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.
Picking up post #88: that is the part I would want checked first.
Pregnancy appears in the labelling for this class and the position is stated explicitly rather than left to inference.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
On post #90 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Nothing here is medical advice, and a contraindication question is one where the cost of a wrong forum answer is high.
Labelling differs between jurisdictions for the same molecule, so quoting a contraindication should say which document it comes from.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
A caution and a contraindication are different levels and the difference is not stylistic. Conflating them makes the labelling sound more restrictive than it is.
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.
Anyone posting a contraindication claim should include the source. Without one it circulates and hardens.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Where a contraindication is relative rather than absolute, the reasoning usually appears in the assessment report rather than the labelling.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
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.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Confirming post #102 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Asking a pharmacist to check a contraindication takes minutes and is more reliable than any thread, including this one.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
The most common error here is treating a trial exclusion criterion as a contraindication. They are different documents with different purposes.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
Where a condition appears as a warning rather than a contraindication, the decision is a clinical one rather than a prohibition.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications
Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about Absolute versus relative contraindications in a…
|
+11 | 15 | 22k | 5mo |
|
Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications
Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A narrow question about Absolute versus relative contraindications, deliberately…
|
+80 | 85 | 7.4k | 3mo |
|
Absolute versus relative contraindications
On the subject in the title: Absolute versus relative contraindications Working notes rather than a conclusion. Proposing that absolute versus relative contraindications deserves a maintained page rather than…
|
+4 | 8 | 23k | 8mo |
|
Follow-up: Conditions that change the calculus rather than forbidding it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Conditions that change the calculus rather than forbidding it Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about Conditions in a thread last spring and I…
|
+30 | 34 | 62k | 2y |
|
Severe gastroparesis and why this class is a poor fit
On the subject in the title: Severe gastroparesis and why this class is a poor fit Working notes rather than a conclusion. I was wrong about severe gastroparesis in a thread last spring and I would like to…
|
3 | 62k | 13mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Muscle cramps: the ordinary causes before the exotic ones
Muscle cramps: the ordinary causes before the exotic ones Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that muscle cramps deserves a maintained page rather than…
|
+80 | 90 | 27k | 6mo |
|
Where to report an adverse event officially, by region — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Where to report an adverse event officially, by region — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reporting an event with the dates and the sequence, because…
|
+108 | 123 | 26k | 8mo |
|
Mood changes: monitoring, and when to involve a professional — what changed since
Mood changes: monitoring, and when to involve a professional — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of…
|
+6 | 10 | 45k | 25d |
|
Coming back to: The nausea timeline across the first four weeks, with a tabulated log
Posting this under the heading it deserves: The nausea timeline across the first four weeks, with a tabulated log Everything below is what sits behind that. Reading back through what has been written here…
|
+42 | 49 | 576 | 17mo |
|
Follow-up: History of disordered eating and why it changes the conversation
Posting this under the heading it deserves: History of disordered eating and why it changes the conversation Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of History of…
|
+75 | 81 | 23k | 10mo |