry. A published NPI is one of the few clinical credentials on a telehealth site a reader can verify against a government source directly.
Certificate of analysis
A lot-specific laboratory report stating what was tested and what the results were. Describing a testing programme and publishing a certificate you can read are different claims; Trellis does the first.
Method
How we checked this
Claims read first-party
Every quoted claim was read off Trellis Vitality's own pages on the date stamped against it, and the URL it came from is published beside it.
Trials read from the registry
Phase, status and enrolment come from ClinicalTrials.gov; identifiers and journals from PubMed's own records. Nothing here is cited from memory.
Absence claims bounded
Where we report that no trial exists, the page says what was searched, where, and when — never an unbounded claim that nobody has tested something.
Letters matched on full name
FDA letters are matched on the complete company name. A substring match would attach one firm's regulatory history to another with a similar name.
Non-product facts last checked August 2026. Read the editorial policy for the rules this page is held to.
Sources
References
1.Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Calanna S, et al. (2021). Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.. The New England journal of medicine 384(11):989-1002. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33567185/
2.Jastreboff AM, Aronne LJ, Ahmad NN, et al. (2022). Tirzepatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Obesity.. The New England journal of medicine 387(3):205-216. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658024/
3.Falutz J, Allas S, Blot K, et al. (2007). Metabolic effects of a growth hormone-releasing factor in patients with HIV.. The New England journal of medicine 357(23):2359-70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18057338/
4.Yu X, Xu J, Cao J (2026). Effect of Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide on Heart Failure Caused by Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.. American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions 26(1):97-106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40954388/
5.Theratechnologies (2026). TH9507 in Patients With HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy, NCT00123253 — phase 3, completed, enrolment 412; and TH9507 Extension Study, NCT00608023 — phase 3, completed, enrolment 263. Intervention search "tesamorelin" returned 24 studies. All read 2026-08-07. ClinicalTrials.gov (US National Library of Medicine). https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00123253
Medical disclaimer: This content is for general educational purposes only and is not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a licensed healthcare professional before starting, stopping, or changing any treatment.