Read the primary source rather than the write-up and the two do not agree, so here is what is actually in it.
The variables that decide how a cross-border order goes are declaration wording, the destination country's import rules for prescription medicines, and whether the shipment looks commercial. Personal-import allowances exist in some jurisdictions and not in others, and where they exist they are usually conditional on a prescription and a quantity limit. The failure mode is normally a seizure notice rather than anything worse, and a reshipment policy is the thing worth confirming before ordering rather than after.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
The question I want answered is which of the variables in a cross-border order actually determine the outcome, and which are superstition. If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
NurseLeah_Nash said:The variables that decide how a cross-border order goes are declaration wording, the destination country's import rules for prescription medicines,…
Agreed, with the caveat that HbA1c is unreliable in anaemia, haemoglobinopathies and recent blood loss, all of which are commoner than people assume. If it disagrees with fasting glucose or a CGM, that is worth chasing.
NurseLeah_Nash said:The variables that decide how a cross-border order goes are declaration wording, the destination country's import rules for prescription medicines,…
I read this differently from NurseLeah_Nash, on substance rather than tone. Import rules are jurisdiction-specific and this board keeps giving US-shaped answers to non-US questions. What is a personal-import allowance in one country is a controlled-import offence in another.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsShort answer first, then the reasoning. HbA1c reflects roughly three months of average glycaemia weighted toward the most recent weeks, which is why repeating it at six weeks tells you very little. The improvement on this class comes from two directions — direct glucose-dependent insulin secretion and glucagon suppression, plus the indirect effect of weight loss on insulin sensitivity — and the second continues after the first has plateaued.
NeuroNate said:Agreed, with the caveat that HbA1c is unreliable in anaemia, haemoglobinopathies and recent blood loss, all of which are commoner than people assume.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.