What did SURPASS-3 do with participants who could not tolerate a step?

I am asking about the protocol logic rather than about my own case specifically.

This is presented as though it settles something, and I am not convinced it does.

I have two documents that appear to disagree, which is what prompted this.

Which parts of this are informative and which are decoration?

More usefully, what the label says and what the trial protocols permitted are different documents, and the difference is instructive: protocols generally allowed a step to be delayed or reversed for intolerance, and a substantial minority of participants used that provision.

Steady state, worked: with a half-life of about seven days and weekly administration, the accumulation ratio is roughly 1/(1 − 0.5) = 2, and you get to within about 97 per cent of steady state after five half-lives, so around thirty-five days — five weeks — after any dose change. A four-week step interval therefore has you escalating at roughly 94 per cent of the previous dose’s steady state, which is close enough to be sensible and not so close as to be conservative.

Holding at a step for longer than four weeks before escalating does appear to reduce cumulative gastrointestinal burden, which is unsurprising given that adverse events cluster in the one to two weeks after each increase. What it does not do is change where you end up, provided you get there.

The caveat that matters: dose decisions on a licensed medicine belong with a prescriber, and dose decisions on research-use-only material belong to a category where nobody has any obligation to you at all.

The short version: four-week steps because that is steady state, and the ladder is about the side effects, not the result.

Four weeks is not a magic number, it is approximately five half-lives, which is the interval over which a weekly compound reaches steady state after a dose change. Escalating faster means escalating onto a rising concentration.

Where the label ladders differ between agents, the differences track the potency ratio and the tolerability profile rather than anything deeper. It is worth reading the ladders side by side once, because the pattern — small starting dose, four-week steps, a defined maintenance range and a defined maximum — is identical in structure across the class.

The maintenance question turns on what you are maintaining. If the objective is weight maintenance, the withdrawal-extension data suggests that a fraction of the therapeutic dose retains a substantial fraction of the effect. If the objective is the cardiovascular or renal endpoint, the trials that demonstrated those endpoints used the full dose, and extrapolating downward is not supported by anything.

SURMOUNT-1 used a twenty-week escalation of tirzepatide in 2.5 mg increments to maintenance doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg weekly, and reported a clear dose-response across those maintenance levels — which is the closest thing to evidence that the top of the ladder does more than the middle.

I would add that tolerability is not a proxy for benefit. Tolerating a higher dose easily is not evidence that you need one.

Write down in advance what would make you hold a step, because deciding that in the middle of a bad week is not when you are at your most analytical.

For a compound with a seven-day half-life, dose timing is much less consequential than people expect and dose rate is much more consequential.

The argument against splitting a weekly dose is arithmetic rather than ideological. Peak-to-trough ratio for a seven-day half-life compound dosed weekly is about two. Split it into twice-weekly and the ratio falls to roughly 1.4. That is a real reduction in fluctuation and a negligible one in absolute terms, and you have doubled the number of stopper piercings and the number of small-volume measurements, each of which carries its own error.

Read the actual prescribing information for the agent in question. It is short, specific, and more reliable than any summary of it.

edited 19 Sept 2024 by deamidation_watch — added the placebo-arm figures

Answering this requires distinguishing the maximum studied dose from the maximum useful dose. The trials established the former. The latter is a per-person question that the trials were not designed to answer.

Missing a dose by three days on a weekly schedule takes the trough down by less than a factor of 1.35, which is well inside the variation you would see between two on-time weeks. Missing it by five or more days is where the label instructions start to differ between agents, and the reason is how close the next scheduled dose is rather than any mechanistic threshold.

The STEP programme escalated semaglutide over sixteen weeks in four-week steps to 2.4 mg weekly, and the trial-product estimand versus treatment-policy estimand distinction accounts for most of the difference between the figures quoted from those papers.

The limitation of all trial-derived dosing reasoning is that trial populations were selected, monitored and supported in ways that do not resemble anyone reading this.

Escalate on tolerability, hold when it costs you, and do not confuse a flattening curve with a failing drug.

edited 18 Dec 2024 by Dr_Lena_Ostrowska — fixed an arithmetic slip in the third paragraph