Semaglutide trial enrollment: why 609 closed but 62/200/140 still recruiting?

The NCT07011667 number is the giveaway. Active, not recruiting usually means they closed enrollment but still follow participants. The three still recruiting are probably different phases or narrower criteria.

That matches my screening call for NCT07401992. Site said slots were full even though the registry still lists 62 enrolled and recruiting.

A full site doesn't mean full study. NCT06897475 has 200 enrolled, so local bottlenecks are normal. I'd check site count before reading too much into it.

NCT02079870 with 30 completed is too old to compare.

Are these PK/PD or outcomes? Enrollment counts mean less if endpoints are just blood levels.

If they're PK/PD, 62 in NCT07401992 could be enough for an early signal. Different beast from a 609-person follow-up cohort.

I've been in a different semaglutide study, and the registry labels are messy. The 609 in NCT07011667 looks huge, but active not recruiting just means you can't join now.

The smaller recruiting ones may be hard to fill because lab criteria and washout rules are strict, and prior GLP-1 use can exclude people. My screening took three visits before they even confirmed eligibility.

So slow enrollment in NCT06989203 or NCT07401992 wouldn't make me assume anything about safety. It usually means the protocol is picky or the sites are slammed. The 140 and 200 numbers may just reflect different protocol sizes, not a red flag on their own.

The protocol pickiness was real for me too. My fasting glucose was 99 and creatinine was slightly high, so I didn't pass screening. Nothing dramatic.

The 200-person study probably has broader criteria. More sites, more slots. I'd still rather see endpoint data than enrollment totals.

Agreed, enrollment isn't efficacy, but a screening thread by NCT number would still be useful. Lab criteria and visit burden explain more than raw counts.

I’d still love a screening thread by NCT. My own notes are just dates, lab slips, and a sad little parking receipt. Raw counts tell me almost nothing compared to visit burden.

PK/PD vs outcomes is the whole ballgame for me. If NCT07401992 is just blood levels, 62 feels plausible. If it’s follow-up, I’d expect a bigger push.

My screening had three visits too. The washout rules were the sneaky part. I reread the calendar twice and still almost missed a window.

Short quip: enrollment is a calendar, not a verdict.

I’m in the 200-person camp. More sites, broader criteria, and slots that actually match my schedule. Still, I’d rather see endpoints than a big number.

Registry labels are messy, agreed. I’ve seen “active not recruiting” and thought it meant paused. Nope. Just closed to new hands. NCT07011667 can look huge and still be finished.

Prior GLP-1 use excluded me from one. I get why, but it made the recruiting map look patchy. NCT06989203 might just be picky, not worrisome.

My creatinine was slightly high once, so I sat out. No drama, just a lab flag. That’s the kind of thing a thread by NCT would explain faster than counts.

Numbers like 609 vs 62 usually just mean different enrollment targets, not different speed. A 600-person phase 3 closes when it hits the goal, while a 62-person study might be site-limited and needs 80, so it sits there looking stalled. Chasing those ratios isn't worth the bandwidth.

A weekly waist log tells me more than a registry does — 3.5 inches down across twelve weeks of consistent tracking, and that's a number I can actually act on.