Semaglutide trial enrollment: why 609 closed but 62/200/140 still recruiting?

The NCT07011667 number is the giveaway. Active, not recruiting usually means they closed enrollment but still follow participants. The three still recruiting are probably different phases or narrower criteria.

That matches my screening call for NCT07401992. Site said slots were full even though the registry still lists 62 enrolled and recruiting.

A full site doesn't mean full study. NCT06897475 has 200 enrolled, so local bottlenecks are normal. I'd check site count before reading too much into it.

NCT02079870 with 30 completed is too old to compare.

Are these PK/PD or outcomes? Enrollment counts mean less if endpoints are just blood levels.

If they're PK/PD, 62 in NCT07401992 could be enough for an early signal. Different beast from a 609-person follow-up cohort.

I've been in a different semaglutide study, and the registry labels are messy. The 609 in NCT07011667 looks huge, but active not recruiting just means you can't join now. The smaller recruiting ones may be hard to fill because lab criteria and washout rules are strict, and prior GLP-1 use can exclude people. My screening took three visits before they even confirmed eligibility. So slow enrollment in NCT06989203 or NCT07401992 wouldn't make me assume anything about safety. It usually means the protocol is picky or the sites are slammed. The 140 and 200 numbers may just reflect different protocol sizes, not a red flag on their own.

The protocol pickiness was real for me too. My fasting glucose was 99 and creatinine was slightly high, so I didn't pass screening. Nothing dramatic.

The 200-person study probably has broader criteria. More sites, more slots. I'd still rather see endpoint data than enrollment totals.

Agreed, enrollment isn't efficacy, but a screening thread by NCT number would still be useful. Lab criteria and visit burden explain more than raw counts.

I’d still love a screening thread by NCT. My own notes are just dates, lab slips, and a sad little parking receipt. Raw counts tell me almost nothing compared to visit burden.

PK/PD vs outcomes is the whole ballgame for me. If NCT07401992 is just blood levels, 62 feels plausible. If it’s follow-up, I’d expect a bigger push.

My screening had three visits too. The washout rules were the sneaky part. I reread the calendar twice and still almost missed a window.

Short quip: enrollment is a calendar, not a verdict.

I’m in the 200-person camp. More sites, broader criteria, and slots that actually match my schedule. Still, I’d rather see endpoints than a big number.

Registry labels are messy, agreed. I’ve seen “active not recruiting” and thought it meant paused. Nope. Just closed to new hands. NCT07011667 can look huge and still be finished.

Prior GLP-1 use excluded me from one. I get why, but it made the recruiting map look patchy. NCT06989203 might just be picky, not worrisome.

My creatinine was slightly high once, so I sat out. No drama, just a lab flag. That’s the kind of thing a thread by NCT would explain faster than counts.

Numbers like 609 vs 62 usually just mean different enrollment targets, not different speed. A 600-person phase 3 closes when it hits the goal, while a 62-person study might be site-limited and needs 80, so it sits there looking stalled. Chasing those ratios isn't worth the bandwidth. A weekly waist log tells me more than a registry does — 3.5 inches down across twelve weeks of consistent tracking, and that's a number I can actually act on.

Honestly the enrollment counts might be the least interesting part. "Active, not recruiting" can mean they hit target, but it can also mean an interim look or a protocol amendment paused things — 609 might be a number they never intend to grow. I followed three of these registries for a month while my own weight bounced 4 lbs in that same window, so I'd be careful reading tea leaves.

Tracking trial registries at week 10 is the most on-brand thing I've seen here, and I mean that fondly.

I actually got screened for one of these last spring and washed out over the commute — two hours each way, plus a 6-week washout they spring on you at the end. Geography explains a lot of those numbers: a single-site study in a smaller metro sits half-full for a year while a 40-site network hoovers up 600 people in a quarter.

609 sounds less like a trial and more like a small city. The 62 one probably just has three sites.

Stopped refreshing the registries after week 6 — it was messing with my head and the numbers didn't move any faster for the watching. What stood out instead: tape measurements can drop 1.5 inches while the scale sits there doing nothing, and sleep does more work than anything else you throw at it. On enrollment, site count is huge. One study I followed had 11 sites and cleared 180 fast; another had 4 sites and sat at 62 for months. Not mysterious, just logistics.

Just throwing this in, One thing I learned from a coordinator on a different study: “active, not recruiting” often means they hit the enrollment target and are just following people, so 609 isn’t necessarily closed-closed. The 62/200/140 ones might be opening sites in waves or have tighter screening windows. Sharp question: do those listings show activated sites or just locations? I keep a sticky note with NCT numbers on the snack drawer, so every time I reach for crackers I end up registry-checking instead.

Registry status is messy. I check “Estimated vs Actual Enrollment” and the Locations tab. A 609 actual with active-not-recruiting usually means they hit target and are in treatment/follow-up, not that the question is answered. The 62/200/140 ones may be multi-site with only some sites open, so “recruiting” is country-level, not site-level. Are those numbers estimated or actual? That’s the tell. Also look at primary completion date—sometimes it lags.

tbh fellow broke dorm person here — my lab work is a $15 glucose meter and a prayer. One thing I’d check: “estimated enrollment” vs “actual enrollment,” and whther the 62/200/140 ones are early-phase or single-site. The 609 study may be active-not-recruiting because it hit target and is now in follow-up/analysis, while the others are still filling cohorts or waiting on an interim look. Do those recruiting listings show a primary completion date that keeps moving? That’s usually the tell. Also, cheap protein tip: cottage cheese + salsa in a tortilla has no business being that good.

Something I learned the hard way: registry status lags reality by weeks or months. I emailed a site listed as "recruiting" and got told they were still waiting on IRB sign-off, so nothing was actually open yet. Meanwhile a closed listing can just mean slots filled and they left it up until data lock. So those numbers may say more about lifecycle stage than actual accessibility. Side note, I started logging sleep alongside my CRP and the correlation is honestly embarrassing — the weeks I slept badly, inflammation tracked right along with it. Still here, still tracking.

I’m on the road 3 weeks a month, so I track in a Google Sheet with columns for hotel/airport, sleep, and whether I ate before noon. Fasting glucose is only comparable on non-travel days; hs-CRP I don’t bother at home. The registry thing reads like logistics, not efficacy: 609 may have hit its target and switched to active-not-recruiting, while 62/200/140 are probably still filling narrow strata or waiting on sites to activate. Sharp question: are those three recruiting in different regions or requiring a specific comorbidity? If so, that’s just study plumbing. Anyone else notice sites update status weeks after they stop actually screening?

i do the same at 2am except i treat clinicaltrials.gov like patch notes. one thing that helped: i made a column for phase and last upate date. the 609 one is probably a big phase 3 already locked for primary analysis, so active-not-recruiting = done enrolling, not paused. the 62/200/140 ones might be earlier phase or have expansion cohorts, so they keep recruiting small batches at specific sites. does anyone know if those three are all the same phase? if not, comparing their n is kinda apples/oranges. also site-level pages often lag the national registry by weeks.

Hi, totally new here (week one, mostly lurking). One thing that confused me too: raw enrollment totals don't always match status. The “Why Stopped” field and the “Primary Completion Date” can change the story — sometimes a trial stops adding people after an interim look or once its target per site/arm is full, while other NCTs are still in earlier recruitment. Did you compare the Study Design tab, especially arms and primary completion, across those four? That might explain 609 vs 62/200/140 better than total N alone. Sorry if obvious; still learning. Also, spreadsheet or notebook for your labs?

One thing I do is click the trial’s “Study Record History” and see when the status changed. I’ve noticed “Recruiting” flip to “Active, not recruiting” after a site hits its local cap, even while other sites are still screening. Could the 62/200/140 ones be multi-site studies where only some locations are full? Also, do you log your labs with context like sleep, illness, hydration? I keep a simple dated spreadsheet, and it helps me avoid over-reading a single improvement in something like hs-CRP.

Small-town pharmacy clerk here. I’d add: check the “Last Update Posted” date and “Primary Completion Date” — if that completion date is already past but it still says recruiting, the sponsor probably just hasn’t refreshed the listing. Also, those NCT numbers can be totally different sponsors/phases, so one big study hitting 609 may be done while smaller ones are still trying to fill local sites. My question: do the recruiting ones list a site within driving distance for you, or are they all remote? That’s usually the tell for me.

I’d look at whether the 62/200/140 are fresh sites or long-term extensions. The 609 one probably hit its target and switched to follow-up, which shows as active-not-recruiting. My registry rabbit holes happen after bedtime with a snack-drawer raid—cheddar cubes, grapes, whatever’s not stale. Are those three only enrolling people with a specific condition, or do they take healthy volunteers? That often explains why the smaller ones stay open forever.

I’m in the same plateau purgatory, so I stopped staring at headline enrollment numbers and started comparing the “Eligibility” and “Study Start” fields. Some of those trials are basically different species: one wnts a specific A1c range, another requires sleep apnea or prior cardiac event, another might be early-phase with tight lab cutoffs. A 2-person trial can still be “recruiting” because it only needs one more rare subgroup, not because the 609 one is full. Are you comparing inclusion criteria or just phase? That’s usually where

Tbh Hi, very new here (week 1, so please forgive the baby question). I’ve been trying to learn the registry too, and what helped me was checking “Last Update Posted” and whether the closed one has a Primary Completion Date in the past—sometimes Active, not recruiting just means everyone’s in follow-up, not necessarily that it hit a magic number. Sharp follow-up: has anyone watched a study flip to Active, not recruiting before reaching its estimated enrollment? That’s the part that still confuses me. Thanks!

love that you’re tracking labs and asking sharp questions. One thing that helped me sanity-check trials: read the arms section and whether they allow prior GLP-1 use. Studies requiring treatment-naive folks often stay recruiting way longer, because so many of us already have a history. And 609 enrolled with active-not-recruiting might just mean they hit their target and are in follow-up, not that it closed early. What made you start comparing enrollment statuses—are you hoping to join one, or just curious how the pipeline works?

I’ve been down this rabbit hole since the 2023 “why is this trial locked?” thread. One thing that helped me: sort by Primary Completion Date, not status. The 609 one may have already enrolled its target and moved into follow-up, while the 62/200/140 are still screening for narrower cohorts—OSA, CKD, MASH, etc. Different inclusion criteria can make a 200-person study crawl for a year. Are those three even the same phase/population as the 609? If not, comparing enrollment numbers is apples-to-oranges. Also, random: my own logs got less noisy when I started noting sleep and late meals alongside fasting glucose. Not claiming causality, just pattern-spotting.

One thing I’ve picked up since the old GLP-1 threads: a trial can stay “recruiting” while it’s really just filling a hard-to-fill subgroup—say, a renal or heart-failure stratum—or screening rollovers from a parent study. That makes the numbers look tiny next to a 609-person outcomes-type study that already hit target and locked. I also check the “Last Update Posted” date. If it’s over a year old, I treat the listing as stale. Are any of the three recruiting ones actually extension or observational studies rather than fresh drug enrollment?

One wrinkle: the 609 one may have hit its estimated enrollment, while the 62/200/140 are still filling strata—BMI, A1c, prior GLP-1 exposure, etc. I also check “actual vs estimated enrollment” and the last update date; site-level status often lags the master record. Curious whether those three are extensions/substudies or fresh protocols. Since I lift 4x and care about recomp, I’d want to know if they’re using DEXA/body comp or just scale weight. Are the recruiting ones requiring med-naive participants or a washout

I had the same registry confusion. The tell for me was the enrollment-type field: 609 might be listed as “Actual,” while 62/200/140 are “Estimated.” Also compare “Last Update Posted” vs “First Posted”—site-level lag can make a trial look open after local sites stop. I track fasting glucose/CRP too, but I try not to read trial status as a signal about the drug itself. Quick follow-up: is the 62-person one a phase 1 or a sub

i’m just a dorm-microwave protein scientist, so take my registry sleuthing with a grain of salt. The thing that tripped me up was the Locations tab: one trial’s header said “recruiting,” but only 1–2 sites actually showed as active, and the rest looked stale. Also check “Last Update Posted” — I’ve seen records sit open-looking for months. Do any of your 62/200/140 trials show a primary completion date that’s already passed? That’d be my next tell, way more than the headline status.

I run a cafe, so I feel the portion-creep thing hard—every muffin top is a “quality check.” On the registry puzzle: I’ve started checking the Locations tab and Last Update Posted, not just status. Some “recruiting” listings are technically open but the nearby site hasn’t updated in months, while a 609-person one can look locked because all its sites filled quietly. Are the 62/200/140 trials multi-site or mostly one hospital? That’s usually my tell for whether they’re actually still pulling people in.

One thing registry-watchers miss: check the “last update posted” date and the actual site list. I got excited about a recruiting trial that hadn't updated in 8 months and had zero open locations near me. Dead end. For your labs, did you keep draw time, fasting state, and training load identical? My hs-CRP swings ~0.5 just from a heavy squat week or a rough sleep stretch, so I'd trust the trend more than one drop. What's your pln for week 20?

Check the “Last Update Posted” date, not just the status. I’ve seen “Recruiting” listings that hadn’t been touched in months, and a 200-person trial can show Recruiting overall when the Locations tab has only one site still open. Are the 62/200/140 ones fresh updates, or stale? I run my labs into a travel spreadsheet between airport lounges, so I feel the n=1 rabbit hole.

I’ve started checking the Locations tab, not just overall status. Some records say Recruiting globally but site-level rows are “Not yet recruiting” or “Completed”; if the 62/200/140 ones only have a couple active sites, the overall label can lag the real picture. In the trials I’ve followed, enrollment counts also update on different sponsor cleanups, so 609 vs 62 may just be reporting cadence. I log sleep, steps, and hydration alongside my glucose/CRP because those swing my numbers more than I’d like. Do your three recruiting records list many sites, or just one or two?

Honestly, the thing that helped me was checking “Last Update Posted” vs “Start Date” on each NCT. A couple of those still-recruiting ones had updates only weeks ago, so sites may still be onboarding. The 609 one looks older and probably just in follow-up. I also map locations against school pickup—if visits are more than 45 min away, it’s a no from my chaotic house. Does anyone know if “recruiting” means a site is actually open, or just that the overall study hasn’t hit its target yet?