I keep pulling up NCT03560336 because it's Saxenda 3.0 mg in 758 obese patients, yet RAW shows no numerical efficacy or safety results. Am I missing a full publication somewhere?
I'm also trying to line that up with the rat thyroid review: seven GLP-1 RAs, six weight-of-evidence domains, 2-year rat carcinogenicity bioassays, human-irrelevant mechanism. Feels like two different data puzzles.
If the PMS study only reports enrollment, what can it actually tell us about real-world 3.0 mg outcomes?
That 758 figure is all I can find too. rPMS summaries often report enrollment, not outcomes. Frustrating if you want effect sizes.
Yep, and no numerical efifcacy or safety results in RAW. Doesn't mean zero events, just no published numbers there.
The rat thyroid thing gets oversimplified. The review used six domains and 2-year bioassays and still concluded human-irrelevant mechanism.
I still want human thyroid data, not rat mechanism talk.
Same. I asked my endo about the GLP-1 rat tumors and got a shrug plus 'known human-irrelevant mechanism.' Didn't love that.
The part that bugs me is NCT03560336 had 758 enrolled, but if RAW gives no efficacy or safety numbers, then it mostly documents exposure.
That's not useless, but it can't answer whether 3.0 mg works for most people. People cite enrollment like it's a result. I'd rather see baseline BMI, dropout, and thyroid events. Without those, the rat-review context is a separate conversation.
I disagree that enrollment is meaningless. 758 people on 3.0 mg in a real-world PMS setting is still safety signal material. The problem is the summary, not the study.
I’ve been treating my own log like a mini trial since January: weigh Monday only, waist at navel Sunday, same tape, fasted, and over 18 weeks my waist dropped 9 cm while the scale stalled for the first 10—water/glycogen noise is real. For that 758-person study, I’d check the EU CTR and old conference abstracts before assuming nothing exists; I found a poster once for a trial that never hit PubMed.
The rat thyroid thing feels like a separate human-relevance question, not the same missing-results puzzle. Did you ever find a CSR or regulator table with the higher-dose arm’s data?
Small weird data point: my “goal” jeans still laugh at me at week 16, but the work pants that used to leave a red line now need a belt on the tightest notch, and the scale hasn’t moved in 23 days. I quit refreshing that 758-person trial page after week 6 because it was just making me obsessive; if anyone’s still hunting, have you checked conference abstracts or FDA statistical review docs?
That’s where I’ve found buried numbers before, not on the registry.
The rat thyroid stuff feels like a separate language to me—meanwhile a bad sleep/stress week can make my rings tight even when my pants fit better, which is why I trust the pants more than any single number.
Tbh, have you checked the EU CTR and the sponsor’s CSR? I’ve chased a couple of these where the only numerical output was a 200-page PDF on a corporate site, never PubMed.
If the ClinicalTrials.gov record has a results first-submitted date but no posted data, that’s a different red flag than just no publication. On the rat thyroid review, the piece I’d want next is MTC cases in humans by exposure duration, not just the pooled rate—the 2-year bioassay signal doesn’t automatically map to clinic.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up