🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsOral GLP-1 AgonistsOrforglipron Phase 2 weight loss data — 12 month update

Orforglipron Phase 2 weight loss data — 12 month update

JenPlateau Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:13 PM 29 replies 2,118 viewsPage 1 of 6
This thread is more than 21 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
JenPlateau
Member
234
890
Nov 2024
Missouri
Sep 11, 2024 at 8:13 PM#1

I have been following the oral non-peptide data since phase 2 and I am trying to work out how much of the enthusiasm here is about efficacy and how much is about not having to inject.

The narrow version of the question is whether a non-peptide oral agonist can match injectable exposure in practice, or whether the convenience is bought with a lower ceiling.

If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.

34 4HPLC_Greg, LibrarianMeg, bri_stats and 31 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PharmD_Rodriguez
Senior Member
3,456
14,567
Jan 2024
Miami, FL
Sep 11, 2024 at 9:39 PM#2

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.

33 3TinaHashiRN, robert_kc, dan_philly and 30 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.PainCLE
Senior Member
1,234
6,234
Mar 2024
Cleveland, OH
Sep 11, 2024 at 11:05 PM#3
PharmD_Rodriguez said:
Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Agreeing with PharmD_Rodriguez, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. The manufacturing argument is the underrated one. Peptide synthesis capacity has been the binding constraint on this entire class, and a small molecule is made in ordinary chemical plants. If it holds up in phase 3, the supply and price picture changes more than the efficacy picture does.

32 2oliver_london, tane_welly, Dr.PathRoch and 29 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
JessicaM_2024
Member
823
3,456
Mar 2024
Portland, OR
Sep 12, 2024 at 12:31 AM#4
JenPlateau said:
I have been following the oral non-peptide data since phase 2 and I am trying to work out how much of the enthusiasm here is about efficacy and how…

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.

31 1Dr.PainCLE, mike_mealprep, NicoleRaleigh and 28 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
pete_nash
Member
312
1,345
Aug 2024
Nashville, TN
Sep 12, 2024 at 8:53 AM#5

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

30 0sarah.morrison, NeuroNate, JessicaH_TX and 27 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1236

Similar Threads

Orforglipron Phase 3 ATTAIN-1 topline — oral non-peptide GLP-116 replies
Oral semaglutide 50mg (Rybelsus HD) — OASIS program results12 replies
Danuglipron BID dosing — Pfizer oral GLP-1 update7 replies
Oral vs injectable GLP-1: bioavailability and efficacy comparison5 replies
Orforglipron food interaction profile — no fasting requirement15 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register