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.
Post #57 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Taking post #61 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
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.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
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.
Post #61 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
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.
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.
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.
Picking up post #68: that is the part I would want checked first.
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 holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
On post #70 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
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.
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.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Oral versus injectable exposure: comparing apples to a different fruit — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Something about Oral versus…
|
+27 | 31 | 17k | 25d |
|
Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice — does this still hold? A methods question rather than a substantive one,…
|
+98 | 106 | 3.1k | 10mo |
|
Revisiting: Food effects on oral incretin absorption: what is documented
Revisiting: Food effects on oral incretin absorption: what is documented — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Food effects on oral incretin, from the point of view of someone…
|
+6 | 10 | 51k | 13mo |
|
PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one — does this still hold?
PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Posting a…
|
+23 | 27 | 4.8k | 22mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1
On the subject in the title: Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1 Working notes rather than a conclusion. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on Amylin analogue…
|
+27 | 31 | 671 | 12mo |
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on subgroup analyses, and I…
|
2 | 27k | 1d | |
|
Second pass at: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components
Second pass at: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. The question about Reading a combination trial that I…
|
+39 | 43 | 7.3k | 12mo |
|
Orforglipron as a non-peptide: what changes when the molecule is small
On the subject in the title: Orforglipron as a non-peptide: what changes when the molecule is small Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of orforglipron is wrong? I ask…
|
+26 | 30 | 26k | 23mo |
|
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. A follow-up question about orforglipron phase 2 that I…
|
+80 | 91 | 10k | 11mo |