Evaluates systemic exposure of semaglutide with sodium caprate in beagle dogs, suggesting a promising alternative to SNAC.
Background/Objectives: Oral delivery of semaglutide (Rybelsus) relies on sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino)caprylate (SNAC) to enhance peptide absorption. However, formulation constraints and SNAC’s localized gastric mechanism have prompted the exploration of alternative enhancers. This study evaluated whether sodium caprate (C10), a well-characterized medium-chain fatty acid (MCFA), could achieve systemic exposure comparable to SNAC-based formulations when co-formulated in an immediate-release (IR) tablet. Methods: Preformulation studies assessed the physicochemical properties and buffering capacity of C10. Mechanistic feasibility was evaluated through Caco-2 transport studies and rat pharmacokinetic (PK) trials using aqueous suspensions, comparing the concentration-dependent effects of C10 and SNAC. Based on these findings, three IR tablet architectures (monolayer, bilayer, and dry compression-coated) were developed. The optimized formulation was evaluated in beagle dogs (14 mg semaglutide) and compared with the SNAC-based reference product. Results: C10 exhibited sufficient buffering capacity to neutralize acidic environments. In Caco-2 and rat PK studies, C10 enhanced semaglutide absorption in a concentration-dependent manner, yielding exposure levels equivalent to SNAC at matched doses. Among the tablet designs, the monolayer tablet showed the highest dissolution similarity (f2 = 67.8) to Rybelsus. In beagle dogs, the optimized monolayer formulation produced pharmacokinetic parameters, including Cmax, AUClast, and t1/2, that overlapped with those of the SNAC-based reference drug product under matched dosing conditions. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that C10 can effectively support oral semaglutide delivery when incorporated into a rationally designed IR tablet. The findings support the feasibility of MCFA-based permeation enhancer platforms as formulation alternatives to SNAC for oral peptide therapeutics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: