Hypertension improvement and when medication needs revisiting — a second dataset

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.

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.

post #57 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

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.

Hepatic steatosis and MASH: a phase 2 trial in semaglutide for steatohepatitis showed resolution was more frequent on treatment. Histological resolution is a surrogate for long-term clinical outcomes like cirrhosis.

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.

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.

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.