[Question] small molecule — what am I missing here
small molecule — what am I missing here. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
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
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.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
oral semaglutide is a peptide with an absorption enhancer, this is not that
do not assume reconstitution intuitions apply, there is nothing to reconstitute
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
oral and non-peptide is the whole engineering story
the tolerability profile reads broadly similar to the class
the tolerability profile reads broadly similar to the class
chidi_yilmaz is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Cosigning on daily dosing. It changes the exposure profile and it changes adherence, in both directions.
ATTAIN and ACHIEVE are the programmes to keep straight
Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence. It is a different failure mode, not a solved problem.
Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence.
Disagreeing with this bit: daily dosing is a different adherence problem, not a better one.
Yes. Oral peptide with an absorption enhancer and oral small molecule are completely different propositions.
Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.
Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption enhancer; the comparison you are making does not hold.
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.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
daily dosing, not weekly, so the exposure profile is different
nothing containing this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not.
This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
no food and water restrictions is the practical difference people care about
This. The absence of food and water timing restrictions is the practical difference people will actually notice.
- 1That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.8 comments in this branch · started by u/freya_marchand
- 2The analytical point, which this board keeps getting wrong by importing…6 comments in this branch · started by u/pancreatitis_scare