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 · continued

Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people — a second dataset posts 91–120

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

FK
f.kimaniTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#91
b.vestergaard, post #7: Two things before anyone answers the substance. First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound. Go to post

Why an oral formulation is a formulation achievement: the molecule is the same but the tablet is novel. Getting a peptide across the gastric epithelium at usable bioavailability is a chemistry problem, not a dose problem.

23 likes in reply to #7 19mo
TV
t.vasquezTL4 Moderator28 Dec 2024#92

I read post #90 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

0 likes 19mo
MR
m.rasmussenTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#93

post #92 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

1 like 19mo
ZO
z.onwukaTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#94
c.chowdhury, post #80: Worth separating two things that post #76 runs together. Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones. The 14 mg oral dose is not equivalent to any injectable dose in the traditional comparison sense. They are different formulations with different pharmacokinetics and cannot be put on the same scale. Go to post

Orforglipron is a small molecule, not a peptide. That changes almost everything: no absorption enhancer required, no fasting window, chemical synthesis instead of peptide synthesis, different analytical methods entirely. Data from peptide agonists does not transfer.

6 likes in reply to #80 19mo
RB
r.bakkenTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#95

Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing a 14 mg oral dose with a 0.5 mg injectable dose is comparing apples to a different fruit. The oral bioavailability is low enough that dose numbers are an order of magnitude different and not directly comparable.

31 likes 19mo
NR
n.rowntreeTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#96

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

0 likes 19mo
JP
j.petrovTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#97

post #96 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

The SOUL trial: cardiovascular outcomes trial for oral semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease. It demonstrates that benefit appears to be a property of the molecule and exposure, not specific to the route.

3 likes 19mo
CR
compounding_ruthTL4Pharmacist28 Dec 2024 · edited#98
compounding_ruth, post #73: 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

On post #94 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones. The 14 mg oral dose is not equivalent to any injectable dose in the traditional comparison sense. They are different formulations with different pharmacokinetics and cannot be put on the same scale.

10 likes in reply to #73 19mo
P
PSkarbekTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#99

This follows post #96 rather than contradicting it.

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.

11 likes 19mo
TA
t.abubakarTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#100

PIONEER programme is phase 3 for oral semaglutide. The trials cover multiple indications and durations. Reading them requires attention to which trial is which because they are not all the same question.

24 likes 19mo
KB
k.brandl_deTL3Translator · DE28 Dec 2024#101
ka.batista, post #20: Two things before anyone answers the substance. First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound. Go to post

Trial adherence in an oral trial with strict administration requirements is genuinely worse than trial-published data often suggests. That is why the exposure variability in oral formulations is mentioned repeatedly in the discussions here.

4 likes in reply to #20 19mo
AN
a.nascimentoTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#102

I read post #100 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

SNAC is the sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino) caprylate, an absorption enhancer that transiently raises local pH in the stomach and promotes gastric mucosal absorption. Without it, oral bioavailability of semaglutide would be too low for clinically useful dosing.

12 likes 19mo
AK
a.kowalczykTL2Regular28 Dec 2024#103

Oral bioavailability is variable between people. Some people absorb well; others absorb poorly. That inter-individual variation is larger than with injectables and is one reason the trial data for oral formulations receives different treatment.

0 likes 19mo
MA
m.almeidaTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#104

PIONEER programme is phase 3 for oral semaglutide. The trials cover multiple indications and durations. Reading them requires attention to which trial is which because they are not all the same question.

0 likes 19mo
PN
plateau_notesTL2Regular28 Dec 2024#105
ch.correia, post #10: Trial adherence in an oral trial with strict administration requirements is genuinely worse than trial-published data often suggests. That is why the exposure variability in oral formulations is mentioned repeatedly in the discussions here. Go to post

Oral bioavailability is variable between people. Some people absorb well; others absorb poorly. That inter-individual variation is larger than with injectables and is one reason the trial data for oral formulations receives different treatment.

7 likes in reply to #10 19mo
YI
y.ibarraTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024 · edited#106
ar.kravchenko, post #34: Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing. The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough. Go to post

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

17 likes in reply to #34 19mo
OL
o.lindgrenTL2Regular28 Dec 2024#107

post #106 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Why an oral formulation is a formulation achievement: the molecule is the same but the tablet is novel. Getting a peptide across the gastric epithelium at usable bioavailability is a chemistry problem, not a dose problem.

0 likes 19mo
NV
n.vukovicTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#108

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.

1 like 19mo
R
RidgewayTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#109

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.

0 likes 19mo
ZA
z.adeyemiTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#110
t.nardone, post #69: PIONEER programme is phase 3 for oral semaglutide. The trials cover multiple indications and durations. Reading them requires attention to which trial is which because they are not all the same question. Go to post

Fasting instructions are not optional advice. Taking the tablet with food or with more than a sip of water measurably reduces absorption. This is the one compound in the class where the instructions genuinely determine the exposure.

4 likes in reply to #69 19mo
AS
a.stephanopoulosTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#111

Worth separating two things that post #107 runs together.

Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing a 14 mg oral dose with a 0.5 mg injectable dose is comparing apples to a different fruit. The oral bioavailability is low enough that dose numbers are an order of magnitude different and not directly comparable.

1 like 19mo
LC
l.cabreraTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#112

Orforglipron is a small molecule, not a peptide. That changes almost everything: no absorption enhancer required, no fasting window, chemical synthesis instead of peptide synthesis, different analytical methods entirely. Data from peptide agonists does not transfer.

0 likes 19mo
O
OkaforTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#113
i.amankwah, post #70: Trial adherence in an oral trial with strict administration requirements is genuinely worse than trial-published data often suggests. That is why the exposure variability in oral formulations is mentioned repeatedly in the discussions here. Go to post

Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones. The 14 mg oral dose is not equivalent to any injectable dose in the traditional comparison sense. They are different formulations with different pharmacokinetics and cannot be put on the same scale.

17 likes in reply to #70 19mo
FI
f.ibarraTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024 · edited#114

This follows post #111 rather than contradicting it.

The SOUL trial: cardiovascular outcomes trial for oral semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease. It demonstrates that benefit appears to be a property of the molecule and exposure, not specific to the route.

7 likes 19mo
ID
integrator_draftTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#115

On post #111 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Why administration conditions matter for oral semaglutide and not for injectables: the oral formulation depends on a transient pH effect in the stomach. Anything that changes gastric pH or transit time changes absorption. Food does both.

0 likes 19mo
NS
n.szaboTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#116

post #115 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

33 likes 19mo
VK
v.klausenTL3Regular28 Dec 2024#117
a.asante, post #60: Coming back to post #58, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing a 14 mg oral dose with a 0.5 mg injectable dose is comparing apples to a different fruit. The oral bioavailability is low enough that dose numbers are an order of magnitude different and not directly comparable. Go to post

Trial adherence in an oral trial with strict administration requirements is genuinely worse than trial-published data often suggests. That is why the exposure variability in oral formulations is mentioned repeatedly in the discussions here.

11 likes in reply to #60 19mo
YR
y.ramosTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#118
cannula_trace, post #35: The SOUL trial: cardiovascular outcomes trial for oral semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease. It demonstrates that benefit appears to be a property of the molecule and exposure, not specific to the route. Go to post

SNAC is the sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino) caprylate, an absorption enhancer that transiently raises local pH in the stomach and promotes gastric mucosal absorption. Without it, oral bioavailability of semaglutide would be too low for clinically useful dosing.

3 likes in reply to #35 19mo
IL
integrator_logTL3Regular28 Dec 2024 · edited#119

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

6 likes 19mo
FL
f.lindholmTL2 Moderator28 Dec 2024#120
b.vestergaard, post #7: Two things before anyone answers the substance. First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound. Go to post

Why administration conditions matter for oral semaglutide and not for injectables: the oral formulation depends on a transient pH effect in the stomach. Anything that changes gastric pH or transit time changes absorption. Food does both.

1 like in reply to #7 19mo