The Netherlands declines to reimburse exenatide outside a specialist service
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Page 76 of 170 of this archive, newest first.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
Follow the resin, not the catalogue.
Real-world persistence figures, with their definitions stated, because the definitions are doing most of the work.
We set out the parameters a method disclosure would contain, all of which are known to whoever ran the sample and none of which is commercially sensitive.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
Deviation from the printed ladder is not non-compliance. In this class it is the modal behaviour of competent prescribing.
The intervention with the clearest evidence is the one nobody frames as an intervention: adjusting the dose.
A result on one vial generalises to a batch only if the vial was drawn in a way that makes it representative — and nobody records how it was drawn.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Follow the resin, not the catalogue.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
Where the curve flattens, what flattens with it, and what does not.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The observation that closes a facility is rarely the dramatic one.
The evidence on stopping is better than the evidence on almost anything else in this field, because somebody deliberately randomised it.
Parts per million sound impressive until they are converted into daltons at the molecular weight of the thing being measured.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
The result is unremarkable. What the report omits is not.
The observation that closes a facility is rarely the dramatic one.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
Where two methods disagree, the conservative convention is to report the lower figure. It is not universal, and whether a laboratory follows it belongs on the report.
The receptor populations that produce satiety and the ones that produce nausea overlap substantially. That is why the ceiling of this drug class is where it is, and it is…
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.