Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
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?
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.
Adding the measurement that the opening post says would settle it.
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.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
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.
On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
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.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first.
A history of pancreatitis appears in the cautions and the decision around it needs somebody who knows the history rather than a general rule.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
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.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
I had written a reply contradicting post #12 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.
Post #12 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
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 want a second opinion before relying on that.
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.
Post #17 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
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.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Everything in post #21 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Narrowing post #21, because the general version has more than one answer.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
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.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
Answering the question post #25 raises rather than the one it answers.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
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.
I had written a reply contradicting post #25 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
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.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.