MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405657525 · doi:10.1007/s13300-024-01674-8

A Bioequivalence Study of Two Formulations of Oral Semaglutide in Healthy Participants

2024· article· en· W4405657525 on OpenAlexaff
Mette S. Nielsen, Lise Brøndsted, Martin Kankam, Gaetano Morelli, D. Le Nguyen, Trine Vang Skjøth, Usha Rani H. Patted, Marloes van Hout

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsAltasciences (Canada)
FundersNovo Nordisk
KeywordsBioequivalenceSemaglutideMedicineCmaxPharmacokineticsCrossover studyConfidence intervalDosingPharmacologyOral administrationInternal medicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyPlaceboAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide is approved as an oral formulation for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to confirm bioequivalence between a new, second-generation (2G) oral semaglutide formulation (1.5, 4 and 9 mg) and the initially approved first-generation (1G) formulation (3, 7 and 14 mg). This was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, full replicate crossover study to confirm bioequivalence between 2G and 1G oral semaglutide formulations at steady-state (SS) in healthy participants (NCT05227196). Participants were recruited to three groups. In each group, participants were randomised to one of two alternating sequences comparing once-daily oral semaglutide treatment of 9 and 14 mg (group 1), 4 and 7 mg (group 2) or 1.5 and 3 mg (group 3) at SS. Treatment duration was 20 weeks, comprising four 5-week steady-state periods on alternating formulations. Repeated 24-h blood sampling at the end of each steady-state period supported pharmacokinetic analysis. Co-primary endpoints were area under the semaglutide plasma concentration–time curve during a dosing interval at SS (AUC 0–24h,SS ) and maximum semaglutide plasma concentration at SS ( C max, 0–24h,SS ). Bioequivalence for co-primary endpoints was assessed using European Medicines Agency (EMA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) criteria. Safety was monitored. A total of 222, 201 and 123 participants were recruited into groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The prespecified EMA, FDA and PMDA bioequivalence criteria were met for 2G versus 1G oral semaglutide for all three dose levels (1.5 vs 3 mg, 4 vs 7 mg and 9 vs 14 mg). The safety profile of 2G oral semaglutide was consistent with 1G oral semaglutide. The 2G oral semaglutide formulation was confirmed as bioequivalent to 1G oral semaglutide, with no new safety concerns identified. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05227196.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes TherapySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207