Hypertension improvement and when medication needs revisiting posts 61–80
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
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.
Picking up post #61: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
I read post #65 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
This follows post #65 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.
post #69 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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.
Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables.
post #72 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #70 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Picking up post #76: 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.
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.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hepatic steatosis: what the MASH trial evidence supports — one year on
On the subject in the title: Hepatic steatosis: what the MASH trial evidence supports — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. General question, not a request for advice about my own care — I…
|
2 | 4.1k | 6mo | |
|
Cardiovascular risk: reading the outcome trials as a set
Cardiovascular risk: reading the outcome trials as a set Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about a population rather than about a person. The published…
|
4 | 12k | 5mo | |
|
About the Comorbidities category
Type 2 diabetes, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnoea, cardiovascular and renal disease. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author…
|
4 | 16k | 12h | |
|
Osteoarthritis and mechanical versus metabolic improvement — one year on
On the subject in the title: Osteoarthritis and mechanical versus metabolic improvement — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. General question, not a request for advice about my own care — I…
|
+52 | 56 | 8.1k | 15d |
|
Revisiting: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: symptom endpoints
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: symptom endpoints Working notes rather than a conclusion. General question, not a request for advice about my own care…
|
+4 | 8 | 43k | 17mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags type 2 diabetes, MASH / hepatic steatosis, chronic kidney disease
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preparing for an appointment: one page, three questions
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Preparing for an appointment: one page, three questions Everything below is what sits behind that. General question, not a request for advice about my own care — I…
|
+28 | 32 | 57k | 11mo |
|
How to ask for a dose change without antagonising anyone
The question in the title: How to ask for a dose change without antagonising anyone I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Asking about a population rather than about a person.…
|
+19 | 23 | 2.9k | 23mo |
|
[2026 update] People with a low starting BMI: where the evidence stops
People with a low starting BMI: where the evidence stops Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about a population rather than about a person. The published…
|
+19 | 23 | 62k | 23mo |
|
Follow-up: Semaglutide versus liraglutide head to head: reading STEP 8 carefully
Semaglutide versus liraglutide head to head: reading STEP 8 carefully — 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…
|
+1 | 5 | 11k | 20mo |
|
The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet
On the subject in the title: The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…
|
2 | 49k | 2y |