What I have: 0.5 mg · dulaglutide.
I would rather over-plan the first cycle and simplify later.
I am prepared to do the work if someone can tell me which work matters.
What is the minimum version of this that is still defensible?
0.5 mg a week is 0.071 mg a day averaged out and 26 mg over a year — but "defensible" is not a property of the number, it is a property of where the number came from. A maintenance dose is defensible when a trial randomised people to it and reported what happened, and indefensible when it was arrived at by interpolation between two doses that were studied. So the question to ask of 0.5 mg is which arm it corresponds to: if a programme ran 0.5 mg as a maintenance level, there is an efficacy figure, a tolerability figure and a discontinuation rate attached to it. If it sits between two studied levels, everything said about it is extrapolation, and the burden of that is on whoever proposed it. The other half of the arithmetic is supply: at 0.5 mg a week a 10 mg vial is 20 weeks and you will need about 3 of them a year, which is worth knowing before the dose is settled rather than after. Maintenance doses are set by a prescriber against an individual; nothing here is medical advice.
The relevant observation is that maintenance frequently requires less exposure than the loss phase did, and the trials suggest it rather than establish it.
Glycaemic maintenance has a faster and cleaner signal than weight maintenance, particularly with continuous monitoring, which makes the downward search more tractable when glycaemia is the endpoint.
| Week | Fraction of steady state | Trough as × dose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50 % | 0.50 |
| 2 | 75 % | 0.75 |
| 3 | 88 % | 0.88 |
| 4 | 94 % | 0.94 |
| 5 | 97 % | 0.97 |
| 6 | 98 % | 0.98 |
This is why a four-week step interval is approximately, but not exactly, steady state.
The part that matters: a downward search proceeds one step at a time with at least eight weeks at each level, because a weekly agent takes four to five weeks to reach the new steady state and then needs time for the trend to be readable.
The counter-regulatory hormonal response to weight loss persists for at least a year after the loss, which is the physiological reason maintenance needs something rather than nothing.
The caveat is that dose reduction is a clinical decision and this is a description of a search strategy rather than a recommendation.
Glycaemic maintenance gives a faster signal than weight maintenance.
edited 13 Jun 2025 by esben_lykke — added the citation requested in comments
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsThe short version: reach a working dose, hold it, and then consider whether less would hold it just as well.
Gastrointestinal tolerability generally improves on a reduced dose, which is a genuine quality-of-life argument for the search rather than only a cost one.
The maintenance dose is not necessarily the same a year later, since the counter-regulatory response attenuates slowly if at all.
Dose-response for weight in the trial programmes was real but flattening at the upper end, which is consistent with a lower maintenance requirement.
A noisy weight signal makes premature conclusions easy, in both directions.
The withdrawal trials answer stopping, not reducing. Different questions.
It helps to be literal here: any reduction takes four to five weeks to express itself, so the search proceeds in months.
If the result deteriorates on a lower dose, returning to the previous one is straightforward and does not require re-titration from the bottom provided the gap has been short.
Weight is a noisy signal. A rolling four-week average is the instrument; single weigh-ins after a dose reduction will show nothing interpretable.
Inference from the withdrawal trials to dose reduction is inference and should be labelled as such.
Search downward, one step, eight weeks each, on a rolling average.
This is a question the trial programmes answered only partially, and it is worth saying which parts are evidenced.
Maintenance and loss are different endpoints. Loss requires a sustained energy deficit; maintenance requires only that the counter-regulatory drive is offset, and that may need less exposure.
STEP-4 and SURMOUNT-4 evaluated withdrawal rather than dose reduction, which is the limit of the direct evidence on this question.
The lowest dose that holds the result is the answer, and it is individual.
The honest answer is that the maintenance dose is individual and that the search for it is slow because the feedback is slow.
The withdrawal trials — STEP-4 and SURMOUNT-4 — established what happens when treatment stops entirely. They did not evaluate dose reduction, so the evidence for a lower maintenance dose is inference rather than data.
Gastrointestinal adverse event rates in the trials are dose-related, which supports the tolerability argument for the lowest effective dose.
Nothing here is medical advice, and research-use compounds are not approved for human use.
Going back up after a short gap does not require re-titrating from the bottom.
edited 15 Mar 2025 by m_haraldsen — removed a claim I could not source
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.