Subcutaneous absorption kinetics and site differences

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

Renal clearance: these compounds are cleared partly via the kidney. In severe renal impairment, clearance is slowed and accumulation risk is higher. Dose adjustments might be needed.

This follows post #2 rather than contradicting it.

Bioavailability: oral semaglutide has low bioavailability (roughly 1%) due to peptide instability. That is why the oral dose (14 mg) is so much larger than the injectable dose. Comparing them by mass is meaningless.

SNAC (the oral bioavailability enhancer): sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino) caprylate transiently raises gastric pH and promotes absorption. Without it, oral bioavailability is too low for clinical use. With it, bioavailability is still variable between people.

post #4 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.

On post #2 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Half-life: semaglutide ≈ 165–184 hours (about a week). Tirzepatide ≈ 5 days. Liraglutide ≈ 13 hours. The half-life determines how much accumulation happens at steady state and how long it takes to clear after stopping.

Hepatic metabolism: the degree to which each compound is hepatically metabolised versus renally cleared is known but varies. Severe liver disease changes clearance.

Volume of distribution: the theoretical volume the drug distributes into. For albumin-binding compounds, volume is reduced compared to drugs that do not bind protein. That is relevant to understanding how much free drug is available.

post #8 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Individual variation: people vary in how quickly they absorb, distribute, metabolise, and excrete these compounds. That variation is partly genetic and partly due to individual biology (gut motility, kidney and liver function). It explains why two people on the same dose have different response magnitudes.

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.

I read post #9 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Accumulation at steady state: with a week-long half-life, steady-state concentration is reached around 4 to 5 half-lives (about 4 to 5 weeks). Before that, concentration is rising with each dose. The clinical implication: escalating before 4 weeks means escalating before steady state.

Albumin binding: semaglutide binds albumin through a fatty side chain, which sequesters the free form and extends the half-life. Tirzepatide also has albumin binding (different mechanism) which extends its half-life compared to an unmodified peptide.

Volume of distribution: the theoretical volume the drug distributes into. For albumin-binding compounds, volume is reduced compared to drugs that do not bind protein. That is relevant to understanding how much free drug is available.

post #13 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.