Pancreatitis history and the risk calculus — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Posting a small dataset on Pancreatitis history. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
Diabetic retinopathy complications: a signal for this was noted in SUSTAIN 6. Current evidence is mixed. The risk is not zero and some caution is appropriate in people with baseline retinopathy.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Pancreatitis history was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Adding the measurement that post #5 says would settle it.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma (personal or family history) or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: absolute contraindication. The rodent preclinical signal is real enough to exclude this population.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Everything in post #5 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The version of Pancreatitis history that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
Confirming post #10 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Worth stating the null on Pancreatitis history before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
A history of pancreatitis appears in the cautions and the decision around it needs somebody who knows the history rather than a general rule.
On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Disordered eating history: appetite suppression can trigger relapse in people with history of anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders. This is a relative contraindication requiring specialist input.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Pancreatitis history: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
This follows post #18 rather than contradicting it.
History of pancreatitis: these compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. History of pancreatitis increases relative risk. That is a relative contraindication, not absolute, but requires monitoring.
The bit of Pancreatitis history that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
Adding the measurement that post #21 says would settle it.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on Pancreatitis history. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
The arithmetic in post #24 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma, or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, is the clearest contraindication in this class and it is specific rather than general.
Post #24 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Reading this Pancreatitis history thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
The number people quote for Pancreatitis history is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
History of pancreatitis: these compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. History of pancreatitis increases relative risk. That is a relative contraindication, not absolute, but requires monitoring.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Contraindications category
Absolute and relative contraindications, and the conditions that change the calculus. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
+6 | 10 | 35k | 14mo |
|
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about a contraindication as written rather than as…
|
+31 | 37 | 709 | 26d |
|
Follow-up: Conditions that change the calculus rather than forbidding it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Conditions that change the calculus rather than forbidding it Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about Conditions in a thread last spring and I…
|
+30 | 34 | 62k | 2y |
|
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. Asking about a contraindication as written…
|
+91 | 96 | 1.3k | 25d |
|
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication — the long version
On the subject in the title: Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Pregnancy, deliberately narrow, because the broad…
|
2 | 5.3k | 14mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Older adults, sarcopenia risk, and the trade-off nobody quantifies — the long version
Older adults, sarcopenia risk, and the trade-off nobody quantifies — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A narrow question about Older adults, deliberately…
|
+64 | 69 | 15k | 7mo |
|
Anxiety in the first weeks: drug, situation, or both — what changed since
Anxiety in the first weeks: drug, situation, or both — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about Anxiety that I actually want…
|
+88 | 95 | 4.5k | 5mo |
|
Documenting an adverse event properly — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Documenting an adverse event properly — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A narrow question about Documenting an adverse event,…
|
+1 | 5 | 4.8k | 14mo |
|
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Pregnancy keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is conditional and…
|
+102 | 106 | 21k | 14mo |
|
Type 1 diabetes: off-label use and the evidence gap — what changed since
Type 1 diabetes: off-label use and the evidence gap — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of Type 1 diabetes is wrong?…
|
+68 | 77 | 31k | 20mo |