[Discussion] the weight conversation drowns out the glycaemic one
the weight conversation drowns out the glycaemic one — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. The order things move in, since nobody explains it and it worries people. Postprandial excursions generally respond earliest. Variability tends to narrow before the average does, which is visible on a…
On hypoglycaemia, because the risk gets attributed to the wrong thing constantly.
Incretin-based agents stimulate insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent way: the effect scales with glycaemia rather than acting unconditionally. That is why monotherapy risk is low. Where risk rises substantially is in combination with agents that lower glucose independently of the current level.
Which means the question "does this cause hypos" is not answerable without knowing the rest of the regimen — and that the person who can answer it is the one who wrote the regimen. Nothing on this board is a substitute for that conversation, and the good threads here end by saying so.
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints. Reading a result across from one to the other is not a comparison.
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints.
Adding the obvious one — bring the export, not the single number, to whoever manages this.
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
On hypoglycaemia, because the risk gets attributed to the wrong thing constantly.
This is the distinction that resolves most of the confusion here — average versus shape.