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.
Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice — does this still hold?
post #28 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.
post #33 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Coming back to post #40, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Picking up post #64: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #73 runs together.
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 #80 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
Read the full topic (107 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- SNAC and the mechanism of oral peptide absorptionCompounds › Oral incretins · 17 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) cited in…
|
+44 | 48 | 574 | 3mo |
|
Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones — a second dataset
Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl…
|
+48 | 52 | 59k | 18mo |
|
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in support of…
|
+59 | 65 | 61k | 7mo |
|
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — what changed since
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — what changed since Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before…
|
2 | 61k | 14mo | |
|
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…
|
+32 | 36 | 6.8k | 16mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags orforglipron, SOUL trial, PIONEER programme
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data?
Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Session topic: SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015). Please read it…
|
+5 | 9 | 13k | 25d |
|
Follow-up: Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not
Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) with SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) and…
|
+22 | 26 | 397 | 16mo |
|
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…
|
+45 | 50 | 7.6k | 5mo |
|
Run-in periods and the population they select
On the subject in the title: Run-in periods and the population they select Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+130 | 142 | 7.3k | 1mo |
|
Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long version
On the subject in the title: Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+85 | 90 | 13k | 7mo |