Chronic kidney disease and the FLOW result

Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

On post #13 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Bariatric surgery history: altered anatomy after surgery affects absorption. That matters for oral medications and for reconstituted solutions. Discussing specific medications and doses with a clinician familiar with bariatric surgery is prudent.

PCOS and metabolic overlap: polycystic ovary syndrome has metabolic overlap with obesity and insulin resistance. Data on compounds in this class in PCOS specifically is thin; most discussion is by mechanism.

Multiple comorbidities: a person with diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease is outside the studied populations in most trials. Extrapolating to that person requires reasoning from the individual component trials and mechanisms.

This follows post #17 rather than contradicting it.

Comorbidity control: if a comorbidity (high blood pressure, high lipids) is not adequately controlled, the decision about adding compounds in this class depends on the current control status, not on the compound alone.

This follows post #18 rather than contradicting it.

Chronic kidney disease: compounds in this class have renal benefit in people with kidney disease. The benefit appears to be additive to other renal-protective agents, not a replacement for them.

I read post #20 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Type 2 diabetes: the population with the largest evidence base for these compounds. The SURPASS and SUSTAIN programmes established glycaemic benefit. The renal and cardiovascular benefit evidence is separate from the glycaemic benefit evidence.

Obstructive sleep apnoea: SURMOUNT-OSA used an objective endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index. Reduction was substantial. Whether the benefit is weight loss or a direct drug effect is not resolved by the trial.

Picking up post #22: that is the part I would want checked first.

Cardiovascular disease: several compounds have cardiovascular outcome trials. SELECT was in people without diabetes; SUSTAIN 6 was in high-risk diabetes. Absolute benefit is largest in high-risk people.

Bariatric surgery history: altered anatomy after surgery affects absorption. That matters for oral medications and for reconstituted solutions. Discussing specific medications and doses with a clinician familiar with bariatric surgery is prudent.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

Cardiovascular disease: several compounds have cardiovascular outcome trials. SELECT was in people without diabetes; SUSTAIN 6 was in high-risk diabetes. Absolute benefit is largest in high-risk people.

Comorbidity control: if a comorbidity (high blood pressure, high lipids) is not adequately controlled, the decision about adding compounds in this class depends on the current control status, not on the compound alone.

Type 2 diabetes: the population with the largest evidence base for these compounds. The SURPASS and SUSTAIN programmes established glycaemic benefit. The renal and cardiovascular benefit evidence is separate from the glycaemic benefit evidence.