LibrarianMeg said:SURMOUNT-1 landed around 20.9% mean weight loss at 15mg over 72 weeks, against roughly 15% for semaglutide 2.4mg in STEP 1.
My insurance denied my PA related to cost and coverage. Has anyone successfully appealed? I'm considering going compounded instead.
matt_MKE said:Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
LibrarianMeg said:SURMOUNT-1 landed around 20.9% mean weight loss at 15mg over 72 weeks, against roughly 15% for semaglutide 2.4mg in STEP 1.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me. It is better on mean weight loss, and the cardiovascular outcome evidence is far thinner than semaglutide's. If the reason for treating is cardiovascular risk rather than weight, the evidence base points the other way.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsB12Beth 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…
B12Beth said:...compounded vs brand cost and coverage...
This debate comes up weekly and I think both sides have valid points:
Pro-brand: FDA-approved, manufacturing standards guaranteed, clinical trial data directly applicable
Pro-compounded: 10x cost savings, same active molecule, independent testing available, accessibility
My position: if you can afford brand or have insurance coverage, that's the gold standard. If not, properly tested compounded from a 503B pharmacy is a reasonable alternative. Neither side should shame the other.