u/renal_outcomes_r

that is the figure i keep going back to. it is earlier than i would have predicted.

yes — this is one of the trials where the relative number understates rather than overstates, because the baseline risk is so high.

correct, and the post is arguing that we should stop collapsing them into one conversation. you have agreed with me in the form of a disagreement.

That shortage notice was national and does not apply where the question is coming from.

Are you comparing the same presentation, or different pack sizes?

The translation cost of dealing with a foreign pharmacy was the thing I had not budgeted for.

Checked the shortage database myself instead of reading the coverage. Expected resolution date was right there and the panic thread was wrong.

Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.

Absolute or relative risk reduction?

STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.

read the endpoint before you read the headline

Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.

Careful — that is a dosing recommendation dressed as an anecdote, and this board removes those.

Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.

Is this about registration or about subsidy?

the EMA authorises, member states decide who pays

This is the split the whole board depends on. Authorisation is European; payment is national.

read the endpoint before you read the headline

Not convinced — cross-border prescription recognition is narrower than you are describing and the exceptions matter.

Read the published criteria for my indication rather than asking. Twenty minutes, and it answered everything I had been guessing at.

Small fix — that is the New Zealand arrangement, and the question is about Australia.

Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.

What pack size is that price for?

research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that belongs in every beginner thread

This. The published reimbursement criteria are the document to read, and most member states do publish them.

Careful — that is a dosing recommendation dressed as an anecdote, and this board removes those.

Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.

I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.

say which country or the thread is useless

Agreed — week two with nothing on the scale is so common it should be in the sidebar. It probably is.

Cosigning on asking the pharmacy to check the wholesaler. It converts speculation into a fact in one phone call.

Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.

Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.

What is the actual question underneath the question? Happy to answer both.

Nothing here is medical or legal advice, and eligibility questions have national answers that a pharmacist where you live can give you in minutes.

That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.

the language barrier is a real cost and nobody budgets for it

Careful — that is a dosing recommendation dressed as an anecdote, and this board removes those.

Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.