[Paper] ACHIEVE-1 glycaemic data vs the injectables
ACHIEVE-1 glycaemic data vs the injectables, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
Why "oral" is doing two completely different jobs in the sentences people write here.
Oral semaglutide is a peptide co-formulated with an absorption enhancer, which is why it comes with food and water timing requirements. This compound is a non-peptide small molecule that activates the same receptor, formulated as an ordinary tablet.
The practical consequences differ enormously: no timing constraints, a conventional manufacturing route, different stability behaviour, and a different analytical problem for anybody trying to verify identity or purity. Whenever a thread here compares the two, check which sense of "oral" each half is using.
Holding off on any opinion until phase 3 reports. That is not a satisfying position and it is the honest one.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Because it is not a peptide, it is not subject to the same degradation pathways, does not require the absorption enhancers used for oral peptides, and can be formulated as a conventional tablet.
Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence. It is a different failure mode, not a solved problem.
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, and the threads keep forgetting it.
Because it is not a peptide, it is not subject to the same degradation pathways, does not require the absorption enhancers used for oral peptides, and
This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.
daily dosing changes adherence in both directions
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
What analytical method was used — this is not the usual peptide assay question?
What analytical method was used — this is not the usual peptide assay question?
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
Correcting myself: that was a phase 2 readout and I described it as phase 3.
identity testing on a small molecule is a different analytical problem
oral semaglutide is a peptide with an absorption enhancer, this is not that
oral semaglutide is a peptide with an absorption enhancer, this is not that
Disagreeing with this bit: daily dosing is a different adherence problem, not a better one.
What did the tolerability table look like at that dose?
- 1daily dosing changes adherence in both directions9 comments in this branch · started by u/zeynep_ndiaye