The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Compounds · Oral incretins

Food effects on oral incretin absorption: what is documented

Solved Under review
Solved by au.pereira in post #3
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

Jump to the accepted answer →

Under review. A claim in this topic has been challenged and a moderator has asked for a source. The status is a label, not a judgement, and it is removed when the source arrives or the claim is withdrawn.
RM
r.mensaTL2 Moderator31 Jan 2025#1

On the subject in the title: Food effects on oral incretin absorption: what is documented Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med, 2022). Please read it before posting; the discussion is much better when everyone has.

The question I would like us to start with is what the trial set out to estimate, rather than what it found. Once that is on the table we can talk about whether the design could have answered it, and only then about the numbers.

Specific things I would like covered: the population and how far it generalises, how discontinuation was handled, whether the comparator was a fair one, and what the absolute rather than relative effect looks like.

I will summarise at the end and the summary will feed the relevant digest page.

10 likes 18mo
RV
r.venkatesanTL3Wiki editor11 May 2025#2

Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

PIONEER 6 was a cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not an efficacy trial. Non-inferiority for safety was demonstrated. The point estimates favoured the drug but the trial was not designed to establish benefit.

14 likes 15mo
AP
au.pereiraTL2 Moderator Solution22 Jul 2025#3
r.venkatesan, post #2: Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. PIONEER 6 was a cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not an efficacy trial. Non-inferiority for safety was demonstrated. The point estimates favoured the drug but the trial was not designed to establish benefit. Go to post

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

29 likes in reply to #2 12mo

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one — does this still hold?
PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Session…
CAMMMLRRM+23 27 4.8k 22mo
Why an oral GLP-1 agonist is a formulation achievement more than a chemistry one
Why an oral GLP-1 agonist is a formulation achievement more than a chemistry one I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparing SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021)…
CCMDBWGRAZ+130 135 11k 7mo
Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice — does this still hold? Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019).…
MVEBATJSI+98 106 3.1k 10mo
SNAC and the mechanism of oral peptide absorption — the long version
SNAC and the mechanism of oral peptide absorption — the long version Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in…
RMMATPBB+32 36 6.8k 16mo
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) cited…
SCSOOFJREF+11 15 17k 24d

Related topics — sharing the tags PIONEER programme, SOUL trial, randomised trial

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Why an oral GLP-1 agonist is a formulation achievement more than a chemistry one
Why an oral GLP-1 agonist is a formulation achievement more than a chemistry one I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparing SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021)…
CCMDBWGRAZ+130 135 11k 7mo
Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press release — one year on
Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press release — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not…
CCCHROAHA+45 50 7.6k 5mo
What TRIUMPH is designed to answer, and why we should not pre-empt it
What TRIUMPH is designed to answer, and why we should not pre-empt it I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in…
NNRNCIHBEK+4 8 142 6h
Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?
Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Session topic: SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…
CGBIBTYSO+62 68 2.6k 29d
Coming back to: The SOUL trial and oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes
The SOUL trial and oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not…
TWBTAMDRM+100 104 4.2k 5mo