a pill with no food restrictions and no cold chain changes this entire site
a pill with no food restrictions and no cold chain changes this entire site, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
It is a non-peptide small-molecule agonist at the GLP-1 receptor. That is a substantial medicinal chemistry achievement: getting a small molecule to activate a receptor evolved for a peptide ligand.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
Oral semaglutide is a peptide co-formulated with an absorption enhancer and carries food and water timing requirements. A small molecule does not have that constraint, which is the practical distinction.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled to name the programme. It is what makes these threads findable in a year.
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.
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair. Everything before it is inference.