Let’s say you had a 4% cardiovascular risk and it went down by 18% after 3 years use. It is now at 4*.82=3.28 A significant drop. It goes up 4% quitting for six months. 3.28*1.04=3.411. I wouldn’t call that erasing “much” of the protection in any but a strained use of the word. If you continue to quit for two full years, it raises 22%. 3.28*1.22=4.0016. So, basically it’s as if you never took GLP-1s at all. Quitting GLP-1s statistically erase cardiovascular benefits after two years of cessation, but doesn’t raise it higher than before taking them. I fear some who are experiencing known side effects will misconstrue this information when doing a cost benefit analysis of stopping or even worse may fear starting them at all.
The article makes it seem like that stopping GLP-1s for a six months erases most, if not close to all, of the cardio vascular benefits rather than about 18% of the benefits. The next statement seems to aim to be interpreted as showing cardiovascular risks of stopping GLP-1s is greater than never having taken them at all, but the numbers don’t. I understand that Dr. Al-Aly is trying to advocate for the continued use of GLP-1s because at least some of the health benefits are reliant on such and perhaps he is using this method to pressure insurance companies to approve longer and more varied use of GLP-1s, but it seemed like a strange way to present a study’s finding until I noticed it was on a financial news site where this might also impact stock prices.
= new reply since forum marked as read