The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Compounds · Oral incretins

Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people — a second dataset

Closed
CO
c.okaforTL3Regular24 Dec 2024#1

Oral semaglutide bioavailability and its variability between people — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

I have seen STEP 4 (JAMA, 2021) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

13 likes 19mo
BO
b.oseiTL2 Moderator24 Dec 2024 · edited#2

This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

1 like 19mo
KR
k.radichTL2 Moderator24 Dec 2024#3

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.

0 likes 19mo
HM
h.mbekiTL2 Moderator24 Dec 2024#4

Why an oral formulation is a formulation achievement: the molecule is the same but the tablet is novel. Getting a peptide across the gastric epithelium at usable bioavailability is a chemistry problem, not a dose problem.

24 likes 19mo
BS
b.solbergTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#5
h.mbeki, post #4: Why an oral formulation is a formulation achievement: the molecule is the same but the tablet is novel. Getting a peptide across the gastric epithelium at usable bioavailability is a chemistry problem, not a dose problem. Go to post

Coming back to post #3, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

11 likes in reply to #4 19mo
MC
m.coelhoTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#6

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.

3 likes 19mo
BV
b.vestergaardTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#7

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

0 likes 19mo
B
BGiordanoTL225 Dec 2024#8
SC
sourced_claimsTL3Regular25 Dec 2024 · edited#9

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.

0 likes 19mo
CC
ch.correiaTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#10

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.

23 likes 19mo
BE
bench_entryTL3Regular25 Dec 2024#11
b.vestergaard, post #7: Two things before anyone answers the substance. First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound. Go to post

This follows post #8 rather than contradicting 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.

10 likes in reply to #7 19mo
BF
b.friskTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#12

I read post #10 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.

23 likes 19mo
V
VPoulsenTL3Regular25 Dec 2024#13

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.

0 likes 19mo
IW
i.wojcikTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#14

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.

1 like 19mo
IL
integrator_logTL3Regular25 Dec 2024#15
BGiordano, post #8: 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. 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.

16 likes in reply to #8 19mo
SS
s.salgadoTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#16

Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original 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.

31 likes 19mo
TK
t.kulkarniTL3Regular25 Dec 2024#17

post #16 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

0 likes 19mo
GO
g.oyelaranTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#18
b.solberg, post #5: Coming back to post #3, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. 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… Go to post

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

3 likes in reply to #5 19mo
F
FairweatherTL2Member25 Dec 2024#19

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.

22 likes 19mo
KB
ka.batistaTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#20
m.coelho, post #6: 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. Go to post

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

0 likes in reply to #6 19mo
K
KForsbergTL2Member25 Dec 2024#21
Fairweather, post #19: 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. Go to post

I read post #19 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

17 likes in reply to #19 19mo
SH
s.hartmannTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#22
integrator_log, post #15: 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. Go to post

This follows post #19 rather than contradicting it.

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.

7 likes in reply to #15 19mo
L
LundqvistTL2Member25 Dec 2024#23

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.

0 likes 19mo
JS
j.solbergTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#24

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.

33 likes 19mo
M
MakinenTL2Member25 Dec 2024#25
ka.batista, post #20: Two things before anyone answers the substance. First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound. 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.

12 likes in reply to #20 19mo
SR
s.radichTL2 Moderator25 Dec 2024#26

Picking up post #23: that is the part I would want checked first.

Why an oral formulation is a formulation achievement: the molecule is the same but the tablet is novel. Getting a peptide across the gastric epithelium at usable bioavailability is a chemistry problem, not a dose problem.

4 likes 19mo
TW
t.waldenstrmTL2Member26 Dec 2024#27

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.

0 likes 19mo
FE
f.espinozaTL2 Moderator26 Dec 2024#28

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

25 likes 19mo
B
BuchholzTL2Member26 Dec 2024#29
h.mbeki, post #4: Why an oral formulation is a formulation achievement: the molecule is the same but the tablet is novel. Getting a peptide across the gastric epithelium at usable bioavailability is a chemistry problem, not a dose problem. Go to post

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.

32 likes in reply to #4 19mo
GD
g.danquahTL2 Moderator26 Dec 2024#30

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.

16 likes 19mo