The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Pregnancy and breastfeeding are the clearest cases where the answer is that the trials excluded them and the labelling reflects that exclusion. Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Second pass at: Pregnancy and pregnancy planning: contraindication and washout Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Something about Pregnancy and pregnancy planning does not reconcile and I would like a second pair of eyes before I decide which half is wrong.
Two sources, both reputable, giving figures that cannot both be right unless they are measuring different quantities. My suspicion is that they are, and I cannot see how.
Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Pregnancy and pregnancy planning looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Pregnancy and breastfeeding are the clearest cases where the answer is that the trials excluded them and the labelling reflects that exclusion.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Where I would push back on the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Confirming post #5 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Having read the whole Pregnancy and pregnancy planning thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma history: an absolute contraindication because of the preclinical findings in rodent toxicology. The history (personal or family, especially multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2) is an important screening question.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
The practical version of Pregnancy and pregnancy planning is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Post #11 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.
I read post #12 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I would keep Pregnancy and pregnancy planning and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.
On post #16 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Pregnancy and pregnancy planning is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.
Confirming post #21 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The version of Pregnancy and pregnancy planning that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Post #21 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Pregnancy and planning: these compounds are not approved for use in pregnancy. Planning windows (how long to wait before attempting pregnancy) are not formally established. Conservative approaches wait several months to allow clearance.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
I have been on both sides of the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Answering the question post #25 raises rather than the one it answers.
The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
Second this, and I would have said it less carefully.