A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Whether there is a lowest maintenance dose with actual maintenance data behind it, or whether everything published sits at the top of the ladder?
Dr.CardioMD said:Extending the interval and reducing the dose are pharmacologically different.
The regain framing needs pushing back on. Two thirds regained means one third did not, and the trial provided no ongoing support to either group. Treating regain as pharmacologically inevitable is as unsupported as treating maintenance as automatic.
Dr.CardioMD said:Extending the interval and reducing the dose are pharmacologically different.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.CardioMD said:Extending the interval and reducing the dose are pharmacologically different.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.