ACHIEVE: what the trials say vs what this community says
ACHIEVE: what the trials say vs what this community says. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
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
Standing reminder: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, and no schedules for other members.
Standing reminder: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, and no schedules for other members.
This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
no food and water restrictions is the practical difference people care about
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
Right, and comparing milligrams between a small molecule and a peptide is meaningless in either direction.
Correcting myself: that was a phase 2 readout and I described it as phase 3.
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.
Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.
the tolerability profile reads broadly similar to the class
daily dosing changes adherence in both directions
Has anyone here seen independent identity testing on this?
ATTAIN and ACHIEVE are the programmes to keep straight
Cosigning on daily dosing. It changes the exposure profile and it changes adherence, in both directions.
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
This. The absence of food and water timing restrictions is the practical difference people will actually notice.
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.
small molecule, not a peptide, and that changes everything about it
Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
Which programme and which readout are you quoting?
What did the tolerability table look like at that dose?
- 1ATTAIN and ACHIEVE are the programmes to keep straight7 comments in this branch · started by u/maren_sorensen