Dr.PeteFamMed said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Pushing back on Dr.PeteFamMed here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.