Three recruiting semaglutide trials: 62, 200, 140 enrolled — what am I missing?

The 609 one isn’t recruiting because it’s already full. That’s the main difference. The 62 one might be a narrow sub-study.

Narrow how? I assumed all semaglutide trials were basically the same. 62 seems tiny.

Not even close. Different endpoints, different populations. The NCT number alone doesn’t tell you much without the eligibility section.

I’m in a recruiting one but not those. We were told enrollment is slow because of washout requirements. Not sure if that applies to the 62-enrolled trial.

Washout is the worst. Waited almost two months to screen.

Does anyone know why NCT06989203 has 140 and still recruiting? That seems like decent enrollment.

Recruiting just means not closed. It can stay open for years even after target enrollment. 140 isn’t necessarily the final number.

Then why does NCT07011667 say active, not recruiting at 609? Sounds like they hit their target.

I work adjacent to research, so general only: active-not-recruiting usually means they met the enrollment goal or stopped adding new people while follow-up continues. Recruiting can mean any point before that.

The 62, 200, 140 numbers are snapshots, not final trial sizes. Some trials also have multiple sites, and listings can lag.

The only fair comparison is reading primary outcome and inclusion criteria.

So 609 porbably hit its target. Makes sense.

I’d still want to know if the 62-enrolled one is phase 1 or has a very specific population. Enrollment number alone isn’t a red flag.

Has anyone ehre actually enrolled in NCT07401992? Curious what the screening burden is like. 62 feels like a lot of visits.

Enrollment numbers on those listings are targets, not progress bars — 609 likely means it filled and locked, not that it failed. A 62-person study is usually a different animal entirely: different phase, tighter eligibility, maybe one or two sites.

I'd compare phase and primary endpoint before anything else, because a small early-phase study still recruiting tells you almost nothing about the big one.

Distance is the part nobody warns you about. I screened for one with a single site about four hours away and dropped after the second visit — the coordinator said most of their dropouts were travel, not side effects.

A narrow geographic radius can keep a small trial in recruiting status for months even when it looks easy to fill. Worth counting the actual locations listed per study.

What I'd compare is visit burden. I looked at two protocols, one with roughly 14 clinic visits across 68 weeks and one with 6 plus phone check-ins, and the visit-heavy one was the one practically begging for people.

Number of labs and whether there's a washout period before you start also changes who qualifies. Fewer visits usually fills faster.

Honestly these numbers pushed me to track better on my own. I do a weekly waist measure at the navel plus a morning weigh-in, and over 4 months my waist dropped 3 inches while the scale sat flat for two solid weeks mid-way — salt and water, I assume.

If you ever enroll, find out what they'll actually measure, because scale-only data hides a lot.

Small correction that changed how I read those pages: the number listed is usually the target, not the current headcount. So 62 isn't 62 people enrolled and starving for more, it's the site's goal, and if they're at 40 the page still says recruiting.

I spent two months refreshing a listing for a totally different study that showed "recruiting, 180" the whole time, then called and found they'd stopped screening six weeks earlier. Meanwhile the 609 going active-not-recruiting usually just means it filled and rolled into the treatment and follow-up phase, which says nothing about how promising it is.

When you call a site, ask how many people they've actually randomized so far and whether the target has been revised, because those two answers tell you way more than the number on the page.

I'm not in any of those, but the waist thing is what keeps me sane between appointments. Same pair of jeans, first of every month, no stretch fabric.

Went from a snug 38 to a 34 over about five months, and there were two separate stretches where the scale didn't budge but the waistband clearly did. Scales lie for a week after a salty dinner; a zipper doesn't.

Weekends are where my whole week goes sideways. I can be solid Monday through Friday and then two days of restaurant food and a couple of drinks puts me back four days, every single week, and it took months before I actually noticed the pattern.

What fixed it wasn't willpower, it was eating the same boring breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday as on weekdays. Three weeks of that and Monday morning stopped being a horror show.