🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsLab Results & BiomarkersUric acid trends on GLP-1 — gout risk reduction data

Uric acid trends on GLP-1 — gout risk reduction data

Dr.RheumBOS Sat, May 23, 2026 at 4:11 PM 21 replies 749 viewsPage 1 of 5
Dr.RheumBOS
Member
567
2,345
Apr 2024
Boston, MA
May 23, 2026 at 4:11 PM#1

Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.

Quarterly for the first year is convention rather than evidence, and it is defensible for a simple reason: it is roughly the interval over which HbA1c becomes informative again, since it reflects about three months of glycaemia. After the first year, and once doses are stable, annual is reasonable unless something specific is being followed.

Where I think it is weakest: the completion rate deserves as much attention as the headline, because a large effect among those who finished is a different claim from a large effect among those enrolled.

The question I want answered is what actually belongs on a baseline panel, as opposed to the enormous list that gets pasted around here. Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.

Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
17 20pam_stl, wei_SG, cory_ATX and 14 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.MetabolicMD
VIP Member
2,345
16,789
Jan 2024
Rochester, MN
May 23, 2026 at 4:16 PM#2
Dr.RheumBOS said:
Quarterly for the first year is convention rather than evidence, and it is defensible for a simple reason: it is roughly the interval over which HbA1c…

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. A defensible baseline is short: HbA1c and fasting glucose, a lipid panel with ApoB if you can get it, ALT and AST, creatinine with eGFR, TSH, ferritin and B12, and a full blood count. That set catches the things that change, the things that explain symptoms, and the things that alter the prescribing decision. Almost everything else on the long circulating lists is either invariant, uninterpretable without a specific question, or an incidental finding waiting to cause an unnecessary workup.

18 21PedsEndoPhilly, SleepDoc_PDX, RegAffairsDC and 15 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
InsuranceTom
Senior Member
1,345
7,890
Mar 2024
Connecticut
May 23, 2026 at 4:21 PM#3
Dr.RheumBOS said:
Quarterly for the first year is convention rather than evidence, and it is defensible for a simple reason: it is roughly the interval over which HbA1c…

Pushing back on Dr.RheumBOS here. I would drop the "get everything" instinct further than this thread does. Every extra test is another chance at a false positive, and incidental findings have their own cost in scans, biopsies and worry.

19 22Dr.ReproEndo, lucas_SP_BR, lisa_labSD and 16 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
hans_munich
Member
534
2,345
Jul 2024
Munich, DE
May 23, 2026 at 4:26 PM#4

Short answer first, then the reasoning. The single most useful discipline is bringing the whole panel to a clinician rather than one flagged value. One out-of-range result in isolation generates anxiety and unnecessary tests; the same result next to the trend and the rest of the panel usually generates a shrug.

20 23tammy_FL, Dr.LipidDallas, alex_tucson and 17 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
MarkLI_maint
Member
534
2,345
Jun 2024
Long Island, NY
May 23, 2026 at 4:52 PM#5
Dr.MetabolicMD said:
A defensible baseline is short: HbA1c and fasting glucose, a lipid panel with ApoB if you can get it, ALT and AST, creatinine with eGFR, TSH, ferritin…

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Last edited: May 23, 2026 at 9:52 PM
21 24bri_stats, pete_manc_UK, anna.melb_AU and 18 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1235

Similar Threads

Optimal lab testing frequency on GLP-1 — evidence-based schedule5 replies
A1C from 7.2 to 5.1 — my bloodwork transformation19 replies
Thyroid function monitoring on GLP-1 — TSH and free T4 trends3 replies
Lipid panel improvements mega-thread — share your numbers19 replies
Liver enzymes trending down on GLP-1 — ALT/AST normalization17 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register