Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma — what changed since posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Narrowing post #31, because the general version has more than one answer.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Post #31 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
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.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Worth separating two things that post #35 runs together.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
This follows post #35 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
Coming back to post #35, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
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.
Narrowing post #40, because the general version has more than one answer.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Everything in post #38 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
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.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
I read post #42 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
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.
That is all I can say without guessing.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
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.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
Post #49 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Adding the measurement that post #49 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.
One case, stated as one case.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
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.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
Picking up post #54: that is the part I would want checked first.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
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.
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.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.