Safety · Contraindications

Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma — what changed since

Safety › Contraindications pancreatitis thyroid C-cell question delayed gastric emptying

a.thorneTL2Wiki editor29 Mar 2026#1

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that.

Asking about a contraindication as written rather than as remembered.

I have the labelling in front of me and the wording is narrower than the way it gets quoted here. A trial exclusion criterion and a contraindication are different documents with different purposes, and I think the two are being conflated.

Am I reading it correctly?

0 likes 4mo

e.ferreiraTL3Regular1 Apr 2026#2

I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

2 likes 4mo

h.falkTL23 Apr 2026#3

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

15 likes 4mo

titration_diaryTL3Regular5 Apr 2026#4

Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma, or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, is the clearest contraindication in this class and it is specific rather than general.

The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.

29 likes 4mo

s.okaforTL26 Apr 2026#5

Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.

0 likes 4mo

lc_gradientTL3Analytical chemist8 Apr 2026 · edited#6

A history of pancreatitis appears in the cautions and the decision around it needs somebody who knows the history rather than a general rule.

5 likes 4mo

d.vukovicTL29 Apr 2026#7

s.okafor, post #5: Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space. Go to post

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.

21 likes in reply to #5 4mo

dr_bhattacharyaTL3Physician11 Apr 2026#8

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.

0 likes 4mo

j.restrepoTL212 Apr 2026#9

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

30 likes 4mo

KAnderssonTL3Regular14 Apr 2026#10

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.

0 likes 3mo

j.teixeiraTL215 Apr 2026#11

Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.

7 likes 3mo

GDashwoodTL3Regular16 Apr 2026#12

Adding the measurement that post #9 says would settle it.

History of pancreatitis: these compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. History of pancreatitis increases relative risk. That is a relative contraindication, not absolute, but requires monitoring.

If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.

1 like 3mo

ca.haddadTL217 Apr 2026#13

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

v.klausenTL3Regular19 Apr 2026#14

d.vukovic, post #7: Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either. Anyone with a larger sample, please post it. Go to post

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.

24 likes in reply to #7 3mo

e.coelhoTL220 Apr 2026#15

Answering the question post #14 raises rather than the one it answers.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

11 likes 3mo

integrator_draftTL3Regular21 Apr 2026 · edited#16

The arithmetic in post #14 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

3 likes 3mo

n.szaboTL222 Apr 2026#17

ca.haddad, post #13: Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. Go to post

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.

0 likes in reply to #13 3mo

OkaforTL3Regular23 Apr 2026#18

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.

33 likes 3mo

f.ibarraTL224 Apr 2026#19

Worth separating two things that post #17 runs together.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

1 like 3mo

septum_checkTL1Member26 Apr 2026#20

Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.

0 likes 3mo

d.achebeTL227 Apr 2026#21

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.

18 likes 3mo

DKwiatkowskiTL3Regular28 Apr 2026#22

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.

0 likes 3mo

f.piresTL229 Apr 2026#23

Taking post #22 at face value and following it one step further.

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

1 like 3mo

glossary_deskTL3Regular30 Apr 2026 · edited#24

integrator_draft, post #16: The arithmetic in post #14 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check. Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either. Go to post

Post #21 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

7 likes in reply to #16 3mo

a.villalobosTL21 May 2026#25

Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.

That is the honest state of it as of this week.

24 likes 3mo

DSakamotoTL3Regular2 May 2026#26

Coming back to post #24, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

0 likes 3mo

j.lokkenTL23 May 2026#27

This follows post #26 rather than contradicting it.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (personal or family history) or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: absolute contraindication. The rodent preclinical signal is real enough to exclude this population.

3 likes 3mo

taper_fileTL34 May 2026#28

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.

t.brandtTL25 May 2026#29

f.ibarra, post #19: Worth separating two things that post #17 runs together. Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. Go to post

Confirming post #26 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Disordered eating history: appetite suppression can trigger relapse in people with history of anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders. This is a relative contraindication requiring specialist input.

33 likes in reply to #19 3mo

d.magalhesTL2Member6 May 2026#30

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

0 likes 3mo

Sponsored PeptideMeter — peptide analytics and supplier verificationPurity analysis and structured supplier verification, published as dated records rather than scores. Referenced throughout our sourcing documentation.View analytics →