Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications

Picking up post #12: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (personal or family history) or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: absolute contraindication. The rodent preclinical signal is real enough to exclude this population.

Severe renal impairment (eGFR <15): these compounds are renally cleared and accumulate in severe kidney disease. Risk-benefit is unfavourable without dose adjustment.

Severe hepatic impairment: less is known than for kidney disease. Extreme caution or contraindication depending on the specific degree of impairment.

Pregnancy: these compounds are not approved for pregnancy. The potential risks outweigh potential benefits. Planning windows and washout (several months) are the standard approach.

Disordered eating history: appetite suppression can trigger relapse in people with history of anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders. This is a relative contraindication requiring specialist input.

Diabetic retinopathy complications: a signal for this was noted in SUSTAIN 6. Current evidence is mixed. The risk is not zero and some caution is appropriate in people with baseline retinopathy.

This follows post #19 rather than contradicting it.

History of pancreatitis: these compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. History of pancreatitis increases relative risk. That is a relative contraindication, not absolute, but requires monitoring.

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.

Gastroparesis or severe delayed gastric emptying: these compounds slow gastric emptying. Pre-existing severe gastroparesis can be worsened. That is a relative contraindication depending on baseline severity.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

Picking up post #23: that is the part I would want checked first.

Gastroparesis or severe delayed gastric emptying: these compounds slow gastric emptying. Pre-existing severe gastroparesis can be worsened. That is a relative contraindication depending on baseline severity.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (personal or family history) or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: absolute contraindication. The rodent preclinical signal is real enough to exclude this population.

Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.

I read post #27 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

Pregnancy: these compounds are not approved for pregnancy. The potential risks outweigh potential benefits. Planning windows and washout (several months) are the standard approach.