NCT05931367 completed with 445, so where are results?

CT.gov results can lag a long time after completion. Small trials often never post them at all.

Yeah, but 445 isn't tiny. I'd expect something by now, even just a conference abstract.

I'd separate the CT.gov silence from the Phase 2/3 comparison. The 24.2% at 48 weeks is from Phase 2, and the up to 28.7% is company-reported and not peer-reviewed. Different estimands and durations can make those look like a jump when they're not directly comparable. The completed knee OA trial with 445 is interesting because pain and function endpoints may tell a different story than weight. Still, no results posted means we're guessing.

The knee OA trial is the one I want. Pain and function endpoints matter more to me than weight alone.

Does CT.gov have a deadline for posting results? I thought it was within a year for some trials.

For applicable interventional trials, yes, there are posting requirements, but not every completed trial is covered. A completed status on CT.gov doesn't mean results will appear promptly. I've seen oncology trials lag for years. With these small metabolic trials, abstracts or company updates often come first. That doesn't make the Phase 2 24.2% less solid, but it does mean the 28.7% number needs cautious reading until we see the full data.

I checked CT.gov again this morning, coffee in hand. Still nothing. That 445 trial is the one I keep refreshing. If it had a conference abstract, I’d probably frame it.

The posting rules have carve-outs. A completed status and a results deadline aren’t the same thing. I’ve seen entries sit blank for years. So the silence isn’t proof of anything except silence.

I’m with you on separating the numbers. 24.2% at 48 weeks and up to 28.7% may not even be answering the same question. I want the table, not the talking point.

Rainy afternoon here, so I made a timeline of that 445 trial: completion date, one-year mark, nothing. My notebook has more results than the registry right now.

For me the interesting part is which endpoints get reported first. Weight alone can travel fast. The fuller set often waits for a proper write-up. That’s just how these things surface.

I don’t need a polished paper. A conference poster would scratch the itch. Even a plain table with n and time points. Is that too much to ask?

Until the full data show up, I’m treating 28.7% as a headline and 24.2% as the firmer anchor. Not because one is bad, just because I can’t line them up yet.

I keep a note in my phone with the NCT number and the completion date, and I stop checking after 18 months — past that they usually surface at a conference or a press release first. FDAAA says a year for applicable trials, but enforcement is basically a stiff email, so a 445-person trial sitting quiet for a year isn't weird. Did the completion date shift recently? That usually resets the clock.

Completed on CT.gov and completed in reality are two different verbs, apparently.

Honestly the 24.2% vs 28.7% thing is comparing two different rulers. Efficacy estimand strips out everyone who dropped out or stopped, so it flatters the number, and if the Phase 3 headline is a different estimand or a different week point they're not competing numbers at all. What I'd actually want posted is the treatment-policy estimand, the one that includes everyone who quit. I track my own stuff the same way — my on-plan spreadsheet has me down 19 lb over 40 weeks, the honest one that counts vacation and the two months I stalled says 11. Both true, very different story.

One thing that helped me stop refreshing that page: I set a Google Scholar alert for the NCT number and a saved search on the sponsor's newsroom. Conference abstracts drop months before the actual posting and a 445-person trial rarely vanishes quietly, somebody presents it somewhere. Also check whether completed means the whole trial or just primary completion — if an extension period is still running, the clock basically doesn't start until the last visit. I've waited on three like this, two eventually showed up as late-breaker posters, the third I gave up on.

My scale sat still for 19 days while my belt went down a notch, so I quit trusting one number.

I weigh Fridays only, same time, after bathroom, and measure my waist at the navel. Over 12 weeks the scale dropped 9 lbs but my waist shrank 3.5 inches, which was the opposite of what I expected. Weekends used to wreck me; now I front-load protein at breakfast and walk 20 minutes after dinner. That combo did more for my head than any number on a screen.

My favorite non-scale victory: a hoodie that used to choke me now hans like a tent.

When sleep tanked under 6 hours, my appetite went feral and the scale jumped 3 lbs overnight.

I went down this rabbit hole hard last year and kept a bookmark folder of trial IDs, refreshing CT.gov like it was a sports score. What I learned: if a filing is pending, the results almost always surface at a conference first and the registry updates last. I waited 14 months on a Phase 2 readout and it appeared as an ObesityWeek poster about a week before CT.gov moved; the sponsor had clean data the whole time and just didn't want to tip off competitors pre-filing. Small early trials like the 32 and 46 enrollee ones are often exploratory sub-studies, and honestly sometimes nobody's job is to post them, which is annoying but not sinister. On the 24.2 versus 28.7 gap, that's usually an estimand thing, one number is closer to 'everyone stayed on treatment' and the other folds in people who stopped, so they're not as contradictory as they look even if the framing is generous. Practical move that saved me: check the sponsor pipeline page and the ADA/EASD/ObesityWeek late-breaker abstracts, and set a reminder for 12 months past the completion date, since that's the usual posting window for applicable trials. I keep one note on my phone with trial number, completion date, expected posting date, and I look at it monthly instead of daily. Way less soul-crushing.

Conferences leak first every time; I found my trial's numbers in an abstract PDF weeks before CT.gov ever moved.

My Monday number runs 3 to 4 lb over my Friday one no matter what I do, and it's almost always a salty takeout dinner, not fat. It drops back by Wednesday every single week. Took me about four months to stop panicking, and now I only look at the weekly average intead of the Monday spike.

I stopped refreshing CT.gov when I learned to check the Record History tab, not just the top-line status. I had a trial sit “Completed” for almost a year because the primary completion date kept getting revised; the results clock anchors to that, not the overall completed flag. Sponsor quarterly filings/pipeline slides can also drop timing hints before anything posts. For NCT05931367, is the listed primary completion date still the original, or has it shifted in the history? That’s the date I’d watch. If it’s unchanged and well past the usual window, then yeah, I’d be side-eyeing the silence too.

Something I learned after my own trial wrapped: CT.gov’s results clock keys off the primary completion date, not the study completion date or when enrollment closed. Results are generally due within 12 months of that, but certification or an extension can stretch it. Mine didn’t post until about 14 months after my last visit. So for the 445-person one, has the primary completion date actually crossed that 12-month mark yet? If yes, I’d check Results First Submitted versus Results First Posted.

The date field I watch is Primary Completion Date, not Completion Date. The results clock usually rus from primary completion, and some of these “Completed” trials have a much later final completion date. Also, my small-town pharmacy

One thing my local pharmacist pointed out when I was stalking CT.gov: the results clock usually runs from the primary completion date, not the overall study completion date. So a trial can say “Completed” while the results tab sits empty for up to a year-ish after that primary date, unless an extension was granted. Can you check the primary completion dates on those three? If they’re older than 12 months and still blank, that’s a different ballgame. I keep a paper log of my own weekly weigh-ins, so I totally get the impatience.

Results lag is the boring variable. I’d be more suspicious of matching timepoints: Phase 2’s 24.2% at 48 weeks vs topline “up to 28.7%” could be different estimands/populations, and if so the comparison is just spreadsheet astrology. I log weekly weights plus a 4-week rolling average, so I only compare like-for-like. Sharp question: does the Phase 3 protocol list Week 48 as a secondary endpoint, or is 28.7% a later peak? If Week 48 isn’t in the topline, waiting for CT.gov won’t answer the question you actually asked.

if you want a new rock to turn over: check the Study Documents tab on CT.gov, not just Results. Sometimes the protocol/SAP drops before any numbers, and the SAP is where they define the estimand and how they handle missing data. Also watch ObesityWeek/ADA late-breakers—companies oten trot out the headline there before the full CT.gov posting. I’m dying to know if that 24.2% is ITT or completers. Meanwhile my cafe’s pastry case is my own personal Phase 3; I’ve been pre-bagging half-portion scones so I don’

Have you checked whether any of these have presented at a recent obesity conference? Sometimes Phase 3 top-line data appear in a late-breaking abstract or company presentation months before CT.gov or a journal. I also keep a simple spreadsheet of weekly averages during these waits, because the process feels less endless when I can see my own trend. For NCT05931367 specifically, I would compare the “Completion Date” with the “Primary Completion Date” as well—sometimes those tell a clearer story than the status field alone.

I’ve been burned by this too—my tracking spreadsheet has a column for “CT.gov last update” vs “primary completion.” One weird thing I noticed: sometimes results get posted under a different NCT than the one on the label, especially after a protocol amendment or parent/child study. Did NCT05931367 have any linked studies in the “More Information” section? Also check the sponsor’s quarterly earnings deck—they often drop a topline slide before the paper. That’s how I caught a 48-week vs 72-week mismatch on one I was following.

I’m reading this from an airport gate, so grain of salt. One extra rock: company pipeline pages and quarterly earnings decks. I’ve watched a metabolic trial’s topline show up in an investor slide, then a conference poster, and only months later on CT.gov. Also, CT.gov has a “Last Update Posted” date even when results aren’t posted—

Honestly, I feel this. For NCT05931367 I set a ClinicalTrials.gov email alert for the record—it pings on any update, including results. Also worth checking sponsor quarterly earnings calls/IR slides; I’ve seen obesity program timelines get mentioned there weeks before CT.gov catches up. And conference late-breakers (ObesityWeek/ADA) often scoop the registry. Airport Wi-Fi + refresh button = my cardio. Did the company give a data-readout window on its last call, or just vague “2025”?

I’ve been burned by the “Completed” label too. The status can flip before the primary completion date has formally passed, and the results clock keys off that field, not overall status. My spreadsheet columns are NCT, Primary Completion Date, Results First Posted, and linked PubMed—not status. For one prior trial, the record sat completed for months while Primary Completion was listed a year out. So my follow-up: what does each record show for Primary Completion? If that date hasn’t hit, CT.gov isn’t late yet; if it has, the silence is more interesting. Also check “Study Record Versions” history to see if dates got quietly revised.

Honestly, I care less about the headline weight number and more about body comp. If the Phase 3 didn’t include DXA or at least lean-mass/waist secondary outcomes, a 28% scale drop doesn’t tell me much for recomp. I lift 4x and hammer protein/sleep, so I want to know how much was fat vs lean. Also, CT.gov results deadlines are usually tied to primary completion date, not overall study completion—was that field recent? If it’s still inside the window, the silence isn’t automatically shady. Did anyone catch whether body composition was a pre-specified endpoint?

Check the Primary Completion Date, not Study Completion. That’s the results clock. Applicable trials are generally due within 1 year of that date. If it hasn’t moved and there’s no Results tab, sponsor is late. If it moved, that’s your answer. Also open the record’s Results tab directly — sometimes it posts there beore the main page looks updated. What are the primary completion dates on those three? That separates “late” from “not due yet.”

One thing that bit me before: CT.gov “Completed” is overall status, but the results clock keys off primary completion date, not last visit. For applicable trials, FDAAA generally expects results within 12 months, with some certification/extension wiggle room. If it’s voluntary, they can sit on it way longer. Also peek at EU CTIS/EudraCT if any sites were ex-US—sometimes the synopsis/CSR lands there first. Do you know if NCT05931367 is an applicable trial? That’s the difference between normal lag and “why is this not posted.” In the trials, sponsors also wait for journal embargo, which can add months.

I do my CT.gov stalking from airport gates, so I feel this. The field I watch now is Primary Completion Date, not status. For applicable trials that

Not sure it’s the same situation, but on CT.gov I always toggle to “Study Record Dates.” “Completion Date” can mean the whole trial including follow-up, while the results clock mostly keys off “Primary Completion Date.” I’ve seen records say Completed while Primary Completion was still months away. Also check the History tab—dates get quietly revised. Did anyone note the Primary Completion Date on NCT05931367? That’d tell you if results are actually late or just not due yet.

one thing that burned me on these: ct.gov has “primary completion” vs “study completion” dates, and the 12-month results clock usually keys off the primary one. i started tracking “results first posted” separately because a record can show completed while results aren’t technically overdue yet. also, for unapproved drugs, sponsors can get an extension/certification to delay until approval or a certain regulatory milestone. not saying that’s what’s happening here, but did you check nct05931367’s primary completion date vs the completion date? that’d tell you if it’s just lag or something more deliberate.

I keep a little spreadsheet of trial IDs with two extra columns: ‘FDAAA 12-mo due’ and ‘delay cert y/n.’ For unapproved products, sponsors can file a certification to postpone results until approval/clearance, or up to 2 years after completion if it never gets approved. That might explain this gap. Have you checked the CT.gov record’s ‘More Info’ or history tab for a results-delay certification? I’ve started logging sleep and step consistency instead of refreshing the page, but the missing results still nag me.

I’ve found it helps to track the primary completion date separately from the study completion date. Results posting timelines generally attach to the former, and sponsors can request an extension, so a record can say “completed” while the results window is still open. I keep a weekly-average log for my own trends, but for trial tracking I now use two columns: primary completion and results first posted. Do you happen to know NCT05931367’s primary completion date? That would clarify whether they are actually overdue or still inside the usual window. I’m quietly hopeful the peer-reviewed data follows soon.

Not a pro, just a mom who refreshes between snack packs. One thing that helped me stop doom-scrolling: check the EU CTR and the sponsor’s investor/press page too—sometimes a synopsis or conference abstract lands there before CT.gov. With 445 people, database lock plus follow-up and stats can drag. Sharp Q: has anyone spotted an

Status “Completed” isn’t the trigger. The results clock generally starts at Primary Completion Date, and it’s typically 12 months after that for applicable trials. If the PCD is recent, the empty tab is just bureaucracy doing bureaucracy. If the PCD is long past, then the interesting question is whether they’re waiting on a journal embargo or hoping nobody notices. What’s the PCD on NCT05931367? I’d also

Hi, brand new here (week one) and quietly anxious about every date. Maybe a dumb question: are you comparing primary completion vs study completion? I might be misreading, but ClinicalTrials.gov results are generally due about 1 year after primary completion for applicable trials, not necessarily overall completion—so if that date got pushed, the Results tab can stay empty even when the trial says completed. For a different trial I watched, the “History of Changes” tab showed “Results First Submitted” weeks before the actual results appeared. Could be worth checking there? Sorry if that’s obvious!

I’ve learned to check the record’s “Results First Posted” and “Last Update Posted” fields, not just the status. If there’s no Results tab, I search the NCT number for conference abstracts or preprints—sometimes those drop first while a journal embargo is still in place. For my own tracking, I log waist and how clothes fit weekly; scale weight moves less than I expct when I’m walking more and cooking at home. Has anyone actually seen an abstract or poster appear before the CT.gov results for one of these?

I’d also check the EU CTR and the sponsor’s pipeline page—sometimes results land there before CT.gov. If NCT05931367’s primary completion was late 2024, that one-year posting window is basically up, and silence after that is a red flag. Has anyone seen whether these had a separate body-comp sub-study? The 28.7% headline is just scale weight; for someone lifting 4x/week, the recomp data matters way more.

another angle: results sometimes sit until the manuscript clears peer review, so completed ≠ readable. if the sponsor has a late-breaker at ObesityWeek/ADA, it can pop up the same morning as the talk. I’m usually up at 3am between ranked games refreshing ct.gov like a goblin lol. anyone seen a pattern for the smaller completed ones (32 and 46) — do they ever post results or just vanish? I’m tracking my own soda swap in a notes app, so I’m here for the data nerdery.

Completed just means the last visit happened. Data cleaning, query resolution, database lock, then stats. That can eat months. For a 445-person trial, I’d look for a “Delayed Results” certification in the CT.gov record. That can push posting out up to 2 years. I don’t care about 28.7% until I see the ITT table, discontinuations, and SAEs. I track my own weight with a 4-week rolling average, because night shifts make daily numbers useless. What does the Results tab actually say—No Results Posted, or a submission date?

i’d also poke around the company’s quarterly earnings deck and pipeline page. In small-town pharmacy world, we often see the slide deck hit investor relations weeks before anything lands on CT.gov, especially for the smaller trials. The 32 and 46 person ones may be Phase 1, which doesn’t have the same posting requirement. For the 445 trial, I’d search ObesityWeek/EASD abstract books too, because that 28.7% number usually gets a poster before peer review. Did you happen to see if the Results tab says “No Results Posted” or just nothing? That tells you if it’s late or not required.