NCT07794579 says 2001 enrolled — is it still recruiting?

Different populations, I think. NCT05869903 had weight-related comorbidities; NCT07794579 sounds earlier, overweight at risk. Not a duplicate.

2,001 is still a lot of people for a prevention question. That points more toward being powered for a hard endpoint than just weight.

Registry says recruiting, so 2,001 may be target, not final enrolled. The older 3,127 is listed as enrolled.

The pediatric 125 is the curveball here. Still recruiting, separate protocol probably.

The completed 376-participant study and the 50 healthy overweight/obese study are what I keep coming back to. If those were earlier-phase, then the 3,127 and 2,001 numbers aren’t directly comparable.

But NCT05869903 being active-not-recruiting while NCT07794579 is recruiting makes the timeline overlap. Maybe different regions or comorbidity criteria. A side-by-side inclusion table would settle it. I’d also want to know whether the pediatric 125 is using the same oral formulation.

I’ve been tracking these pages for 10 weeks, and the status labels seem to do more work than the enrollment numbers.

So it might be target vs enrolled, not a duplicate. That would explain the 2,001 versus 3,127.

Ten weeks of page-refreshing is basically my cardio, so I get it — I did the same thing on a different trial page last year and the number sat frozen at 1,204 for five straight weeks, then jumped 60 overnight when two new sites went live in the same state. The thing that finally clicked for me: that headline number is often the planned enrollment, not bodies actually randomized, so "2,001 and still recruiting" can just mean they're holding the door open for another cohort or a site that hasn't started screening yet, while your 3,127 study has clearly hit its cap and flipped to active-not-recruiting.

If you want something more honest than a registry refresh, the habit that's actually told me the truth is Sunday morning, before coffee, same spot at the navel with a fabric tape — I'm down 4.5 inches since January and my fasting glucose went 106 to 97, and the tape kept moving through a three-week stretch in February where the scale didn't budge at all. One reversal worth knowing: my A1c looked worse mid-loss than at the start, which my doctor said can happen with how red cells turn over, so I'd read a single 5.9 as a snapshot, not a verdict.

Are you actually trying to screen into a trial, or mostly using the registry as a proxy for whether this drug class is real before you bring it up at your next physical?

Fasting glucose 104 was my nudge too, but the thing that finally made tracking useful was boring: I stopped weighing daily and did one Sunday morning waist check at my belly button. In 11 weeks I lost 1.5 inches even though the scale only dropped 7 lbs, and the surprise was that my two worst weeks weren’t the low-step weeks—they were the ones where I slept under 6 hours and ate restaurant food Friday through Sunday.

I’d been blaming weekdays and walking, but my weekday routine was already decent, so the weekend-plus-sleep leak was what kept stalling me. If you’re still deciding whether to wait on a trial slot or just track something for two weeks, I’d pick one body measurement plus sleep hours first—it made the noise way less maddening.

I got further in one 20-minute phone call than in three months of refreshing that counter. Registry totals update in batches, so the 2,001 is probably a snapshot from weeks or months back — a coordinator told me her site's numbers hadn't been touched since January, and I've seen listings sit at the same

I refreshed that counter like it owed me rent; one call got me an actual human.

That 2,001 figure can be planned enrollment, not a live count, and recruiting is often site-by-site—overall says yes while individual locations may be full. Does the listing show city-level sites, or just one central entry? I’m an empty-nester doing the new-walks-and-batch-cooking reset.

Sunday minestrone and a 20-minute loop after dinner are keeping me sane while I wait on the bigger stuff.

night shift here. A1c and fasting were close to yours. What I’ve learned: ask for the actual visit calendar before anything else.

One site listed as recruiting wanted 8am labs and no evening options, so I’d have been wrecked. Also ask how many people get screened vs randomized—if they’re screening hundreds for a handful of slots, the 2,001 number means nothing for you.

If they can’t give you your local site’s screen slots left, they’re just collecting interest.

The registry number matters less than what stage the site is actually filling. When I called about a different trial, they were “recruiting” but only for a screening waitlist — randomizations didn’t start until the next cohort.

Ask if they’re booking actual screening visits or just collecting names. I’m plateaued too and tracking waist + fasting glucose weekly; the scale lies but trends don’t. Did they give you a concrete

Check the “Study Record Versions” tab. It timestamps every status/l

Tbh same plateau over here—registry pages are a maze and I just want a real human to pick up.

New here too—those version tabs made my eyes cross, so thanks for asking this!

lol the version tabs made my eyes cross too, I just refresh and hope at this point 😅

Does the 2,001 say “Actual” or “Estimated” next to it? That distinction changed how I read these pages

registry status is site-reported and lags. I track each trial’s “last update posted” date and call the nearest site’s coordinator directly.

For one study that said recruiting, screening was paused until the next cohort; they had a waitlist and said the registry wouldn’t reflect that for weeks. Ask: actively screening now, waitlist, and when was this record last verified? Which site are you closest to? That matters more than the national count.