Been digging through CTgov on retatrutide and the knee OA study NCT05931367 says completed, 445 enrolled, but I can't find weight-change numbers anywhere. Same with NCT05548231, only 32 people, and NCT06039826, 46 postmenopausal.
Meanwhile company-reported Phase 3 is up to 28.7% and Phase 2 was 24.2% at 48 weeks. I get efficacy estimand vs completers, but why do the smaller completed trials seem to stay quiet?
Anyone seen posters, supplements, or registry updates with actual body-weight data?
CTgov results often lag behind conference posters and journal pubs. Completed doesn't mean posted.
True, but 445 isn't tiny for an OA trial.
28.7% is four company trials, not peer-reviewed. Still cautious.
Cautious is fair, but the Phase 2 24.2% at 48 weeks is the number I keep coming back to. That one has an efficacy estimand, so it's not the same as a completers analysis.
If Phase 3 is up to 28.7% across different populations and maybe different dose arms, the headline is doing a lot of work. And none of it is peer-reviewed yet. I want the tables before I compare it to 24.2. Otherwise we're just ranking press releases. I'd rather see one full body-weight table than ten headlines.
Are you comparing all four Phase 3 trials together? Up to 28.7 could be one dose arm.
I'm more curious about NCT06039826. 46 postmenopausal participants is small, but body composition endpoints would be interesting.
Body comp is exactly where I'd expect the glucagon piece to show up, but we still don't have peer-reviewed numbers from that trial. The knee OA study might post symptom outcomes before weight, and if weight is secondary it could be easy to miss.
Until then I see 24.2% at 48 weeks as the cleaner anchor and file 28.7% under company-reported, not settled.
I stopped trusting CTgov numbers alone after watching a 300-person trial sit with zero results for two years — the weight data showed up in a supplement table of all places. The 445-person OA study probably had weight as a safety-ish secondary, and those get buried.
My tip: check the study's publication list, not the registry.
My own log taught me scale weight can stall while my waist drops two inches in 8 weeks, so blank scale numbers don't mean nothing happened.
The thing that finally made me stop obsessing over published percentages was my own spreadsheet. I weigh every morning but only judge by the 7-day average, and I tape my waist at the navel on the 1st of each month.
Week 6 my average was down 0.4 lb and I nearly quit — then I measured and I was down 1.75 inches and a jacket that hadn't zipped since 2022 zipped. Weekends are the whole story for me: pizza Friday plus two restaurant meals puts 3 lb of water on by Sunday, gone by Wednesday.
A 32-person trial with four weigh-ins catches mostly that noise, not the trend. I'd rather see a full data table than a headline number.
Knee pain is its own scale problem. When my knee flared last spring I dropped from 9k to 3k steps a day and gained 4 lb in five weeks without changing anything I ate.
So a 445-person OA trial where half the people are limpng is going to have messy weight data no matter what the drug does — which may be exactly why it isn't front and center.
Small n, big claims, and a blank results tab — that's the whole genre, isn't it?
I weigh daily and log it, and the only pattern that matches those splashy percentages is my Sunday-to-Wednesday water swing: 3.1 lbs up after pizza and beer, gone by Thursday. Over 445 people for 48 weeks, that noise could bury the headline number.
If I only counted Friday mornings I’d swear I lost 8 lbs; all seven days says 5.4. Trials need a rule for that, I just need pants that fit.
My scale sat at the same 2 lbs for five weeks while my jeans went from a 38 waist to a 36, and that’s the exact gap I’d want a knee OA trial to report. Weight on a bum knee can look flat because you’re moving less, then water and inflammation drop and the scale lies.
I started taking waist and thigh measurements every other Sunday; that’s what actually tracked my 14-week change.
Honestly I’d rather see the sleep and stress data than a clean weight line. I did a 10-week experiment: same calories-ish, but kept Friday/Saturday takeout to one meal instead of two.
Weekends went from +3.2 lbs average to +1.1, and Monday scale stopped being a horror show. Trial weight averages can hide that weekly whiplash, and flare weeks probably do the same.
Trial weight numbers are like my knee: fine on paper, screaming on stairs.
I tracked my wast instead of the scale after week 12 and lost 3 inches before the needle moved.
My Friday Thai takeout used to add 4 lbs by Sunday and vanish by Wednesday, so I stopped weighing Mondays. Now I weigh Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday, same time after bathroom, and I log restaurant meals by rough sodium/volume instead of trying to guess calories.
Over 14 weeks the trend is down 18 lbs, but any single Monday would've made me think I stalled. That's why I get suspicious of trials that only post baseline-to-end numbers for people who finished; the folks who drop out early often do it before the scale reflects anything, and their missing weights can make the completers look superhuman.
My own worst stall was 11 days of nothing, then a 3.4 lb drop after a normal low-sodium day. Weight data without timing and missingness is just a magic trick.
I measure cooked oatmeal by the same bowl now—portion creep was my real stall, not the med.
If these OA trials captured WOMAC pain scores, did anyone pre-register weight as a secondary endpoint? Otherwise 445 people did all that for knee function and weight is a side note. I'd want the 24-week and 52-week change, plus how many had no weight data at all, before comparing it to the Phase 2 numbers.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up