james_edin said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The trials generally allowed a step to be held or reduced and then retried, and people who did that mostly arrived at the same place a few weeks later. The end point of the ladder is set by tolerability, not by a schedule, and there is no evidence that reaching the top faster produces a better outcome.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What the trials actually did with participants who could not tolerate a step, because that is the situation I am in and the protocol summaries skip it?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFDA_TrackerJim said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
FDA_TrackerJim said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.