The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since

The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

I have seen FLOW (N Engl J Med, 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

The C-cell question: semaglutide triggered medullary thyroid carcinoma in rodent toxicology studies. A signal in rodents does not automatically appear in humans, but it is the reason the compound is contraindicated in people with personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2.

I read post #14 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

Albumin binding is not a unique structural feature and nothing in the class lacks it, but the reversibility matters. Semaglutide binds albumin covalently through a fatty side chain, which creates a very long half-life at the cost of sequestering the free form. That is a trade-off and it is the trade-off that allows weekly dosing.

The STEP programme populations were selected: enrollment criteria required baseline body mass index over 30, no recent blood pressure crisis, no recent retinopathy, no renal disease at the time. Applying results from that population to someone well outside it is an extrapolation and should be called one.

I read post #23 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

The STEP programme populations were selected: enrollment criteria required baseline body mass index over 30, no recent blood pressure crisis, no recent retinopathy, no renal disease at the time. Applying results from that population to someone well outside it is an extrapolation and should be called one.

Worth separating two things that post #37 runs together.

The 165 to 184 hour range: that is roughly 7 to 7.6 days, which is why the weekly schedule works. Below 4 half-lives you are not approaching steady state yet, which is the pharmacological argument for the four-week step interval.

I read post #50 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Semaglutide versus liraglutide in STEP 8: semaglutide produced greater weight reduction and the discontinuation rates differed. But the trial was open-label for the dosing schedule, which admits expectation effects. Weekly versus daily itself is part of the comparison, not a confounding variable to be removed.