Short answer first, then the reasoning. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".

Dr.NutriCornell said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

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.

InsuranceTom said:

The list price and the price I actually pay differ by a factor of six depending on which of four routes I use, and none of that is transparent from…

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

InsuranceTom said:

...regarding the discontinuation data for cost and coverage...

I want to reframe the discontinuation narrative. We don't say "insulin fails because blood sugar rises when you stop it." We don't say "antihypertensives fail because BP goes up without them."

Why do we apply different logic to anti-obesity medications? The answer is stigma. We still, unconsciously, believe obesity is about willpower rather than biology. The discontinuation data actually PROVES it's a chronic biological condition requiring ongoing treatment.

This reframing isn't semantic — it has implications for insurance coverage, treatment duration, and patient expectations.