three years of small molecule threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of small molecule threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
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.
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.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Same view. The analytical problem is different enough that the usual purity discussions here do not transfer cleanly.
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.
Phase 2 or phase 3?
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.
oral semaglutide is a peptide with an absorption enhancer, this is not that
Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.
small molecule, not a peptide, and that changes everything about it
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
Has anyone here seen independent identity testing on this?
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption enhancer; the comparison you are making does not hold.
the manufacturing story is genuinely different from the injectables
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
nothing containing this is approved anywhere yet
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
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.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Yes. Oral peptide with an absorption enhancer and oral small molecule are completely different propositions.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair. Everything before it is inference.
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, and the threads keep forgetting it.
Correcting myself: that was a phase 2 readout and I described it as phase 3.
Right, and comparing milligrams between a small molecule and a peptide is meaningless in either direction.
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
- 1Because it is not a peptide, it is not subject to the same degradation…10 comments in this branch · started by u/marit_sandvik
- 2a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does6 comments in this branch · started by u/aksel_kjaer