Why is one semaglutide trial 609 and others 62-200?

I noticed that too. 609 active not recruiting is a big jump from 62, 200, and 140 still recruiting. Makes me wonder if they’re different phases.

Or different populations. Registry entries rarely tell you enough.

NCT02079870 completed with 30? That’s tiny. Early safety study, maybe.

Assumptions are how these threads go sideways lol.

Fair. I just want to know why the 609-person one hasn’t posted results yet.

Results can lag forever. I’ve seen completed trials sit for years before anything shows up.

That’s the annoying part. Active, not recruiting, 609 enrolled—feels like it should have something by now.

Maybe it’s ongoing follow-up. Active doesn’t always mean treatment is still happening.

This is why I mostly check new recruiting ones. NCT07401992 at 62 is the one I’m watching.

Why that on?e If it’s still recruiting, it’s probably early. The 200 and 140 ones might be more interesting.

I’m more curious whether it’s oral or injectable. That changes how I read the data.

I used to obsess over enrollmetn numbers, but they only tell you how many people signed up, not what was measured or when. The 609 trial being active-not-recruiting might just mean they’re in the long follow-up tail.

The 30-person completed one could be a tiny PK study. Without posted results, we’re guessing.

I’d rather wait for actual data than assume what each number means.

Still, the gap between 609 and 62 is weird enough that I get why you asked. It doesn’t fit a simple pattern to me. At least not yet.

I did the same rabbit hole thing and started a little spreadsheet. Enrollment size mostly tracks phase and how many sites are running, not how promising anything is.

That 30-person completed one with an NCT number starting 02 is just an old early safety study — those were tiny by design. The 609 one is probably a big multi-site trial where dozens of hospitals each pull in 10-20 people, and "active, not recruiting" usually means the last participant is in and they're following everyone out.

The 62-200 ones are mid-size and mid-build, so they're still adding sites. My columns are phase, status, first posted date, and enrollment, and honestly the first posted date explains more of the spread than the enrollment does.

A 2014 listing and a 2025 listing are basically different eras of how these things get designed.

609 usually means they needed a hard endpoint, not that the drug got 10x stronger. Numbers follow statistics, not vibes.

Funny thing is I spent two months deep in trial registries while completely ignoring my own data. I'd log every study number but weigh myself randomly, no pattern, no time of day.

When I finally started tracking daily at the same time each morning, my weight bounced between 187 and 191 for three weeks before dropping to 184 by week 12, and my waist went from 37 to 35 over about 16 weeks. The reversal: the registry research felt productive and the scale felt chaotic, but the scale was the only thing actually giving me a signal.

Now I do the boring stuff — same time, same clothes, write it down, watch the 7-day average instead of the daily number. The daily number will wreck your head. Enrollment counts are interesting but they're somebody else's spreadsheet.

@ashley_2025 said:

The daily number will wreck your head.

Honestly, that spread isn't weird at all — I'd argue it's the most normal thing in the registry. What trips people up is treating the enrollment field as final when it's really an estimate that gets quietly edited. I watched one listing sit at 200 for about 14 months, flip to "active, not recruiting," then show 212.

Status labels also lag reality by weeks, so "not yet recruiting" can be fully enrolled in the real world. And the newest listings have the shakiest numbers because sites are still being added. Which is kind of your point, I think.

I've been tracking my own stuff for 20 weeks now, and the only comparison that ever mattered was me versus me six weeks ago. Someone else's 609 tells you nothing about your own 12-week trend.

I track waist inches more than trial numbers—down 3.5 since March, which feels louder than 609.

Weekends are my real trial—Friday pizza used to add 2 lbs by Monday, now I pre-log a big salad and walk 25 minutes after dinner, and Monday scale only bumps 0.4. Took 11 weeks to trust that pattern, but it changed how I read 'fast' vs 'sustained' results.

Big numbers on a page still don't tell me how my jeans fit on a Tuesday.

My sleep tracker was the surprise: 7.5 hrs vs 5.5 changes my morning scale by a full pound.