Semaglutide in people without diabetes: what the evidence base looks like Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
What changes if the standard account of semaglutide in people without diabetes is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Is there a ceiling dose beyond which the effect plateaus? The trials did not study that because they stopped at 2.4 mg. Some people report trying higher doses, but trial data is absent and off-label dosing enters territory this site does not advise on.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
On identity confirmation: a mass close to 4113.6 Da on the intact molecule is consistent with semaglutide and is also consistent with several closely related species. Mass narrows the field; it does not close it, and no certificate should be read as though it did.
If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it.
The opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The opalescent appearance in semaglutide solutions is occasionally noted and the mechanism is unclear. It does not appear to correlate with product failure in practice. Visible particles or frank cloudiness is different and would be reason to contact the supplier.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it.
Renal outcomes moved this compound out of the metabolic-only conversation. FLOW reported on kidney endpoints in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, which is a narrower population than the discussion here usually assumes.
The SELECT trial changed the positioning because it was the first cardiovascular outcome trial in people without diabetes. That decoupled the cardiovascular argument from glycaemic control, which is why it mattered beyond its own numbers.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a…
|
+101 | 110 | 12k | 16h |
|
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a…
|
+15 | 19 | 2.8k | 1d |
|
Coming back to: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg
The question in the title: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know what…
|
+23 | 27 | 9.9k | 1mo |
|
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers…
|
2 | 7.5k | 2mo | |
|
Second pass at: Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented
Second pass at: Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers…
|
+15 | 19 | 4.4k | 13mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on Selection. It is…
|
+28 | 32 | 1.3k | 1d |
|
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about oral versus injectable exposure does not reconcile…
|
+19 | 23 | 332 | 8mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove — one year on
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read…
|
+56 | 62 | 34k | 15mo |
|
Coming back to: Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals
Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Prediction intervals — I have the observation and…
|
2 | 65 | 22mo | |
|
What TRIUMPH is designed to answer, and why we should not pre-empt it
What TRIUMPH is designed to answer, and why we should not pre-empt it I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. TRIUMPH keeps being re-asked here and I think…
|
+4 | 8 | 142 | 6h |