[Lab] 6th independent test on SWB — 99.1% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
Short version of the title, which is already short: 6th independent test on SWB — 99.1% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. Longer version underneath.
To save the first four comments: 99.1% and 99.0%.
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
- SWSWB source pageShanghai Wibson Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 96% here, rank 4 · shop at shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Analytically this is a small-molecule identity and purity problem, not a peptide one. The methods, the impurity classes and the reference standards are all different.
Milligram-for-milligram comparison with an injectable peptide is not meaningful and I should not have made it.
Analytically this is a small-molecule identity and purity problem, not a peptide one.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair. Everything before it is inference.
Why "oral" is doing two completely different jobs in the sentences people write here.
Oral semaglutide is a peptide co-formulated with an absorption enhancer, which is why it comes with food and water timing requirements. This compound is a non-peptide small molecule that activates the same receptor, formulated as an ordinary tablet.
The practical consequences differ enormously: no timing constraints, a conventional manufacturing route, different stability behaviour, and a different analytical problem for anybody trying to verify identity or purity. Whenever a thread here compares the two, check which sense of "oral" each half is using.
Which programme and which readout are you quoting?
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
the tolerability profile reads broadly similar to the class
daily dosing, not weekly, so the exposure profile is different
daily dosing changes adherence in both directions
Retitled to name the programme. It is what makes these threads findable in a year.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
oral and non-peptide is the whole engineering story
Daily dosing, so what does the exposure profile look like across the day?
Daily dosing, so what does the exposure profile look like across the day?
Disagreeing with this bit: daily dosing is a different adherence problem, not a better one.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
- 1Why "oral" is doing two completely different jobs in the sentences people…10 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy