This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Everything in post #27 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
PIONEER 6 is the cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide and it enrolled a diabetes population at high cardiovascular risk. Quoting it outside that population is an extrapolation.
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.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
Oral semaglutide's bioavailability is low and variable, which is why the dose numbers are an order of magnitude different from the injectable. That is a formulation consequence and not a difference in potency.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Missed doses behave differently for a daily oral than for a weekly injection. With a short interval you are near a trough rather than perturbing a slowly moving average, and the labelling reflects that.
For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.
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.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Tablet integrity matters more than people expect for a formulation that depends on an absorption enhancer released at a particular place. Splitting or crushing is not a dose adjustment; it is a different product.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
The practical argument for an oral is adherence, and the published adherence data is less flattering than the argument. Daily dosing with fasting requirements is not obviously easier than a weekly injection.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
Research-use-only oral material is not a licensed tablet and there is no reason to assume it carries a functioning absorption-enhancement system at all. The formulation is most of the product here.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Narrowing post #40, because the general version has more than one answer.
Orforglipron is a small molecule rather than a peptide, which changes almost everything about how it is made, stored and analysed. Comparing it to oral semaglutide as though they were the same pharmaceutical problem is a category error.
Everything in post #43 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
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.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
The gastrointestinal tolerability profile of the oral formulation is broadly similar in character to the injectable, which supports the effects being systemic rather than local irritation.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
The arithmetic in post #44 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The thirty-minute wait before eating is not conservatism. Food in the stomach materially reduces absorption of the oral product, and the instruction exists because the pharmacokinetic studies measured how much.
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.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
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.
That is all I can say without guessing.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one
PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on PIONEER 6 cardiovascular…
|
+25 | 29 | 22k | 1d |
|
Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people — a second dataset
Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Oral semaglutide…
|
+141 | 154 | 47k | 19mo |
|
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. Reading back through what has been written here about oral…
|
+59 | 65 | 61k | 7mo |
|
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading back through what has been written here…
|
+11 | 15 | 17k | 24d |
|
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about oral versus injectable exposure does not reconcile…
|
+19 | 23 | 332 | 8mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Nausea profile of amylin analogues compared with GLP-1 agonists
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Nausea profile of amylin analogues compared with GLP-1 agonists Everything below is what sits behind that. Nausea profile of amylin analogues — I have the…
|
+48 | 53 | 31k | 13mo |
|
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading back through what has been written here…
|
+11 | 15 | 17k | 24d |
|
Food effects on oral incretin absorption: what is documented
On the subject in the title: Food effects on oral incretin absorption: what is documented Working notes rather than a conclusion. Food effects on oral incretin, from the point of view of someone who has read…
|
2 | 4.4k | 12mo | |
|
Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters — one year on
On the subject in the title: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Primary endpoint hierarchies that I did not…
|
+56 | 61 | 37k | 11h |
|
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about oral versus injectable exposure does not reconcile…
|
+19 | 23 | 332 | 8mo |