I've been logging Cagrilintide/CagriSema trial records for 11 weeks and the completed ones are a weird gap. Raw data lists 5 ctgov records, enrollments 609, 300, 178, 3400, and 100.
NCT06388187 and NCT06719011 are completed, NCT07011667 and NCT05567796 are active not recruiting, and NCT07411560 is recruiting for weekly GIP and amylin injections. No results on the completed 300 or 178. Where do people usually watch for the first posted tables? My own fasting glucose chart isn't the same thing.
The n=178 one is what bugs me too. Completed doesn't always mean results get posted quickly though.
Months? I’ve seen completed records sit siletn past a year. The 300-person different-dose CagriSema study is the one I keep checking because the amylin contribution is still murky.
Murky is right, doses aren’t even in the raw data.
Enrollment alone can hint at design, though. The long-term study has 609, a bigger record has 3400, and another has 100.
The completed 178 is small, but if the registry doesn't post results, people will keep treating every n=1 appetite log like it settles the amylin question. I get why the no-results gap is annoying, but I'd rather compare the completed 178 and 300 against the recruiting NCT07411560 than speculate about dose arms we can't see.
Does anyone know if the meta-analysis record lists which outcomes it actually pooled? I haven't found that detail yet.
Small n is why I don’t read much into no posted results. My own 6-week fasting glucose log was flat and appetite quieter, but that’s one person, no comparator.
Hunger scores, not glucose. The weekly GIP and amylin combo in NCT07411560 is more interesting to me than another silent completed record. If they’re testing timing, that’s a real mechanism question.
I’d still watch the systematic review record before registry tables. Meta-analyses lag, but at least they aggregate public data instead of us refreshing empty results pages.
There’s a 14-week rabbit hole here, and the weirdest part is how little those blank results pages matter once Sunday waist and sleep tracking become the routine. Weight can bounce 2.8 lbs every weekend from Friday takeout, settle by Tuesday, and waist can still drop 1.5 inches from week 3 to week 14—even through a two-week stall where the scale doesn’t move at all.
Missing trial data is annoying, but it can’t tell you whether your jeans are looser. I think half the frustration in threads like this is really us trying to predict our next month from a registry instead of measuring our own trend. What’s your 11-week trend look like?
Kept a dumb little note file on registry posting lag for about a year, and out of 22 trials I logged that completed in 2023-24, only 5 have results posted on the registry today — median wait was somewhere around 12 months, so a pair of recent completions sitting empty isn't a smoking gun, it's just the default. Contrarian part: I don't think there's anything to find, and the hunting itself was what got me — I was refreshing that page every night for two months, sleep dropped to about 5.5 hours, and I gained 6 lb over that same stretch without changing anything else, which lined up exactly with my watch logging 40 fewer minutes a night.
Quit the nightly checking, added a 25 minute walk after dinner instead, down 9 lb over 11 weeks and my waistband is 2 inches looser. Sometimes the gap is just a gap.
The blank results tabs drive me nuts. I started a dumb note with NCT number + expected readout window, then only check after big obesity conferences—saves me the daily refresh.
For snack-drawer chaos, I split ours into savory/sweet bins so I don’t graze while reading. Did you check if any completed records have a results PDF tucked under “More info” instead of the Results tab? I found one that way, totally missed it for weeks.
Has anyone checked whether any of those CagriSema records have an EU CTIS/EudraCT twin? I’ve tracked a different trial where the results module popped up there months before the ctgov tab changed.
Running a cafe, I’m already impatient waiting on vendors, so I check that site like I check the walk-in temp. If there’s an EU counterpart, that might be the next place to lurk.
I run a cafe, so I’m wired to notice when official paperwork lags way behind what everyone already knows. For this kind of reistry gap, I’d try hunting conference abstracts or sponsor earnings slides before
Week one too and already staring at blank results tabs — you're not alone!
I'd stop sorting by Status and sort by Primary Completion Date. Completed just means last visit; the results clock keys off PCD. Check each record's PCD, Results First Submitted, and any Certification/Extension.
If PCD is past and Results First Submitted is still blank, that's a compliance gap, not a UI lag. What do those three fields say on NCT06388187? That tells you whether it's late or just not due yet.
Same, I refresh those results tabs between sets like it’s leg day.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up