[Lab] 15th independent test on WXT — 99.4% on a claimed 98.5%, and the trend is the interesting part
15th independent test on WXT — 99.4% on a claimed 98.5%, and the trend is the interesting part, and before anyone asks: same batch throughout, single submission, no cherry-picking between services.
99.4% and 98.5% — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
- WXWXT source pageWuXi TIDES (WuXi AppTec Testing Division) · Wuxi · 92% here, rank 14 · shop at wuxitides.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
What is actually known, and what is being assumed.
Known: it is a small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, dosed daily, with clinical programmes reporting in both obesity and type 2 diabetes. Its tolerability profile broadly resembles the class in the data published so far.
Assumed, frequently and confidently: that milligram comparisons with injectables mean something, that adherence is straightforwardly better because it is a tablet, that peptide purity discussions transfer to it. None of those hold. And nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere, which makes research-use-only material exactly that — not approved for human use.
Yes. Oral peptide with an absorption enhancer and oral small molecule are completely different propositions.
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
Disagree.
Disagreeing with this bit: daily dosing is a different adherence problem, not a better one.
Holding off on any opinion until phase 3 reports. That is not a satisfying position and it is the honest one.
Phase 2 or phase 3?
Milligram-for-milligram comparison with an injectable peptide is not meaningful and I should not have made it.
Same view. The analytical problem is different enough that the usual purity discussions here do not transfer cleanly.
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, and the threads keep forgetting it.
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely.
This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
the manufacturing story is genuinely different from the injectables
Oral semaglutide is a peptide co-formulated with an absorption enhancer and carries food and water timing requirements. A small molecule does not have that constraint, which is the practical distinction.
small molecule, not a peptide, and that changes everything about it
Is that from the publication or the press release?
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
It is a non-peptide small-molecule agonist at the GLP-1 receptor. That is a substantial medicinal chemistry achievement: getting a small molecule to activate a receptor evolved for a peptide ligand.
What did the tolerability table look like at that dose?
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.
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
Are you comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide?
Analytically this is a small-molecule identity and purity problem, not a peptide one. The methods, the impurity classes and the reference standards are all different.
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
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
- 1What is actually known, and what is being assumed. Known: it is a…9 comments in this branch · started by u/preservative_free_p
- 2Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.9 comments in this branch · started by u/phase_two_pete