[Discussion] can we stop arguing about ATTAIN until somebody posts a number
can we stop arguing about ATTAIN until somebody posts a number. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
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.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
identity testing on a small molecule is a different analytical problem
Which programme and which readout are you quoting?
Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.
daily dosing changes adherence in both directions
Phase 2 or phase 3?
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
Phase 2 or phase 3?
kenji_laurent is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
daily dosing, not weekly, so the exposure profile is different
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
Is that from the publication or the press release?
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, and the threads keep forgetting it.
Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence. It is a different failure mode, not a solved problem.
the manufacturing story is genuinely different from the injectables
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.
What analytical method was used — this is not the usual peptide assay question?
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
- 1Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly…8 comments in this branch · started by u/nils_ferreira