[Results] 70 weeks on 2.4mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring
Update, and the title has the headline: 70 weeks on 2.4mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring.
70 weeks and 2.4mg. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
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.
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.
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
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.
Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
Milligram-for-milligram comparison with an injectable peptide is not meaningful and I should not have made it.
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
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.
Analytically this is a small-molecule identity and purity problem, not a peptide one.
aksel_kjaer is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
- 1It is a non-peptide small-molecule agonist at the GLP-1 receptor. That is a…8 comments in this branch · started by u/lucia_bruun