Why pulsatile secretion matters for interpreting secretagogue claims

Why pulsatile secretion matters for interpreting secretagogue claims — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

I have seen SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med, 2021) 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.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.

Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most: the evidence base is weaker and that is precisely why documentation quality matters more. A supplier page that clearly identifies the compound and the purity is more valuable for secretagogues than for incretin agonists where the evidence base is stronger.

post #4 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Pulsatile secretion matters because growth hormone is secreted in pulses, not continuously. A single post-dose growth hormone level is nearly uninterpretable. Assessing this class properly requires serial sampling or an integrated measure like IGF-1, and almost nothing published online does either.

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.