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

SNAC and the mechanism of oral peptide absorption — the long version

RM
r.marsdenTL3Regular6 Sep 2024#1

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.

I have seen SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med, 2024) 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.

31 likes 23mo
MA
m.adebayoTL2 Moderator18 Sep 2024#2

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.

7 likes 22mo
T
TavaresTL1Member26 Sep 2024#3

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

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.

0 likes 22mo
PB
p.boatengTL2 Moderator4 Oct 2024#4
m.adebayo, post #2: 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

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.

33 likes in reply to #2 22mo
B
BramleyTL2Member11 Oct 2024#5

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.

11 likes 22mo
RC
r.chukwuTL2 Moderator18 Oct 2024#6

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.

3 likes 21mo
CN
c.niemelTL3Regular24 Oct 2024#7

Coming back to post #5, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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 21mo
RM
r.mwangiTL2 Moderator30 Oct 2024#8
r.chukwu, post #6: 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

Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

24 likes in reply to #6 21mo
FE
footnote_entryTL3Regular5 Nov 2024#9

Worth separating two things that post #5 runs together.

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.

7 likes 21mo
KK
k.kuuselaTL2 Moderator11 Nov 2024#10

post #9 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

1 like 21mo
K
KnowltonTL3Regular16 Nov 2024#11

post #10 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

33 likes 20mo
EK
e.kimaniTL2 Moderator22 Nov 2024 · edited#12

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 20mo
SS
s.silvaTL2 Moderator27 Nov 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.

7 likes 20mo
EF
e.ferrariTL2 Moderator2 Dec 2024#14
k.kuusela, post #10: post #9 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological. The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this,… Go to post

Coming back to post #12, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

17 likes in reply to #10 20mo
AW
a.weissTL2 Moderator8 Dec 2024#15
Tavares, post #3: I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. 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. 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.

24 likes in reply to #3 20mo
KR
k.roosTL2 Moderator13 Dec 2024#16

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.

0 likes 19mo
LD
l.dziedzicTL2 Moderator18 Dec 2024#17

This follows post #14 rather than contradicting it.

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.

3 likes 19mo
NL
n.lehtinenTL2 Moderator23 Dec 2024#18

I read post #16 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.

11 likes 19mo
EM
e.mikkelsenTL2Member28 Dec 2024 · edited#19
a.weiss, post #15: 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. 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.

18 likes in reply to #15 19mo
ET
e.tammTL2 Moderator1 Jan 2025#20

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
IC
i.coelhoTL2 Moderator6 Jan 2025#21
Knowlton, post #11: post #10 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up. Go to post

Worth separating two things that post #17 runs together.

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.

9 likes in reply to #11 19mo
DP
d.petrescuTL2 Moderator11 Jan 2025#22

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

2 likes 19mo
NR
n.rahimiTL2 Moderator16 Jan 2025#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 18mo
PA
p.amankwahTL220 Jan 2025#24
LW
l.wikstromTL2 Moderator25 Jan 2025#25

On post #21 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

5 likes 18mo
VN
v.nascimentoTL2 Moderator29 Jan 2025#26

post #25 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 18mo
K
KLindqvistTL4 Moderator3 Feb 2025 · edited#27

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.

0 likes 18mo
FK
f.kimaniTL2 Moderator7 Feb 2025#28
n.lehtinen, post #18: I read post #16 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. 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.

21 likes in reply to #18 18mo
DO
d.oyelaranTL312 Feb 2025#29
CT
c.tullochTL2 Moderator16 Feb 2025#30
Tavares, post #3: I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. 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. 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.

8 likes in reply to #3 17mo