MASHdoc_SA 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.

JessicaH_TX said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.

MASHdoc_SA said:

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

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out.