PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

What is the reported incidence of nausea on oral semaglutide in TRIUMPH-3?

Asked 4 Oct 2024Modified 18 months agoViewed 36k times
36

Conditions: nausea · oral semaglutide · TRIUMPH-3.

The figures are clear enough; the question is what they mean and what they do not.

I can supply the numbers if the specifics change the answer.

How should I read this, and where are the traps?

gi-side-effects
gi-side-effects

The gastrointestinal cluster as a whole - nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, reflux, early satiety - with trial incidence rates, dropout…

416 questions
clinical-trials
clinical-trials

Reading the primary literature properly: estimands, intention-to-treat versus per-protocol, confidence intervals, absolute versus relative…

913 questions
nausea
nausea

The dominant tolerability signal in every trial of the class: incidence, timing relative to a dose step, duration, and the distinction between…

346 questions
shareeditfollowflag
FR
askedfib4_reader35k384 Oct 2024
4Small correction: the units in the third paragraph should be micrograms, not milligrams. – Dr_Rosalind_Achebe 8 months ago
3Do you have a reference for the last claim? Not disputing it, just want to read it. – micron22 6 months ago
add a comment

5 Answers

Sorted by votes
18

On the detail: timing is the most useful diagnostic feature here and it is the one most often omitted from the question.

The telogen effluvium timing signature is the diagnostic feature: hair enters the shedding phase two to four months after the insult, so shedding that starts at month three of rapid loss and peaks around month four to five is the expected pattern. Shedding that starts in week two is not telogen effluvium and warrants a different question. In either case the follicle is not destroyed and regrowth is the rule.

Early satiety is not a side effect; it is the mechanism being observable. The useful distinction is between satiety, where you stop eating without distress, and aversion, where the thought of food is unpleasant. The first is the intended effect. The second frequently precedes the dose being too high or escalated too fast.

SURMOUNT-1 reported gastrointestinal events as the most frequent adverse events, mostly mild to moderate and mostly during escalation, with discontinuation for adverse events in the single digits per cent[1].

Fix the fixable causes first — fluid, electrolytes, sleep, intake — before concluding that the compound is responsible.

shareimprove this answerflag
SL
answeredsian_llewellyn85k24829 Dec 2024
3For what it is worth, my own result was within half a per cent of this. – Dr_Yusuf_Adeyemi 5 months ago
2Any reason this would differ for a longer peptide? – bufferline42 3 months ago
add a comment
Sponsored

PeptideMeter - Independent Peptide Analytics

Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.

Browse results
11

The honest framing is that this is very common, usually self-limiting, and occasionally the presentation of something that is not self-limiting at all — and the differentiating features are specific enough to be worth knowing.

Pancreatitis red flags worth memorising rather than looking up: severe, persistent epigastric pain radiating to the back, worse lying flat and better sitting forward, with nausea and vomiting that does not settle. That combination is an urgent assessment, not a dose adjustment. An isolated lipase elevation without that picture is common and usually not pancreatitis.

Vomiting matters mostly through its consequences. Loss of gastric fluid depletes sodium, chloride and potassium, and hypokalaemia presents as exactly the fatigue and cramping people attribute to the drug. Persistent vomiting also makes a renal panel uninterpretable, because a pre-renal picture looks like renal impairment.

Telogen effluvium following substantial weight loss is documented independently of any pharmacotherapy, which is the cleanest argument that the rate of loss rather than the agent is the primary driver.

One qualification — reported incidence in a monitored trial population is a lower bound on what happens in an unmonitored one, because trial participants were escalated to protocol and supported through it.

A symptom diary with dates against dose steps answers most of these questions without anyone needing to guess.

edited 24 Jan 2025 by pk_curve — reworded for clarity after a comment

shareimprove this answerflag
PC
answeredpk_curve12k159 Jan 2025
9

The distinction worth making early is between a tolerability problem, which is unpleasant and self-limiting, and a clinical problem, which is neither. They present differently and the thresholds for each are worth writing down before you need them.

The gallbladder signal tracks the rate of weight loss more than it tracks the drug. Rapid mobilisation of adipose tissue increases biliary cholesterol saturation and reduces gallbladder motility; that combination is lithogenic whether the loss came from a drug, a very-low-energy diet or bariatric surgery. The drug contribution on top of that is present but smaller than the rate contribution.

Concretely, fatigue attribution is a subtraction problem. Take out the energy deficit, the dehydration, the electrolyte shortfall and the poor sleep, and what remains attributable to the drug in the trials was modest — placebo-arm fatigue rates were within a few points of active-arm rates in most of the programme. The corollary is that the fixable causes are usually the actual causes.

I would flag that attributing a symptom to a drug is a hypothesis, and the base rate of these symptoms in the general population is high enough that the hypothesis is often wrong.

Most of this resolves. The point of knowing the pattern is to recognise the small fraction that does not.

shareimprove this answerflag
TH
answeredtyndall_haze48k4815 Nov 2024
7

Put another way, look at the placebo arm before concluding anything about attribution. The placebo-arm rates for most of these events are not small, because the events themselves are common in the underlying population.

Constipation outlasts the nausea because it has two causes and only one of them resolves. Gastric emptying accommodates over weeks; total intake, and therefore stool volume and the osmotic load reaching the colon, does not recover until intake does. This is why fibre alone can make it worse — you add bulk to a system that is short of water and short of motility.

The pooled gastrointestinal adverse-event rates across the STEP programme and the SURMOUNT programme are reported in the primary publications and in the FDA and EMA assessment reports, and the assessment reports are more useful because they give the placebo-arm rates alongside the active-arm rates in the same table.

If the timing does not fit the escalation, look for another explanation before settling on the drug.

shareimprove this answerflag
DS
answeredDr_Ravi_Selvarajah42k1387 Dec 2024
7This should probably be in the site help pages rather than buried in an answer. – ahmed_zerouali 7 months ago
8Good answer, but the confidence interval in the cited trial is wider than implied. – assay_blank 9 months ago
add a comment
5

On the detail: the mechanism explains the pattern. Delayed gastric emptying plus central appetite suppression produces early satiety, and early satiety plus a slowed transit produces exactly the symptom cluster people report.

Nausea incidence in the pivotal trials runs to roughly 40 to 45 per cent at the higher doses against 15 to 20 per cent on placebo, with vomiting at roughly 15 to 25 per cent against 5 to 8 per cent. Discontinuation specifically attributable to gastrointestinal adverse events was in the range of 4 to 7 per cent. Those are the numbers to hold in mind when someone describes their experience as unusual.

Worth being explicit: nothing here is medical advice, and research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.

Write down in advance which symptoms mean stop and seek care. It is a short list and it is much easier to write when you are well.

shareimprove this answerflag
HP
answeredh_pergande86k25818 Dec 2024
Adding for future readers: the certificate should carry the lot number, not just a batch code. – meniscus_film 8 months ago
add a comment

Your answer

Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.