f.haddad, post #20: Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking. Go to post
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Compounds · Oral incretins · continued
Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
k.brandl_de, post #27: Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it. Go to post
PIONEER 6 was a cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not an efficacy trial. Non-inferiority for safety was demonstrated. The point estimates favoured the drug but the trial was not designed to establish benefit.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Building on post #32 rather than restating 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.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
1 like 2mo
Post #30 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
7 likes 2mo
c.haddad, post #26: 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. Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first. Go to post
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.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
I read post #34 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
33 likes 2mo
Taking post #36 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
0 likes 2mo
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.
3 likes 2mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #36 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
25 likes 1mo
KForsberg, post #31: Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding. Go to post
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
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.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
8 likes 1mo
Coming back to post #42, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
0 likes 1mo
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.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
0 likes 1mo
s.coelho, post #30: Narrowing post #29, because the general version has more than one answer. 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… Go to post
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
I read post #43 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
0 likes 1mo
Post #47 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
28 likes 1mo
Post hidden by community flags
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The claim about a named supplier was not accompanied by a batch, a date, a method or a document, which R6 requires.
Answering the question post #47 raises rather than the one it answers.
PIONEER programme is phase 3 for oral semaglutide. The trials cover multiple indications and durations. Reading them requires attention to which trial is which because they are not all the same question.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
j.delacroix, post #45: 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. It took me longer than it should have to see that. Go to post
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.
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.
21 likes 1mo
Post #51 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The absorption enhancer in the licensed oral product works by transiently raising local gastric pH and promoting absorption across the mucosa. It is the reason the fasting and water-volume instructions are specific rather than cautious.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
0 likes 1mo
Where I part company with post #52, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
2 likes 1mo
The arithmetic in post #54 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
14 likes 1mo
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.
29 likes 1mo
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 one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
0 likes 1mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
k.vanhecke, post #40: This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part. Go to post
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.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
ka.batista, post #54: Where I part company with post #52, and it is a narrow parting. 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. Go to post
Worth separating two things that post #56 runs together.
The absorption enhancer in the licensed oral product works by transiently raising local gastric pH and promoting absorption across the mucosa. It is the reason the fasting and water-volume instructions are specific rather than cautious.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.