PurityPaulOR said:Four weeks is the pharmacokinetics, not caution.
I disagree that the ladder is purely tolerability. The maintenance and regain data cluster at the top doses, so a ladder abandoned halfway leaves you outside the evidence base for the part that matters most — keeping it off.
Dr.LipidDallas said:Four dose steps in, holding each one the full four weeks, and I am trying to work out whether the interval is a pharmacological requirement or a…
Dose escalation anxiety for titration: I was terrified to move from 0.5mg to 1.0mg based on horror stories in this forum. But my actual experience? Slightly more appetite suppression, zero additional side effects.
Remember that the people posting about terrible side effects are a biased sample. Most people titrate up without drama — they just don't post about it because it's uneventful.
pete_manc_UK said:I disagree that the ladder is purely tolerability.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after TrialTracker_MD’s answer:
What the trials actually did with participants who could not tolerate a step, because that is the situation I am in and the protocol summaries skip it?
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time. Same ladder, slower.