how much of what we believe about ACHIEVE actually comes from ATTAIN threads
how much of what we believe about ACHIEVE actually comes from ATTAIN threads. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
Because it is not a peptide, it is not subject to the same degradation pathways, does not require the absorption enhancers used for oral peptides, and can be formulated as a conventional tablet.
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.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The analytical point, which this board keeps getting wrong by importing habits from the peptide side.
For a peptide, purity is typically reported as area percent by HPLC with identity by mass spectrometry, and the impurity classes are things like deletion and oxidation products. For a small molecule the relevant impurities are synthetic intermediates, degradants and residual solvents, and identity is established differently.
So the certificate you would want looks different, the questions to ask are different, and a "purity" figure quoted here is not comparable to one quoted on the peptide boards. Anybody posting a result should say what method produced it, which is good practice everywhere and essential here.
Retitled to name the programme. It is what makes these threads findable in a year.
no food and water restrictions is the practical difference people care about
The analytical point, which this board keeps getting wrong by importing habits from the peptide side.
Agreed, and it is why the oral peptide comparison keeps misleading people.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Is that from the publication or the press release?
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
small molecule, not a peptide, and that changes everything about it
do not assume reconstitution intuitions apply, there is nothing to reconstitute
Milligram-for-milligram comparison with an injectable peptide is not meaningful and I should not have made it.
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair. Everything before it is inference.
Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption enhancer; the comparison you are making does not hold.
- 1The analytical point, which this board keeps getting wrong by importing…6 comments in this branch · started by u/trialwatch_theo
- 2small molecule, not a peptide, and that changes everything about it6 comments in this branch · started by u/greta_nilsen