Enrollment puzzle: 62 vs 200 vs 140 in recruiting semaglutide trials

The 609 one is active, not recruiting, so that's a different snapshot. Comparing it to 62 seems apples and oranges.

Right, but the 30-person completed one still nags at me. Pilot?

Probably a pilot. Phase 1 studies often have tiny n.

The 200 recruiting study might just have more sites. That can explain a bigger number without a different phase.

Some listings update slowly, so the number can lag behind screening.

The 609 one being active-not-recruiting is the clue. That number is probably post-enrollment.

Right, and if it's an extension or safety follow-up, 609 makes sense. The 30-person completed one looks like an early signal study.

Has NCT02079870 posted results yet? The 30-person completed one is the one I want to see.

No results I can find. The recruiting trio might be different formulations.

Worth knowing before you compare options: that 62/200/140 split is probably just oral versus injectable. The part people forget is that pill arms tend to need more adherence data before those numbers mean much.

That's what I was thinking. The 140 one could be the oral arm.

I've been in a different semagultide trial, not one of these, and screening took forever. Site staff told me enrollment numbers on ClinicalTrials can sit unchanged for weeks even when they're actively screening. So 62, 200, 140 might not mean what we think. The 609 study probably already finished enrollment and is in follow-up. The completed 30-person one is the outlier I'd love to see results for.

The 62 is almost never the goal, it's usually just how many people have actually been randomized as of the last site update. I watched one listing sit at 9 for about seven months, then jump to 71 in three weeks once a second site opened, so that number says way more about site startup than about the study itself. Are you filtering by phase when you compare them?

Phase is doing a lot of the work in those gaps. A small phase 2 tolerability study in one specific population might be designed around 60-80 people, while a big phase 3 in a broader population can be built around 600+, so 62 vs 609 isn't strange, they're basically different animals. The 140 and 200 are probably mid-size or just multi-site. The trap is that ClinicalTrials shows actual enrolled bodies but also an estimated enrollment target, and people blend the two constantly. I keep a nerdy little spreadsheet with NCT number, phase, estimated vs actual, and the last update date, and honestly the update date is the tell. Some pages go stale for a year, so a low number might just mean nobody's touched the listing. If two of yours say phase 2 and one says phase 3, that alone explains a lot of it.

Site count is the other half of it. One center running a small mechanistic study can only randomize so fast, while a 40-site network can pull 200 people in a quarter. Screening failure is brutal too, seems like 3-4 screened for every 1 randomized, so the visible number always lags behind what's actually happening on the ground.

Honestly the number I trust least is the enrollment count and the one I trust most is my own Sunday morning log. I've been writing down fasting glucose and waist at the same time every week for about nine months, and the trial listings have never once told me anything useful about my own trend. What turned it around for me was realizing these recruiting numbers mostly reflect funding and site IRB approvals, not how promising anything is. I used to read a small number as early and exciting, now I read it as probably just started. If you're comparing trial figures against your own labs, the labs are the part that actually moves. Are you logging weekly or just when you get a draw?

The A1c part is what messes with your head. It's a 90-day average, so you can do everything right for three weeks and watch it sit still. My fasting glucose bounced 12 points day to day from a late dinner or bad sleep. I log it but only look at the 7-day average now. Less spiral.

My clinic's front desk couldn't tell me which arm I was in. I stopped trusting the listings after that.

Twenty-two weeks in, my scale had moved 4 pounds total and I nearly quit. What kept me sane was a pair of jeans from two summers earlier that I couldn't button without lying down first. Same mirror, same awful lighting, one photo every Sunday. Week 8, nothing. Week 11, a half-inch gap at the waistband, which the scale would never have shown because I was also walking a lot more. Here's the reversal nobody warns you about: week 16 I was up 2 pounds and the jeans fit better than they had at week 12. Turned out I'd been measuring my waist wrong, pulling the tape snug instead of keeping it level. Once I fixed that, my waist dropped 2.5 inches while my weight basically flatlined. My A1c went from 5.9 to 5.6 over about six months and just held there. Now I weigh once a week on Tuesday mornings, log waist at the navel, and trust the fabric over the number.

@laura_71 said: trust the fabric over the number.

My weekend/weekday split was the eye-opener too. Same meals Monday through Friday, then Saturday hits and I'm at 2,600 calories without noticing. The Monday scale jump was never fat, but logging both columns separately made the pattern obvious.

62 vs 200 is usually site count and phase, not a secret difficulty tier.

A completed n=30 is a pilot; 609 is a whole different question, not a bigger version of it.

The only thing that killed my 3pm fridge raids was a pre-portioned protein snack at 2:30, not willpower. I tracked it 4 weeks: cravings went from daily to twice a week, steps stayed flat, and dinner portions shrank on their own. What's your worst hunger window?

My biggest whoosh came after three boring nights of 7.5 hours sleep, not after a perfect diet week. I'd been stuck at the same weight for 12 days, stressed about work and eating restaurant food with soy sauce two nights in a row, so I assumed water retention. Instead, I slept well, walked 25 minutes after dinner, drank plain water, and woke up 3.2 pounds lighter by day four. Since then I treat sleep like a data point: under 6 hours for two nights and my morning weight bumps 1-2 pounds even with the same food. The trial enrollment numbers won't tell you that, but your own patterns will. Are you logging sleep and sodium next to those glucose/A1c labs?

62 reads like a narrow eligibility window—one site, one age band, or a specific comorbidity. 140 and 200 are more likely later-phase but can still differ by population: one might require sleep apnea, another might be broader. Also check Locations before comparing raw N: I got fooled once by a “200” that was 18 sites overseas and 2 near me. A 140 across 6 sites can fill slower than 200 across 30. What conditions are listed on each? That’s usually the tell.

Those numbers used to confuse me too. I check the “Enrollment type” line now: some records say actual, some anticipated, and recruiting status can lag weeks behind. Also click Locations—62 could be one site, while 200/140 multi-site, which changes the vibe completely. Sharp Q: does the 140 study list sites in multiple countries or one region? My own n=1 version of this is hilarious: I “enroll” every Monday and lose half my participants by Thursday if I don’t pre-track dinner by 5pm. 😂 What’s the one tracking habit you’d keep if a trial only measured that?

I fell down that same rabbit hole. One thing that helped: on ClinicalTrials, recruiting records often show anticipated enrollment, while completed or active-not-recruiting ones may show actual. So 62/200/140 might be targets, not people already in. Click the Enrollment row and check if it says Anticipated vs Actual. Then compare condition, phase, and site count—those usually explain the spread more than anything. Are all three recruiting ones in the same condition, or is one maybe diabetes, one obesity, one something else? That distinction might crack the puzzle.

Are those 62/200/140 the “Estimated Enrollment” field or “Actual”? That tripped me up too — recruiting studies often show a target, not bodies already randomized, and a small number can be one arm or one site’s local cohort. I do this ClinicalTrials rabbit-holing between airport gates and screenshot phase + sites + primary outcome

Honestly, ClinicalTrials is sneaky: recruiting rows usually show estimated enrollment, not how many people they’ve actually got. So 62 can be a single-site target, 200 a multi-site target, 140 something in between. Cick the Locations tab—200 across 15 clinics vs 62 at one clinic explains a lot. Also check if they’re the same phase and population; if one’s in people with a specific condition, the numbers aren’t comparable. What do the Locations and “Actual Enrollment” fields say on yours?

Check the “Enrollment” column qualifier before comparing them. Recruiting trials usually show estimated enrollment—the target—not current bodies.

Daily weigher here. First thing I’d check is whether those recruiting numbers are Estimated Enrollment vs Actual. Recruiting records usually show the target, not how many people are already in. A single-site study needing frequent lab visits can sit at 62 planned forever; a 200 across many sites fills faster. Also scan the arms — some “recruiting” listings are only for an extension or sub-study. What does the Enrollment column type say on each record?

Maybe I’m the only one who cares, but on ClinicalTrials the headline number is often anticipated enrollment, not bodies already in. If you open each record and check “Enrollment type,” some are Estimated and some Actual. That alone explains 62 vs 200 vs 140 — different target sample sizes, not necessarily different recruitment progress. The 609 active-not-recruiting one is probably Actual. I keep a little tab for this because my own “enrollment” trendline was flat until I realized I was comparing targets to completed numbers. What do the enrollment-type fields say on your three recruiting records? That would settle it fast.

Hi, I’m brand new here too and this tripped me up yesterday. I think the numbers on ClinicalTrials aren’t always apples-to-apples: some are estimated total enrollment, some are actual, and some include a screening/run-in phase before randomization. So 62 might be one site’s planned participants, while 200 and 140 could be full-study targets. Also, a study can list “enrolled” but still be recruiting if they haven’t hit target or are opening new sites. Does anyone know if the 62 is a single-site listing? Sorry if that’s a silly question—I’m still learning to read the status fields.

I went down this rabbit hole too, and the Locations tab cracked it for me — same energy as my daily walk streak spreadsheet. The small recruiting ones I checked were one or two sites; the 200-ish one had a dozen. So the number tracks site capacity as much as anything. Also peek at Study Design: the 30-person completed one I found was healthy volunteers, no weight angle, while the big active-not-recruiting one looked like a long outcomes study. Different animals. Does the 62 one list just a single clinic, or am I misreading it?

I do the same thing with ClinicalTrials that I do with airport departure boards: check the “Locations” column first. A 62-person study can be one or two sites with a narrow population, while a 200-person one might be 15 sites across countries. Also peek at “First Posted” and “Last Update Posted”—recruiting pages lag, and sites drop out. Sharp question: do all three list the same primary outcome? If one is tracking food-plan adherence or smart-scale weight, that explains why 140 vs 200 feels like different beasts. The numbers aren’t apples to apples.

I’m in maintenance now, but I still nerd out on trial pages. I’d dig into phase, site list, and start date. A 62-person recruiting study is often a single-country mechanism or imaging sub-study; 140–200 sounds like a multi-site Phase 3 still rolling. The 609 one may be an extension that only counts prior completers, not a fresh pool. I’ve learned the last-update date matters more than the headline—some “recruiting” numbers sit stale for months. Are all three even the same formulation/route, or are some oral vs injectable? That alone can explain wildly different enrollment.

Running a cafe taught me to check “yield vs. estimate”: those recruiting numbers may be target enrollment, not people currently in. I’d click the Enrollment row and see if it says Estimated or Actual, then glance at Last Update Posted. A 30-person completed study can be a small pilot; 609 active-not-recruiting might just be closed to new folks but still following them. Sharp question: is the 62 a target for a small sub-study or an actual count? Also, I pre-bag muffins before the rush so I don’t nibble — trial numbers feel similarly pre-set, not real-time totals.

One thing that tripped me up: ClinicalTrials has two different fields — “Enrollment” in the design section is often the target, while “Actual Enrollment” only shows up later. So those recruiting 62/200/140 might be goals, not people already in. The completed 30 could be actual, and the 609 active-not-recruiting might be target or actual depending on how the sponsor updated it. Are you comparing those two fields, or just the summary card? I’ve started doing the same goal-vs-actual tracking with my daily walks and new recipes, and it’s humbling.

Wait—are you looking at “Estimated” vs “Actual” enrollment? Recruiting pages usually show a target, not bodies already randomized. That alone can explain 62/200/140 vs the completed 30. The 609 active-not-recruiting one might be estimated too, or a different definition. I treat those fields like airport boards: “scheduled” isn’t “wheels up.” I’d filter by enrollment type before comparing. What does the fine print say for the 609 study?

One thing I’d check before comparing those recruiting numbers: ClinicalTrials has an Enrollment Type field — Actual vs Estimated. Recruiting studies often show a planned target, not how many people are already enrolled. The completed 30 is probably actual; the 609 active-not-recruiting is likely actual too. So 62/200/140 may just be protocol targets, not progress. I nerd out similarly with my scale: the daily number is noisy, the trend line tells the real story. Do those recruiting entries say Estimated? If so, the puzzle mostly dissolves.