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.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Dedicated trials in under-studied populations are the only real remedy and several are ongoing, which is worth saying rather than speculating.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Picking up post #90: that is the part I would want checked first.
The thing about Pregnancy and pregnancy planning that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Careful with the language on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
This follows post #95 rather than contradicting it.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma history: an absolute contraindication because of the preclinical findings in rodent toxicology. The history (personal or family, especially multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2) is an important screening question.
Worth separating two things that post #96 runs together.
Trying to state the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Narrowing post #98, because the general version has more than one answer.
Pregnancy and pregnancy planning sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
Following, with nothing to contribute beyond having asked the same thing elsewhere.
An update on my earlier Pregnancy and pregnancy planning post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Post #100 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Pregnancy and planning: these compounds are not approved for use in pregnancy. Planning windows (how long to wait before attempting pregnancy) are not formally established. Conservative approaches wait several months to allow clearance.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
Where I part company with post #102, and it is a narrow parting.
Distinguishing three things in the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Answering the question post #102 raises rather than the one it answers.
Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
Pregnancy and pregnancy planning would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Narrowing post #108, because the general version has more than one answer.
Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Everything in post #106 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Adding a small correction to the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
The bit of Pregnancy and pregnancy planning that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
The arithmetic in post #113 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma history: an absolute contraindication because of the preclinical findings in rodent toxicology. The history (personal or family, especially multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2) is an important screening question.
Where I part company with post #113, and it is a narrow parting.
Reframing Pregnancy and pregnancy planning slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Being outside the studied population does not mean a treatment is unsafe. It means the usual evidence is not available and the reasoning has to be explicit.
I had written a reply contradicting post #118 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The documentation on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Confirming post #118 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Pregnancy and pregnancy planning has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.