help me understand non-peptide, I have read the wiki twice
Trying to get a straight answer on this: help me understand non-peptide, I have read the wiki twice.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
What is actually known, and what is being assumed.
Known: it is a small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, dosed daily, with clinical programmes reporting in both obesity and type 2 diabetes. Its tolerability profile broadly resembles the class in the data published so far.
Assumed, frequently and confidently: that milligram comparisons with injectables mean something, that adherence is straightforwardly better because it is a tablet, that peptide purity discussions transfer to it. None of those hold. And nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere, which makes research-use-only material exactly that — not approved for human use.
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless.
Agreed, and it is why the oral peptide comparison keeps misleading people.
oral and non-peptide is the whole engineering story
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
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.
no food and water restrictions is the practical difference people care about
Right, and comparing milligrams between a small molecule and a peptide is meaningless in either direction.
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
What analytical method was used — this is not the usual peptide assay question?
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
the tolerability profile reads broadly similar to the class
daily dosing changes adherence in both directions
Holding off on any opinion until phase 3 reports. That is not a satisfying position and it is the honest one.
nothing containing this is approved anywhere yet
Holding off on any opinion until phase 3 reports.
This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.
daily dosing, not weekly, so the exposure profile is different
This is the fact the whole board hangs on.
Disagreeing with this bit: daily dosing is a different adherence problem, not a better one.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
bruno_dumitru is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
oral semaglutide is a peptide with an absorption enhancer, this is not that
- 1Because it is not a peptide, it is not subject to the same degradation…13 comments in this branch · started by u/greta_nilsen
- 2Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly…8 comments in this branch · started by u/pancreatitis_scare