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.
Everything in post #5 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
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.
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.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the full topic (75 posts)
| 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 |