This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
This follows post #88 rather than contradicting it.
Adding the boring version of EMA product information, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Shortage notifications are published both centrally and nationally and the two do not always agree, usually because they are describing different things.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
Picking up post #93: that is the part I would want checked first.
Small correction to my own earlier position on EMA product information. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
On post #94 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
The question underneath EMA product information is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
The public assessment report published at authorisation is one of the best free technical documents available on any of these compounds and it is rarely cited here.
Answering the EMA product information question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
I disagree with the framing of EMA product information above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Everything in post #100 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Nothing here is medical or legal advice, and this subcategory in particular attracts questions where that matters.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Having read the whole EMA product information thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
EMA product information is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Prescription status is harmonised at the level of the authorisation and the practical route to a prescription is not.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Taking post #106 at face value and following it one step further.
Trying to state the EMA product information position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
France: ANSM implements EU framework. Reimbursement has been narrower for weight management. Prescribing restrictions were applied during shortages, directing available product toward diabetes indications.
I think the EMA product information question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
Everything in post #107 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The public assessment report published at authorisation is one of the best free technical documents available on any of these compounds and it is rarely cited here.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Taking post #111 at face value and following it one step further.
Date every claim. Positions in this subcategory have moved repeatedly and the archive keeps posts permanently.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
I read post #111 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The version of EMA product information that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
One caution on EMA product information: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
EMA is the regulator with national implementation. Licensed incretin analogues are prescription-only across the EU, with some variation in specific approvals by member state.