Why no posted results from 120,000-person dulaglutide vs semaglutide trial?

@davidHealth58 said:

120,000 enrolled. That's a massive comparison

Yeah, that number is hard to wrap my head around. That's not a typical Trulicity trial size at all. Are you sure the enrollment field isn't cumulative or registry-wide rather than actual people randomized?

I saw that number too, but completed just menas data collection ended. Results can sit unpublished for ages. Doesn't necessarily mean shady.

The epicardial fat one is what I want to see.

Neat if they measured it properly. Epicardial adipose tissue isn't something most routine visits track, is it?

I used to think the same, but registry entries vary by sponsor and phase. A 120,000-person comparison sounds more like a huge observational or pragmatic study than a classic randomized Trulicity trial.

Those often dump results in a separate paper, and the registry just says completed. The 4,120-patient snapshot I read had 852 on GLP-1-based meds, 20.7%, and longer diabetes duration in that group, so real-world datasets can be big too.

I'd want to know whether the endpoint was cardiovascular events, imaging, or something else before reading too much into the silence. Still, no outcomes in the raw listing is frustrating.

If it was observational, that changes everything. 120k makes way more sense for a registry analysis than an RCT.

An observational 120k study could still bury endpoints in supplement tables.

I was a participant in a completely unrelated trial a few years back and the registry entry sat empty for something like 18 months after the results were already being shown at a conference, so a blank outcome field means almost nothing on its own — the first look usually shows up as an abstract with a clunky acronym before anyone bothers updating anything. What nags at me more about waiting on a 120,000-person head-to-head is that even a clean answer wouldn't tell me much about my own Tuesday, and I learned that the annoying way: my scale sat flat for 11 straight weeks while my waist went from 41 to 35 and a half inches, then the scale finally caught up right when I'd stopped weighing myself daily and switched to measuring once a week with the same tape.

So I track the tape and how a specific pair of jeans fits on Sunday mornings instead of refreshing trial pages, because the headline number clearly lags whatever's actually happening underneath it. Do you measure at the navel or at the widest point?

That difference alone was almost an inch and a half for me and I wasted a month thinking I'd stalled.

I quit refreshing those listings and started running a one-person study instead — same tape measure, same spot at my navel, Sunday morning before coffee, logged in a notes app next to my sleep hours. Fourteen months in I'm down 6.5 inches at the waist, but there was an 11-week stretch where the scale didn't budge a single pound while my jeans kept getting looser, and the stalls lined up almost perfectly with weeks I was sleeping under 6 hours, which is the opposite of what I expected and honestly the only reason I didn't quit.

My unscientific guess is those huge head-to-heads are probably just drowning in data cleaning rather than hiding anything dramatic, and even when they post, real life has too many confounders for a clean headline. Does anyone else measure on a fixed day, or do you just go by how the clothes hang?

Even if it’s observational, 120k doesn’t mean a quick turnaround.

Cleaning claims/EHR data and running pre-specified analyses can drag way past “completed.” I’d check the sponsor’s annual report or conference abstracts before assuming it’s buried. Also, did NCT07619495 list a data-sharing statement? That’s usually my tell. Meanwhile my real-world comparison is which snack

First thing I’d verify is whether NCT07619495 is actually interventional. A 120k head-to-head screams target-trial emulation from claims/EHR, not an RCT. If it’s observational, there’s no FDAAA 12-month results-posting clock, so CT.gov may stay blank indefinitely. If it is interventional and drug-regulated,

Tbh did you check the FDA’s trial-results compliance dashboard? If it’s an applicable trial, results are generally due 12 months after primary completion, and late submissions show up there.

Also search PubMed by the NCT number, not the drug names—some CV outcomes trials publish under a totally different acronym. I lift 4x/week and track waist, lifts, protein, sleep; registry silence usually means sponsor/journal limbo, not that data don’t exist. What’s the listed primary completion date?

I gave up refreshing trial results between flights—my carry-on has more patience than I do ✈️

hi, sorry if this is obvious—I’m new here and only on week one, so I ask tiny questions. Has anyone tried searching the NCT number in PubMed/Google Scholar or checking ACC/AHA/ESC late-breaking abstracts?

Some completed trials seem to post there first, especially imaging ones, and the registry results tab lags. Also, if it’s claims-based, maybe it’s under a consortium name rather than the drug names.

I’m tracking water and meals in a notes app while I wait, but I’m curious too. Thanks!

I run a café, so I know portion creep—every new pastry is its own trial. For the missing results, I’d try PubMed with the sponsor name plus likely acronym, and check the registry’s “More Information” tab for a data-sharing statement.

Sometimes outcomes hit a conference poster or journal months before the results tab updates. If it’s really 120k, that smells more like a pragmatic/registry analysis than a classic head-to-head. Has anyone found an acronym or sponsor protocol number to search?

I went down this exact rabbit hole last month. Have you tried searching PubMed for the NCT number plus “results,” and also checking AHA/ACC late-breaker abstracts?

I’ve seen cardio trials pop up there months before the registry updates. Not a scientist, just a bookmark hoarder. Tiny win today: I set a 15-minute timer for research spirals so they don’t eat my whole evening. Do you have a cutoff trick, or does the mystery keep you clicking?

That huge comparison likely falls into the “completed but not published” limbo—sponsors often hold results until a conference abstract or manuscript drops. I stopped treating unpublished data as evidence either way.

While losing, I tracked weekly averages, not daily scale noise; now maintaining, I care more about protein, steps, and waist than which medication “won.” Has anyone seen a conference abstract or sponsor press release tied to that big comparison?