🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsCardiovascular OutcomesSELECT cost-effectiveness — 6 month update Page 3

SELECT cost-effectiveness — 6 month update

PeptideChemSF Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:10 PM 14 replies 2,150 viewsPage 3 of 3
MikeNYC_runner
Member
378
1,678
Jul 2024
New York, NY
Jun 12, 2024 at 10:25 PM#11
Dr.RaviCardio said:
SELECT cost-effectiveness 6 month is not that straightforward in my experience

This is exactly right. Dr.RaviCardio articulated what I have been trying to explain to my friends for months. The SELECT cost-effectiveness aspect is what made the difference for me.

Last edited: Jun 13, 2024 at 12:25 AM
22 2PedsEndoPhilly, SleepDoc_PDX, RegAffairsDC and 19 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
BethLabQueen
Senior Member
1,234
5,678
May 2024
Virginia
Online
Jun 12, 2024 at 10:42 PM#12

Reading this thread on SELECT cost-effectiveness hits close to home. Dad of 2 checking in — I started at 265 lbs and felt like I would tried everything.

11 months on tirz and I am a different person. Not just the 40 lbs lost — my energy, my mood, my relationship with food. All transformed.

If you are on the fence about SELECT cost-effectiv — take the leap. It was the best health decision I have ever made. ❤️

33 23Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona, stefan_berlin and 30 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
sophie_paris
Member
212
890
Nov 2024
Paris, FR
Jun 12, 2024 at 10:59 PM#13

jim_asheville — that is really helpful context on SELECT cost-effectiveness. Follow-up question: how long did you wait before increasing your dose?

I am in a similar situation (week 4) and trying to set realistic expectations.

Last edited: Jun 13, 2024 at 3:59 AM
34 8MariaRD, AussieAnna, BethLabQueen and 31 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.NateNeph
VIP Member
2,987
16,234
Dec 2023
Houston, TX
Jun 12, 2024 at 11:16 PM#14

To answer BethLabQueen's question specifically:

From a clinical standpoint, SELECT cost-effectiveness 6 is a reasonable concern that deserves a thorough answer.

The short answer: the evidence supports this approach for most patients.

The longer answer involves reviewing the specific clinical trial data relevant to your question, which I am happy to elaborate on if helpful.

14 19B12Beth, RickReta_CO, PharmHunterJen and 11 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.LipidDallas
VIP Member
2,678
14,567
Dec 2023
Dallas, TX
Jun 12, 2024 at 11:33 PM#15

Bookmarked 📌 The SELECT cost-effectiv info in this thread is essential. Coming back to this for sure.

12 20Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona, stefan_berlin and 9 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

SELECT trial: 20% MACE reduction — mechanistic deep dive7 replies
Semaglutide cardiovascular benefit independent of weight loss11 replies
STEP-HFpEF: semaglutide in heart failure with preserved EF15 replies
GLP-1 and arterial inflammation — hsCRP and IL-6 reduction data18 replies
Lp(a) on GLP-1 agonists — any impact on this risk factor?8 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register