I was digging through ClinicalTrials and noticed a cluster: NCT07401992 has 62 enrolled, NCT06897475 has 200, NCT06989203 has 140. Meanwhile NCT07011667 is active, not recruiting, with 609. Is this just oral vs injectable vs combinations, or are sponsors testing different endpoints?
I'm trying to understand whether these are redundant small studies or different populations. Anyone tracking the protocols close enough to know what separates them?
NCT07401992 at 62 feels like a PK or tolerability study, not a big outcomes trial.
That's my read too. The 200 and 140 studies look more like dose-finding or formulation comparisons. The 609 one is the only one with real power.
Don't forget NCT02079870. Completed with 30 enrolled. Tiny, so probably not pivotal either.
Wait, NCT07011667 is the 609 one? Active but not recruiting sounds like a maintenance or extension study.
The maintenance/extension angle makes sense, but without posted results we're guessing. Are all of these even semaglutide monotherapy?
I'd bet at least one is oral. Rybelsus is in the section title, and oral PK studies tend to be small.
I pulled the registry pages last month. NCT07401992 and NCT06989203 both list recruiting, 62 and 140. NCT06897475 at 200. I didn't see head-to-head results posted for any of them, so I'm not sure how people are ranking them.
The 609 study being active, not recruiting is the only one that looks like it might have enough for subgroup analysis. Still, enrollment size alone doesn't tell us endpoint.
Enrollment size is such a trap. A 30-person completed study can still be useful for safety signals.
True, but 30 is tiny for anything beyond tolerability. I wouldn't draw efficacy conclusions from it.
The regitsry entry. It says recruiting, 62 enrolled.
My bigger question is why several semaglutide trials are still recruiting when one 609-person study is already active, not recruiting. It could be different populations, different formulations, or just sponsors covering separate regulatory questions. The completed 30-person study doesn't help much either way.
I'd want to see primary endpoints before calling any of these redundant.
Small N isn't redundant, it's usually about the endpoint. A 60-person study can carry a continuous measure like waist circumference or a DEXA scan fine, you just can't power it for something like a heart event.
I got screened for one and they measured my waist three separate times in one visit, which tells you the whole study lives or dies on that number.
The clusters are probably staged, not redundant, the 140-person one reports first and sponsors design the 609-person one off it. Cheap way to de-risk.
My own version of this was tracking: I logged everything for exactly nine days in January and then never opened the app again, so I'm impressed anyone tracks enrollment numbers for fun.
Half these NCT numbers feel like they're running in the same office park, honestly.
What I'd check is who's excluded. A lot of the newer ones won't take anyone who's been on a GLP-1 in the last 3-6 months, and some require a comorbidity, so two studies with the same drug can have completely different pools. Are you seeing the sleep apnea or pediatric ones in that list, or just the weight-only ones?
I've got about 380 weigh-ins in a spreadsheet and the scale flatlined for 19 straight days around the four-month mark while my waist dropped almost 2 inches in that same window, then the scale caught up in about a week and a half. If I'd been enrolled in an 8-week study I'd have looked like a non-responder; at 12 weeks, a partial responder.
Same body, different endpoint window, which is why I don't think the small-n studies are automatically redundant — they might be pinning down when the signal actually shows up, and a tight 62-person window can do that faster than one big slow trial.
The other thing my own data keeps telling me is that my worst weeks were never the holidays, they were the ones where I slept under 6 hours three nights in a row. Sleep and stress moved my scale way more than one hevy dinner ever did.
So when I see a new listing I basically hunt for two things: is the primary measure weight only, or weight plus waist or body comp, and what's the assessment week.
Some of these look like they're answering 'does it work' and others 'when does it show,' which are genuinely different questions. And I'll admit the dumbest confounder in my whole dataset was the two weeks I switched from morning weigh-ins to after work — water and food alone gave me a 3-4 lb swing that took me forever to catch.
I stopped trusing the scale the day my jeans fit before the number moved.
Weekends wreck my weekly average. Two restaurant meals and I'm up 3 lbs Monday, back down by Wednesday.
Honestly I'd flip the framing — the 62-person one might be the most interesting listing here, because a tight well-defined window tells you something a 609-person grab bag doesn't.
Has anyone actually pulled the primary outcome measure and the assessment week off each listing side by side? That's the comparison I'd want before calling any of them redundant.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up