Hepatic impairment and the absence of data

This follows post #12 rather than contradicting it.

Pregnancy and planning: these compounds are not approved for use in pregnancy. Planning windows (how long to wait before attempting pregnancy) are not formally established. Conservative approaches wait several months to allow clearance.

Renal impairment: the compounds are cleared renally to some degree. Dose adjustments might be needed in severe renal impairment. Consulting with a clinician familiar with renal dosing is prudent.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

Picking up post #16: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Gastroparesis: pre-existing severe delayed gastric emptying can worsen with compounds that slow it further. Discussion with a clinician is prudent if this history exists.

Coming back to post #19, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Hepatic impairment: less is known about dosing in significant liver disease than in kidney disease. Extreme caution applies because the liver metabolises a large fraction of many medications.

Disordered eating history: a history of anorexia nervosa, bulimia, or other eating disorders changes the risk-benefit calculation because appetite suppression might trigger relapse. This population requires specialist input.

Hypoglycemia risk: in people already on insulin or sulfonylureas, adding a GLP-1 agonist requires insulin dose reduction and close monitoring for hypoglycemia. This is manageable with attention.

post #23 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma history: an absolute contraindication because of the preclinical findings in rodent toxicology. The history (personal or family, especially multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2) is an important screening question.

Pancreatitis history: the compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. A history of pancreatitis makes monitoring for recurrence more important during titration.

Older adults: sarcopenia risk is higher, polypharmacy is common, and the clinical trials did not enroll many people over 75. Extrapolating to very old people is extrapolating beyond the data.

Worth separating two things that post #23 runs together.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

post #27 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Pancreatitis history: the compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. A history of pancreatitis makes monitoring for recurrence more important during titration.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

Picking up post #27: that is the part I would want checked first.

Disordered eating history: a history of anorexia nervosa, bulimia, or other eating disorders changes the risk-benefit calculation because appetite suppression might trigger relapse. This population requires specialist input.