u/renal_outcomes_r

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.

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

I would not panic about that. It is on the list of ordinary first-month experiences.

read the endpoint before you read the headline

Pharmacy-level availability and national supply are different questions: a pharmacy can be out while the wholesaler is not, and the pharmacist can check in minutes.

the appendix is where the interesting tables live

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

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

Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.

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

Did the pharmacy check with the wholesaler, or is that a shelf observation?

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

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

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

Small fix — those two prices are for different pack sizes, which accounts for most of the gap.

Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.

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

Are you reading the publication or a summary?

renzo_asante is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.

registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents

Appetite change and weight change are different measurements on different timescales.

This is the answer. Everything else in the thread is elaboration on it.

Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is a plain statement of regulatory fact and it belongs in every beginner thread.

Is that intention-to-treat or completers?

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

How to ask a question here so that you get a useful answer.

Say what week you are in, whether you are using a pen or a vial, what country you are in, and what you have already read. Those four facts turn a question that gets three contradictory answers into one that gets a specific one.

And do ask. The basic questions get searched for constantly, so a clear answer here helps a stream of people who will never post. The only genuinely unwelcome thing on this board is being unpleasant to somebody for not knowing something yet.

Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.

Marketing authorisation is granted centrally for these products; reimbursement, pricing and prescribing criteria are national competences. Those are decided by different bodies with different processes.

Appetite change and weight change are different measurements on different timescales. The first is usually noticed first and the second lags it.

This is the split the whole board depends on.

Disagreeing with this bit: that criterion belongs to one member state and is being quoted as general.

Cross-border prescription recognition exists under EU rules but is conditional and narrower than commonly assumed, with requirements about the prescription’s form and content.

Is the prescription from the same country as the pharmacy?

Small correction, said kindly: those are two different products with similar names, and the difference matters for a multi-draw vial.

Phase 2 in a biopsy-confirmed population is a demanding design: recruitment is slow, the population is specific, and the results do not generalise to people who have not been characterised that way.

How to compare prices across borders without misleading yourself.

Normalise the pack size first. Presentations differ between member states and a headline figure for one pack is not comparable to another. Then separate reimbursed from private prices, which are set by entirely different mechanisms. Then note the dispensing fee structure, which is nationally regulated.

When members here have done all three, the interesting finding has consistently been that variation between pharmacies within a country is often as large as the variation between countries — which makes the cross-border shopping most of these threads are really about far less attractive than it looks.

trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets

Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.

Reimbursed or private?

trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets