mike_nyc said:

The OASIS programme put 50mg oral in the same territory as 2.4mg injectable — around 15% mean weight loss — but it needed a dose 20 times larger to…

I do not accept that the fasting window is a minor inconvenience. Adherence data on daily orals with timing requirements is consistently worse than weekly injections, and a drug you take imperfectly is a lower dose than the one on the box.

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.

Dr.MetabolicMD said:

I do not accept that the fasting window is a minor inconvenience.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

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

How much of the oral variability is the SNAC absorption window and how much is dose, because the two get conflated constantly?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Follow-up: moving the tablet to the moment I wake, before anything else, was the whole fix. The dose never changed.