LipidDoc_ATL 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.

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.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

TirzTom said:

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

Coming at TirzTom’s question from a different direction. 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.

Following on from wei_SG — 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?

Reporting back.

Update — I went back to the injectable. Not because the tablet did not work, but because the fasting window and my mornings were never going to agree.