The GLP-1 boom has created a manufacturing problem. Can the industry keep up?

The success of GLP-1 therapies has been one of the biggest pharmaceutical stories of the last decade. These are medicines that mimic a natural hormone released after eating, helping people to feel fuller. 

Drugs like Semaglutide and Tirzepatide have transformed the treatment of diabetes and obesity, while ongoing research continues to uncover potential applications in cardiovascular and metabolic health. Demand has surged, investment has followed, and the market shows no signs of slowing down. 

But there is a problem. The conversation around GLP-1 therapies often focuses on clinical outcomes and patient demand. Far less attention is paid to the manufacturing challenge behind the scenes. Yet this may be one of the biggest barriers to wider access. 

Despite the popularity of these medicines, patient penetration remains relatively low. Millions of people who could benefit from these therapies still lack access to them. One reason is simple: producing enough peptide API to satisfy demand is extremely difficult. 

The challenge becomes even greater as the market evolves. Generic versions of Semaglutide are beginning to emerge in some regions, increasing accessibility and demand. At the same time, oral formulations are moving closer to widespread adoption. These offer obvious benefits for patients, but require significantly more API than injectable products. 

In short, demand is growing faster than manufacturing capacity.

Where current peptide synthesis approaches fail 

The industry currently relies on three broad approaches to peptide synthesis: Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS), Liquid Phase Peptide Synthesis (LPPS), and various forms of Tag Assisted Peptide Synthesis (TAPS). Each has strengths. Each also has limitations. 

SPPS is highly capable and can produce complex peptide therapeutics, but it is expensive, resource intensive, and difficult to scale.  

LPPS is more scalable and sustainable, but struggles with the complexity required for many modern peptide medicines.  

TAPS technologies attempt to bridge the gap, but often introduce new trade-offs around solvents, process control, and scalability. 

The result is that no existing technology fully solves the industry's central challenge: how to manufacture increasingly complex peptide therapeutics at the scale, speed, cost and sustainability levels that current (and future) demand requires. 

A better approach? 

This raises an important question. What would an ideal peptide synthesis method look like? 

It would need to combine the capability of SPPS with the sustainability and scalability of LPPS. It would use existing manufacturing infrastructure rather than requiring major new investment. And it would reduce waste rather than multiplying it. 

Until recently, that combination has been difficult to achieve. In our next blog, we'll explore a new manufacturing approach called Group Assisted Purification Peptide Synthesis (GAPP™), and the data that clearly shows how it could be the ideal peptide synthesis method - a cleaner, more scalable path to GLP-1 production. 

Read the full whitepaper to learn more about the future of peptide manufacturing.