This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
On post #27 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Titrating on symptoms rather than on the calendar is what most people here actually do. It is defensible, it is not what was studied, and describing it as the protocol would be wrong.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
Doubling after a miss adds a peak for no gain and is not what any labelling in this class recommends. That is a description of the labelling rather than advice about anyone's situation.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Research-use-only material is not a licensed product and no labelling covers it. Everything in this subcategory about published schedules describes what was done in trials of licensed formulations.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Post #35 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Micro-titration: the concept of increments smaller than the labelled steps. It has no evidence base from trials but is described by some people. The downside is that very small increments are hard to measure accurately with a syringe.
Doubling after a miss adds a peak for no gain and is not what any labelling in this class recommends. That is a description of the labelling rather than advice about anyone's situation.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Post #39 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against is that you want the benefit of long half-life, which gives a slowly changing plasma level from a weekly dosing schedule. Splitting it flattens the curve further but loses the convenience of once-weekly dosing. The trade-off is convenience versus a slightly flatter concentration curve.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
Doubling after a miss adds a peak for no gain and is not what any labelling in this class recommends. That is a description of the labelling rather than advice about anyone's situation.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
On post #42 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
Half steps are arithmetically simple and pharmacologically unstudied. They are not dangerous in any obvious way and they are also not what the evidence describes, and both halves of that should be said.
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
This follows post #44 rather than contradicting it.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. I have read the maintained page…
|
+138 | 148 | 1.8k | 2y |
|
Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: a longitudinal note — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: a longitudinal note — does this still hold? I have read the maintained page on this and I still have…
|
+35 | 39 | 547 | 11mo |
|
How the published trials escalated, tabulated side by side — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How the published trials escalated, tabulated side by side — does this still hold? Asking about published trials escalated directly, because I have…
|
2 | 8.9k | 9mo | |
|
When a dose reduction is the correct response to a side effect — a second dataset
When a dose reduction is the correct response to a side effect — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting a small dataset on dose…
|
+10 | 14 | 42k | 2mo |
|
Follow-up: Escalating every six weeks instead of four: what I observed over eight months
Escalating every six weeks instead of four: what I observed over eight months — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
4 | 164 | 20mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Drawing from a pen cartridge with a syringe: how the risk profile changes
Revisiting: Drawing from a pen cartridge with a syringe: how the risk profile changes Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Question about a metering device rather…
|
2 | 18k | 6h | |
|
Reading a syringe in poor light, and how to avoid needing to — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reading a syringe in poor light, and how to avoid needing to — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of…
|
+3 | 7 | 27k | 27d |
|
Dead volume across syringe and needle combinations
On the subject in the title: Dead volume across syringe and needle combinations Working notes rather than a conclusion. Something about dead volume across syringe does not reconcile and I would like a second…
|
+72 | 80 | 28k | 5mo |
|
Follow-up: Why "dose equivalence" between different incretin analogues is a weak concept
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why "dose equivalence" between different incretin analogues is a weak concept I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I…
|
+7 | 11 | 26k | 9mo |
|
Follow-up: Dead volume across syringe and needle combinations
Dead volume across syringe and needle combinations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about Dead volume across syringe that I did not know to ask the…
|
+81 | 98 | 22k | 18mo |