This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Dose equivalence between different incretin analogues is a weak concept. The molecules differ in structure, half-life, receptor selectivity, and in what has been studied clinically. One mg of semaglutide is not equivalent to one mg of something else in any meaningful sense.
post #122 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Steady state means the plasma concentration is stable from dose to dose. That happens around 4 to 5 half-lives. Before that, the concentration is rising with each dose. Escalating before steady state means escalating on incomplete information about the dose you are on.
On post #120 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Holding a dose indefinitely: the trials did not study indefinite holding at a non-maximum dose. The trials escalated to a target and then held that. What happens if you stay at an intermediate dose for years is not formally studied and extrapolation is the best available reasoning.
Micro-titration: the concept of increments smaller than the labelled steps. It has no evidence base from trials but is described by some people. The downside is that very small increments are hard to measure accurately with a syringe.
The four-week escalation interval is a convention from the pivotal trials, not a pharmacological constant. The pharmacological argument is that with a week-long half-life, four weeks approaches steady state and you can assess the dose fairly. That is an argument for not going faster. It is not an argument against going slower.
post #126 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
How the published trials escalated: they used specific step sizes and intervals. The STEP programme used a particular cadence; the SURPASS and SURMOUNT programmes used slightly different ones. Reading them side by side shows the variation is real but small.
When a dose reduction is the correct response to a side effect: if a side effect is dose-dependent (nausea, constipation, injection discomfort), reducing the dose is a reasonable response. If the side effect is not dose-dependent (e.g., hypoglycemia with insulin), dose reduction does not address the issue.
Picking up post #126: that is the part I would want checked first.
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against is that you want the benefit of long half-life, which gives a slowly changing plasma level from a weekly dosing schedule. Splitting it flattens the curve further but loses the convenience of once-weekly dosing. The trade-off is convenience versus a slightly flatter concentration curve.
Coming back to post #128, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Titrating on tolerability rather than on the calendar: some people escalate when they tolerate a dose well, others escalate on the prescribed schedule regardless. The published trials used a calendar-based schedule. Tolerability-based escalation has no formal evidence base but is not uncommon in practice.
Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: the question of whether a stable dose remains effective over years is mostly answered by the withdrawal trials and by real-world reports. The dose does not seem to stop working, but the longest trials are not indefinitely long.
How the published trials escalated: they used specific step sizes and intervals. The STEP programme used a particular cadence; the SURPASS and SURMOUNT programmes used slightly different ones. Reading them side by side shows the variation is real but small.
Coming back to post #131, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The four-week escalation interval is a convention from the pivotal trials, not a pharmacological constant. The pharmacological argument is that with a week-long half-life, four weeks approaches steady state and you can assess the dose fairly. That is an argument for not going faster. It is not an argument against going slower.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
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.
post #135 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Steady state means the plasma concentration is stable from dose to dose. That happens around 4 to 5 half-lives. Before that, the concentration is rising with each dose. Escalating before steady state means escalating on incomplete information about the dose you are on.
The arithmetic of an intermediate dose: if the label says 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg, a dose strictly between them is off-label by definition. Some people compute it anyway. The reasoning is pharmacological — e.g., "I will split the difference between steps" — but it is reasoning from theory, not from evidence.
On post #135 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Holding a dose indefinitely: the trials did not study indefinite holding at a non-maximum dose. The trials escalated to a target and then held that. What happens if you stay at an intermediate dose for years is not formally studied and extrapolation is the best available reasoning.
Dose equivalence between different incretin analogues is a weak concept. The molecules differ in structure, half-life, receptor selectivity, and in what has been studied clinically. One mg of semaglutide is not equivalent to one mg of something else in any meaningful sense.
post #140 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against is that you want the benefit of long half-life, which gives a slowly changing plasma level from a weekly dosing schedule. Splitting it flattens the curve further but loses the convenience of once-weekly dosing. The trade-off is convenience versus a slightly flatter concentration curve.
Titrating on tolerability rather than on the calendar: some people escalate when they tolerate a dose well, others escalate on the prescribed schedule regardless. The published trials used a calendar-based schedule. Tolerability-based escalation has no formal evidence base but is not uncommon in practice.
Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: the question of whether a stable dose remains effective over years is mostly answered by the withdrawal trials and by real-world reports. The dose does not seem to stop working, but the longest trials are not indefinitely long.
post #144 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
When a dose reduction is the correct response to a side effect: if a side effect is dose-dependent (nausea, constipation, injection discomfort), reducing the dose is a reasonable response. If the side effect is not dose-dependent (e.g., hypoglycemia with insulin), dose reduction does not address the issue.
Worth separating two things that post #142 runs together.
Micro-titration: the concept of increments smaller than the labelled steps. It has no evidence base from trials but is described by some people. The downside is that very small increments are hard to measure accurately with a syringe.
Titrating on tolerability rather than on the calendar: some people escalate when they tolerate a dose well, others escalate on the prescribed schedule regardless. The published trials used a calendar-based schedule. Tolerability-based escalation has no formal evidence base but is not uncommon in practice.
Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: the question of whether a stable dose remains effective over years is mostly answered by the withdrawal trials and by real-world reports. The dose does not seem to stop working, but the longest trials are not indefinitely long.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Where the four-week escalation interval comes from, and what it is not
On the subject in the title: Where the four-week escalation interval comes from, and what it is not Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I…
|
+56 | 60 | 21k | 2y |
|
Holding a dose indefinitely: is there a documented downside?
Holding a dose indefinitely: is there a documented downside? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about technique rather than about dose. I have…
|
+28 | 32 | 57k | 12mo |
|
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I…
|
+24 | 28 | 51k | 5mo |
|
[2026 update] What steady state means for the decision to escalate
The question in the title: What steady state means for the decision to escalate I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a…
|
+127 | 137 | 32k | 8mo |
|
Titrating on tolerability rather than on the calendar
On the subject in the title: Titrating on tolerability rather than on the calendar Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I am asking rather…
|
2 | 31k | 13mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables
Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) and finding…
|
2 | 60k | 11mo | |
|
[2026 update] Dose numbers across compounds are not on the same scale
On the subject in the title: Dose numbers across compounds are not on the same scale Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I am asking…
|
+14 | 18 | 1.2k | 13mo |
|
What a confidence interval means, from scratch — the long version
The question in the title: What a confidence interval means, from scratch — the long version I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have seen SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) cited…
|
+16 | 20 | 2.3k | 8mo |
|
[2026 update] Clearance pathways and what renal impairment changes
On the subject in the title: Clearance pathways and what renal impairment changes Working notes rather than a conclusion. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in front…
|
+63 | 69 | 50k | 13mo |
|
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I…
|
+24 | 28 | 51k | 5mo |