LibrarianMeg said:

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

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

Dr.EndoIndy said:

Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

LibrarianMeg said:

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

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.