[Discussion] the ACHIEVE advice in here is 3 years out of date
Thinking out loud about this: the ACHIEVE advice in here is 3 years out of date.
3 years — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
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.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
Agreed, and it is why the oral peptide comparison keeps misleading people.
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.
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
Milligram-for-milligram comparison with an injectable peptide is not meaningful and I should not have made it.
Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
do not assume reconstitution intuitions apply, there is nothing to reconstitute
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
Disagreeing with this bit: daily dosing is a different adherence problem, not a better one.
Is that from the publication or the press release?
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
jonas_cardoso is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
jonas_cardoso is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
Cosigning on daily dosing. It changes the exposure profile and it changes adherence, in both directions.
oral semaglutide is a peptide with an absorption enhancer, this is not that
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.
small molecule, not a peptide, and that changes everything about it
Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.
- 1Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.12 comments in this branch · started by u/phase_two_pete