The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

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

Whether the fasting requirement is as strict in practice as the label implies, and what people actually see when they get it wrong?

Dr.PulmRoch said:

A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

Reporting back.

I moved the tablet to the moment I wake up rather than trying to fit it around breakfast, and the difference in the following weeks was obvious. It was a timing problem, not a dose problem.

NurseKim_ATL said:

The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

NurseKim_ATL has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Worth adding that the tablet is taken daily, so a missed dose costs far less than a missed weekly injection. That is a genuine advantage nobody lists.