Dr.RenalNash said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.
Worth separating that from cardiovascular outcomes, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
WendyG_ATL said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Dr.RenalNash said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
I read this differently from Dr.RenalNash, on substance rather than tone. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Relative versus absolute is the distinction that gets lost: a 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit, and the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one.
Worth separating that from cardiovascular outcomes, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.