sophie_paris said:The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.
That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.
EndoResFellow said:All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
sophie_paris said:The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsKevinCompounds said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
NNT calculation for cardiovascular risk clinical endpoints: NNT = 1/ARR (absolute risk reduction).
From SELECT trial: MACE at 39 months — 6.5% semaglutide vs 8.0% placebo. ARR = 1.5%. NNT = 67 over 3.3 years.
Compare to established therapies:
| Intervention | NNT | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide (MACE) | 67 | 3.3 years |
| Statins primary prevention (MI) | ~100 | 5 years |
| Aspirin secondary prevention | ~77 | 2 years |
These NNTs are clinically meaningful and comparable to accepted cardiovascular interventions.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.