This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #90 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
SURMOUNT-OSA is notable because it used an objective physiological endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index, rather than a symptom scale. Two parallel trials, with and without positive airway pressure, addressed the confounder directly. The reduction was substantial in both.
Adding the measurement that post #90 says would settle it.
On reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Research-use-only tirzepatide is not approved for human use and is not made to pharmaceutical standards. Anyone discussing it here is describing what they did, not recommending it.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
Picking up post #94: that is the part I would want checked first.
Storage and stability: published data on licensed tirzepatide formulations exists and is worth reading directly rather than through summarised claims. Reconstituted preparations in different diluents have not been studied and extrapolation from the licensed formulation is the best you can do.
Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
Categorical response thresholds — the proportion reaching ten, fifteen or twenty per cent reduction — are more persuasive and less informative than the mean. They depend entirely on where the threshold was drawn.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
Taking reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
Adding the measurement that post #100 says would settle it.
Research-use-only tirzepatide is not approved for human use and is not made to pharmaceutical standards. Anyone discussing it here is describing what they did, not recommending it.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
For anyone finding this later: the short answer on reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press is that it depends on one thing, and the rest of the thread is people identifying which thing.
On post #102 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Categorical response thresholds — the proportion reaching ten, fifteen or twenty per cent reduction — are more persuasive and less informative than the mean. They depend entirely on where the threshold was drawn.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
SURMOUNT-4's randomised withdrawal design is the strongest available evidence about what happens on stopping. It says nothing about a lower maintenance dose, because the comparison was continue versus placebo rather than continue versus less.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Adding the boring version of reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press, 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.
Confirming post #105 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Before the thread moves on from reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
Research-use-only tirzepatide is not approved for human use and is not made to pharmaceutical standards. Anyone discussing it here is describing what they did, not recommending it.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.
Weight reduction figures from SURMOUNT-1 are frequently quoted without the trial's duration attached. A mean change at 72 weeks and a mean change at 40 weeks are different numbers and both circulate.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Everything in post #111 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
SURMOUNT-OSA is notable because it used an objective physiological endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index, rather than a symptom scale. Two parallel trials, with and without positive airway pressure, addressed the confounder directly. The reduction was substantial in both.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
Categorical response thresholds — the proportion reaching ten, fifteen or twenty per cent reduction — are more persuasive and less informative than the mean. They depend entirely on where the threshold was drawn.
The arithmetic in post #112 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Checked the reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Answering the question post #114 raises rather than the one it answers.
The honest answer on reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Research-use-only tirzepatide is not approved for human use and is not made to pharmaceutical standards. Anyone discussing it here is describing what they did, not recommending it.
Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.