VanRx_Mike said:Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.
Lp(a) and cardiovascular risk: a nuance that matters. Unlike most lipid markers, Lp(a) is 90%+ genetically determined and doesn't really change with weight loss or GLP-1 therapy.
My Lp(a) has remained at 65 nmol/L across all time points. If yours is elevated (>50 nmol/L), you need additional risk mitigation strategies regardless of your GLP-1 response. Don't assume your medication is covering all cardiovascular risk factors.
carl_compliance said:I'm 62 years old and want to share my perspective on cardiovascular risk as an older member of this community.
Pushing back on carl_compliance here. The affordability discussion here usually stops at individual tactics. At list price this class is out of reach for most of the people who would benefit, and no amount of appeal strategy changes that — it is a pricing problem wearing a paperwork costume.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsHealthEcon_DC said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
SUSTAIN-6 was the first CVOT to show cardiovascular benefit with semaglutide, relevant to cardiovascular risk. In 3,297 T2DM patients with high CV risk: MACE HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.95, p=0.02)[1].
Notable: the retinopathy signal in SUSTAIN-6 (HR 1.76) was subsequently attributed to rapid A1C reduction in patients with pre-existing retinopathy — not a direct drug effect. This has been confirmed in longer-term follow-up studies.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.