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 and I would like a second pair of eyes before I decide which half is wrong.
Two sources, both reputable, giving figures that cannot both be right unless they are measuring different quantities. My suspicion is that they are, and I cannot see how.
On variability: the between-person spread in exposure for oral semaglutide is wide enough that two people on the same dose can have quite different plasma concentrations. That is inherent to the absorption route.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Taking the oral product with more water than instructed reduces absorption rather than helping it. That is counter-intuitive and it is one of the few dosing instructions in this field with a clear pharmacokinetic basis.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
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.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
Timing consistency matters more for oral dosing than for weekly injection, because absorption depends on the state of the stomach and the state of the stomach varies through the day.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
Everything in post #3 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Anyone comparing published oral and injectable efficacy should check whether the comparison is within one trial or across two. Across two, the populations differ and the comparison is weak.
Narrowing post #7, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Dose equivalence between oral and injectable formulations is not a simple conversion and no published factor should be used as one. The two were developed and titrated separately.
This follows post #7 rather than contradicting it.
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.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
Post #12 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
I read post #10 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Fasting instructions are not optional advice. Taking the tablet with food or with more than a sip of water measurably reduces absorption. This is the one compound in the class where the instructions genuinely determine the exposure.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Storage for a small molecule is a different problem from storage for a peptide: generally more robust, generally less temperature-sensitive, and generally more affected by humidity.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
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.
Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Orforglipron is a small molecule, not a peptide. That changes almost everything: no absorption enhancer required, no fasting window, chemical synthesis instead of peptide synthesis, different analytical methods entirely. Data from peptide agonists does not transfer.
Building on post #16 rather than restating it.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Post #18 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
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.
The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.
Picking up post #19: that is the part I would want checked first.
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 shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Oral incretins category
Oral semaglutide, orforglipron and the absorption problem. PIONEER and OASIS data. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author…
|
4 | 6.2k | 20d | |
|
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. Question about what the published evidence for this…
|
+32 | 36 | 6.8k | 16mo |
|
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 |
|
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. Posting a small dataset on Dose…
|
+48 | 52 | 59k | 18mo |
|
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 What changes if the standard account of oral semaglutide is wrong? I…
|
2 | 61k | 14mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules
Interim analyses and stopping rules Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about interim analyses and stopping rules on behalf of the question I keep seeing…
|
+25 | 29 | 35k | 16d |
|
Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper
On the subject in the title: Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper Working notes rather than a conclusion. CagriSema phase 2 combination paper — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
2 | 329 | 21h | |
|
Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked
Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to work out what would count as…
|
+122 | 131 | 5.2k | just now |
|
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints — does this still hold?
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A narrow question about semaglutide…
|
3 | 28k | 6mo | |
|
The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since
The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of c-cell question…
|
+61 | 65 | 1.3k | 22mo |