Completed Retatrutide Trials With No Posted Weight Data?

CTgov results lag is common. 445 in knee OA probably means pain and function scores, not just weight, and that takes time to clean.

Maybe. But NCT05548231 only had 32 people. A small completed trial with no topline feels less like cleanup and more like nobody is publishing.

The Phase 2 24.2% at 48 weeks was efficacy estimand, right? That's not the same as a real-world ITT number. The 28.7% company figure gets quoted without that caveat.

This is why I only trust peer-reviewed tables. Company Phase 3 numbers up to 28.7% are a headline, not a dataset. Show me full NCT05931367 results and I'll care.

I've watched CTgov for a while and the quiet ones are often trials where weight wasn't the primary endpoint. NCT05931367 was in knee OA, so the main readout may be pain and function scores. NCT06039826 in postmenopausal women could have body composition or metabolic markers as endpoints. The Phase 2 24.2% at 48 weeks is still the cleanest obesity-specific number we have, even with estimand caveats. The up-to-28.7% figure from four company-reported Phase 3 trials is interesting but not peer-reviewed, so I'd treat it as directional. The 445 and 46 enrollment numbers don't tell us when results were due.

Agreed on endpoints. Knee OA trials can live or die on pain and function, not scale weight.

Knee OA trials bury weight in the secondary outcomes, that's my read. Primary there is usually pain and function scores, so nobody's racing to publish a weight headline. I've watched the results tab on a couple of these for months, and the auto-post window can stretch a year past completion, and small academic sites often just don't. Meanwhile I'm down 21 lbs in 14 weeks, waist 38 to 35, weighed Sunday mornings only.

Honestly a 32-person and a 46-person cohort just aren't powered for weight claims, so journals pass and the data sits in a drawer. I've got a friend in academic trials who says two years from completion to print is normal, conference late-breaker comes first. The 445-person OA one is the only one that'd move anything, and I'd bet on an abstract before a paper.

Postmenopausal cohort of 46? That's a pilot wearing a trial's coat.

Meanwhile I stall for two weeks straight any time I sleep under six hours. Bodies make terrible endpoints.

I track waist at belly button every Sunday; a 445-person OA trial not posting weight data smells like a buried secondary endpoint.

I’ve been tracking daily since January: weight, waist at navel, and how my jeans fit on a 1–5 scale. Weeks 1–4 I dropped 5.2 lbs, weeks 5–7 were flat, then wek 8 I whooshed 4.8 lbs after a salty takeout weekend and a 12k-step Saturday. Weird part? The whoosh followed higher carbs and a lazy Sunday, not a perfect diet week. So when a completed trial has no weight topline, I don’t automatically assume buried bad news; if the primary endpoint was knee pain or safety, weight might just be a table in the supplement. Still frustrating for people mapping this stuff. Did anyone catch whether those entries have a results section pending versus just no posted data?

My scale les for three days after pizza, so I trust the jeans button more than any topline.

Weekends are my rel trial: Friday to Monday can undo four clean weekdays.

I worked on a site level for a bit and completion date is just the last visit, not database lock. We'd spend another 8-14 months querying and cleaning before anything went public, and that was for a simple diabetes registry. Also the knee OA study may have pain/function as primary and weight as secondary, so even a topline might not lead with pounds.

ClinicalTrials.gov: where topline results go to nap indefinitely, and we refresh like it's a tracking number.

My n=1 data: under 6 hours of sleep, my morning weight jumps 1.8 lb and my hunger hits 8/10 by 2pm. Same food, same 8k steps, so it's not the scale being broken. If the topline omits sleep and stress, the weight number is still half the story. I'd take waist-to-height over a single kg change.

At this rate I'll hit goal before those results post.

I stopped trusting the scale as my only marker after my waist dropped 3.5 inches while my weight sat flat for seven weeks. The tape kept moving even when the number didn't, which made me wonder if those OA trials care more about joint pain scores than pounds. Did the posted outcome measures list WOMAC or function as primary? That would explain a lot.

My Monday weight is reliably 2-4 lbs higher than Friday, every single week, and it's not fat—it's Friday pizza and two glasses of wine. Took me months to stop panicking. If a trial weighs people on a random Tuesday after a holiday weekend, the data gets noisy fast. Maybe that's why some topline numbers sit unpublished while they clean it up.

Honestly, completed on CTgov just means the last participant finished, not that anyone's analyzed a single pound of data. I've seen studies sit 14 months before results post. Knee OA trials often have a 52-week endpoint, so if enrollment wrapped recently they're still in the lock-and-clean phase. Frustrating, but not necessarily fishy.

What got me was dropping 9 lbs in 10 days just by walking 8k steps and cutting restaurant meals to once a week—no other change. Water and sodium were doing way more than I gave them credit for. So when I see no weight data posted, I wonder if the trials are measuring visceral fat or inflammation instead, where the scale barely moves. Did any secondary outcomes mention CRP?

I track belt notches, not scale. Dropped two notches before the number moved 3 lbs.

What got me was sleep. I slept 5 hours for a week and my weight shot up 4 lbs, then fell 3.5 after two 8-hour nights. If a trial stops at last dose and doesn't report waist or sleep-adjusted stuff, the topline can look flat even when clothes fit better. Did those knee OA and postmenopausal studies list waist circumference as secondary? That's the number I'd want.

Same wall, OP. I remember the old SURMOUNT-4 thread where the CT.gov results tab stayed empty for months, then weight data landed in a conference poster, not topline. For NCT05548231, I’d check the Chinese registry mirror—local trials often post there first, in Chinese, and it’s easy to miss. NCT05931367’s OA angle may mean weight/lab outcomes get buried in a supplement table. Did you try the EU CTR or email the corresponding author? I’m less worried about efficacy than whether the OA endpoints were powered for anything beyond pain. Keep the map going—this is the kind of thread I bookmark for six months.

I hit the sme wall with a different trial — the ClinicalTrials.gov results tab stayed empty until a conference poster showed up months later. For the knee OA one, did you try searching the NCT number plus “poster” or “supplement”? Sometimes weight change is buried as an exploratory endpoint, not topline. I’ve lost and regained before, so I track waist-to-height ratio and monthly photos now; the scale messes with my head. If you find the data, please post it here.

Are those “completed” dates primary completion or actual study completion? Results typically land about a year after primary completion, so a late-2024 primary endpoint could still be unpublished. PI names paired with ADA/EASD or ObesityWeek abstracts are worth a sweep—I once pulled knee-OA weight data from a poster supplement that never hit the registry. I’m a vet assistant, so my tracking is a Google Sheet of $2 tuna packets and gas-station cheese sticks. What dates are on NCT05931367? That separates delay from dead end.

not sure if you tried CTIS/EU CTR? some EU sites post summary results there even when .gov stays blank. also ADA/EASD

I poked at this from the regulatory side: CT.gov only mandates results for “applicable” trials, usually Phase 2/3 with a US site, and sponsors can certify they’re pursuing initial approval—which can delay posting while approval is pending. That might explain the empty tabs for an investigational med. The 32-participant China study may not be FDAAA-applicable at all. Do you know whether any of those had US sites? Also, for the knee OA one, did you look for pain/function outcomes? Sometimes those post before weight.

Ugh, same black hole. One thing I’ve started doing: when the results tab is empty, I check the WHO ICTRP record and any EU CTR entry—sometimes the same trial has a summary posted there first. For the postmenopausal one, I’d also look at whether weight was even a primary endpoint; if the primary was body comp/bone, weight might only be a secondary table, so it can be “completed” with no weight headline. Did you try the sponsor’s medical info/disclosure email yet? I got a timeline that way once. Also tracking my own waist/strength keeps me sane when data lags. Rooting for your spreadsheet!

Tbh Airport-lounge researcher here. When the Results tab is a ghost town, I try the sponsor’s own clinical trial disclosure/medical info page—some post plain-language summaries or CSR synopses way before registries catch up. Also conference poster PDFs: the weight curve sometimes hides in a supplementary figure, and Scholar finds it under author names. Did anyone try emailing the sponsor’s medical information line and specifically asking for the CSR synopsis for those NCTs? I got one once that way for a different area, and it included secondary outcomes tables. Took ~10 days and zero dignity, but worth a shot?

I’ve had better luck stalking conference posters than registries — not that I’m organized, my own food log is a Notes app full of lentils and regret. Search the PI names + NCT number in Google Scholar/PubMed; subgroup weight tables for knee OA or postmenopausal women sometimes live in a poster appendix that never gets indexed. Also check the sponsor’s annual report/pipeline PDF for a buried BMI-change slide. For NCT05931367, ObesityWeek/EULAR late-breakers might have it. Sharp question: has anyone tried the trial sites’ local IRB lay summaries? I found one that listed mean weight change when the main posting was jst a protocol. Maybe that’s the next black hole.

I keep a trial tracker for this exact issue. For NCT05548231, cross-check ChiCTR and CNKI—Chinese sites often post first. For NCT05931367, weight is likely secondary to WOMAC pain; sponsors can withhold secondary endpoints until manuscript. Search PubMed by NCT number, then check ObesityWeek/ADA abstracts. If a data-sharing statement exists, request the CSR; I’ve gotten body-comp tables that way for another metabolic trial. CT.gov emptiness ≠ no data, but it does mean the primary endpoint hierarchy matters. Have you pulled the protocol amendments? They often reveal whether weight was even powered.

Night shift here. Stop refreshing CT.gov. Search the NCT number in quotes on Google Scholar, conference sites, and WHO ICTRP. I found OA trial data buried in a rheumatology poster once. Weight wasn't the primary endpoint in that knee OA study, so it gets published last, if at all. Same with the postmenopausal one—bone/muscle labs may show up before scale data. Check the protocol's primary outcome on the record. If it's pain or function, weight is secondary and nobody's rushing it out. Anyone got a hit on that OA primary endpoint? That's the real tell.

I’m no researcher, but I’ve been doing my own nerd version—logging morning walks, what I cook now that it’s just us, and how my jeans fit. For those missing trials, have you tried conference abstracts? ObesityWeek and EASD often post late-breakers or secondary analyses months before CT.gov results. The knee OA one might show up under pain/function

Honestly, I’ve been hitting the same wall, but one thing I check now is primary completion date vs. completion date. On CT.gov, results are generally due 12 months after primary completion, not overall completion. If the knee-OA one had a later primary endpoint readout, the empty results tab might just mean it’s not due yet. Also, sometimes the protocol/SAP PDF in Study Documents lists prespecified secondary outcomes—if weight isn’t there, it may never show up as a posted result. Which of the three has the earliest primary completion date? That’d be the one I’d expect first.

Not a researcher either—just someone who regained half of what I lost and now tracks waist and strength instead of scale. For those completed Phase 3s, I’d check conference abstract databases directly: ObesityWeek, ADA, EASD. NCT05931367 has a knee OA endpoint, so weight might be buried in an ortho/rheum supplement rather than a topline. CT.gov results only show if the sponsor submits them. Has anyone tried the EU Clinical Trials Register or the sponsor’s pipeline page? I once found a poster PDF that never hit PubMed. That’s my best guess where these are hiding.

I’ve had better luck treating “no weight data” as a primary-endpoint clue rather than a dead end. For NCT05931367, knee OA trials often make pain or function the primary outcome, so weight may be secondary and only appear in a conference poster or journal supplement, not a topline. I keep a simple spreadsheet with weekly averages—daily numbers are too noisy for me—and I’d search the NCT number in ObesityWeek/ADA abstracts. Did any of those entries list a primary outcome other than weight? That might explain the silence.

dorm rat here — my hobby is finding free protein and missing trial data. For the Chinese 32-person one, CT.gov isn’t the whole map; try ChiCTR, CNKI/Wanfang, and local conference abstracts. I once unearthed a whole baseline table in a thesis PDF by searching PI name + trial acronym. For the knee OA trial, check ACR/OARSI posters or the supplement, since weight may be buried as a secondary outcome. Sharp question: has anyone tried ORCID-stalking the PIs for unpublished manuscripts? Meanwhile my dining hall egg whites are the only thing reliably posting results.

I’ve started cross-referencing NCT numbers with conference abstract archives and regional registries. For a completed metabolic trial I followed, the weight data eventually appeared as a late-breaking ObesityWeek poster and later in a journal supplement. I keep a small spreadsheet with tabs for PubMed, conference sites, and non-US registries, because the first clean signal often shows up there. Sharp question: has anyone checked the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for NCT05548231’s local registration? Sometimes the regional entry posts summary weight-related secondary outcomes earlier, especially when the global results page lags. That’s where I’d look next.

ya i've run into that too. one thing that helped was setting google alets for the NCT + "results" and the PI names, then checking conference abstract books (ObesityWeek, ADA, EASD) because some of these smaller completed arms get a poster months before ct.gov updates. also "completed" can mean primary completion only, while the record still says no results posted until they actually submit. are you filtering for records with a results section vs just completed? that distinction tripped me up. i keep a dumb spreadsheet of status dates + last

I’ve been in a similar spot—except I’m tracking waist/hip ratio and how stairs feel, not trial data. One thing that helped me stop doom-scrolling: I set a 10-min timer to check conference abstracts (ObesityWeek, ADA) and sponsor newsrooms, then log a non-scale win. For NCT05548231 specifically, have you checked the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry or WHO ICTRP? Sometimes the same study pops up there with results when the main registry stays blank. Also, for the knee OA one, did they prespecify weight as a secondary outcome or just safety? That might explain the silence.

Honestly, fellow plateau prisoner here—week 14 of the same 2 lbs bouncing. The trial-data black hole drives me nuts too. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned: check conference abstract archives (ADA, EASD, ObesityWeek) rather than just registry results. NCT05931367 had knee OA endpoints; those often show up as posters with secondary weight/lab data months before registry updates. Also company R&D day slides sometimes bury n=445 subanalyses in appendix. Sharp question: has anyone found the actual completion date vs. results-posted deadline? I’m tracking my own waist, protein, and walks to stay sane while waiting.

Hey, cafe owner here—portion control is my daily boss battle, so I’m also impatient for real numbers. One new avenue: conference abstract archives, not just journals. For NCT05931367, I’d search OARSI and ACR meeting sites; knee OA trials often present there first, and weight/labs can be buried in a poster PDF. Also check Lilly’s quarterly earnings decks/pipeline slides—they sometimes say “presented at X” without a press release. Have you tried the WHO ICTRP or EU CTR for linked results? Sometimes the same trial posts there under a different ID. If those are dead ends, it may just be sitting in a manuscript queue.

I’ve run into this with completed Lilly trials before. One extra place to check is the sponsor’s own clinical trial results portal and any conference abstracts tied to the investigator names, not the NCT number. For NCT05931367, knee OA, I’d also look for a separate pain/function manuscript—weight may be listed only in a secondary table or supplement. Did the postmenopausal trial include body composition/DXA outcomes? That could explain why weight isn’t the headline. I keep weekly averages myself, but trial toplines can lag well past completion. Have you tried searching by protocol number on the company site?

If they completed recently, don’t forget CT.gov results aren’t instant—usually due within a year of completion, and extensions happen. Have you compared the completion date to the results-submitted date for NCT05931367? I run a cafe and live in the “one bite won’t hurt” zone; tracking those bites showed they were basically my whole deficit. Missing weight data may just be buried in outcome tables, not a topline. Also check the protocol’s secondary outcome list—sometimes it’s worded as body weight change or BMI, not “weight.”

I’ve had better luck finding those as conference posters before they hit CT.gov. Try searching the NCT number plus “ObesityWeek” or “EASD” on Google—sometimes the weight change is buried in a figure, not the abstract text. Also check the sponsor’s publications page instead of the results tab. Sharp q: has anyone checked the Chinese registry for NCT05548231? I think that one may have landed there first. Meanwhile my daily weigh-ins are chaos this week, but my trend line is flat, so I’m just logging and waiting for actual data.

I care less about topline weight than whether they measured lean mass. The postmenopausal 46-patient one especially—if they did DXA, that’s gold for recomp folks. Knee OA trial might have WOMAC/function endpoints that matter more than scale change. Anyone seen a bone density or MRI-PDFF sub-analysis from any of these, or is everyone just waiting on the sponsor’s pipeline page? I track my own lift numbers and sleep, and scale weight is the noisiest metric I log.

One thing that helped me: for unapproved drugs, FDAAA lets sponsors delay results until 30 days after approval, so “completed” doesn’t mean overdue. I keep a sheet of completed GLP-1 trials and my median time from completion to results post is ~13 months, with about 20% still blank after 2 years. NCT05931367 and NCT06039826 look registration-path, so the silence may be strategic. Do any of the three list a weight-related secondary outcome on the protocol tab? If not, there may be nothing to post even aftr approval.

Did you check the Results tab vs the main study record? I got burned by that—completed just means finished; results can lag years. Also peek at protocol amendments. For NCT05931367, knee OA might’ve had a pain primary and weight buried as secondary, so if it missed, they may never topline it. I track my own weight weekly in a notes app, mostly so I don’t spiral. Snack drawer: pre-portioned turkey sticks and roasted chickpeas. Chaos dinners mean I eat standing up, so having grab-and-go protein keeps me from raiding the kids’ goldfish. Any luck with sponsor CSRs?