kate.chem said:

The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.

I read this differently from kate.chem, on substance rather than tone. The affordability discussion here usually stops at individual tactics. At list price this class is out of reach for most of the people who would benefit, and no amount of appeal strategy changes that — it is a pricing problem wearing a paperwork costume.

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone assembling their own picture: Tmax is one to three days, terminal half-life about 165 to 170 hours, steady state at four to five weeks, and subcutaneous bioavailability near 89%. Those four numbers explain most of the questions people ask about timing.

PeptideChemSF said:

The affordability discussion here usually stops at individual tactics.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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".

Following on from emily_PDX — and this may be the naive question:

Whether anyone has held at a sub-maximal dose long term and kept the result, or whether the maintenance data only exists at 2.4mg?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.