NCT04184622 says 2539 people — where are the Week 72 outcomes?

I looked last month. The registry still only had enrollment and arms; no results tab. That doesn't mean the trial failed, just that posting can lag.

Lag how long though? Week 0-72 primary period ended, but some trials post results years later.

The 2539 number is what gets me. With four arms, that's a huge study. If outcomes were bad, they'd still be published somewhere.

Not necessarily. The record can be sparse because results are in a journal article instead of the registry. I remember seeing registry entries where the results section stayed empty even after publication. The useful part here is the design: placebo vs 5, 10, and 15 mg over Week 0-Week 72. That makes it a dose-response question, not just a yes/no. I'd want the actual Week 72 endpoint definitions before reading anything into the missing numbers.

Right, fasting glucose and A1c would tell very different stories. The snippet I saw didn't spell out the primary endpoint at all.

I asked a similar thing in a research thread and got told the results may be behind a conference abstract. Still haven't found it.

Week 72 is long for a placebo arm. Attrition alone can muddy the raw numbers, so maybe that's why the registry looks bare.

API issue? I checked the actual page, not just an app. No results section.

API issue wouldn't explain the page itself, though. What I've noticed with these GLP-1 registry entries is that the 'no results' thing isn't unusual early on. NCT04184622 has 2539 people and that Week 0-72 window, so it's a big dataset. The doses are clearly listed as 5, 10, and 15 mg. I wouldn't assume cover-up from an empty results tab. I'd rather see the statistical analysis plan and whether it was powered for a specific endpoint. Without that, the 2539 figure is just a headcount.

The stats plan point is fair. But if the primary period is done, isn't there usually a results posting dealdine?

Trial sites usually post results a year or more after the last visit, so 72-week data sitting invisible for a wile is pretty normal.

Scale weight stalled for me nine straight weeks while my waist dropped another inch and a half — same food, same walking. I only caught it because I started logging a Sunday tape measure instead of trusting the morning number. If your glucose is flat but your belt notch moved, that's not nothing.

Nine months in I hit a wall so flat I went back and reread my own log like it was somebody else's. Every weekday was boring and identical — same breakfast, salad lunch, dinner at 6:30 — and the scale didn't budge from month 5 to month 8. What I wasn't tracking was Friday night through Sunday. First time in years I added up a normal weekend and it was roughly 2,500 extra calories between takeout, two glasses of wine, and the 3pm cheese-and-cracker thing that isn't a meal but also isn't not a meal. Trimming just the crackers and the second glass got me three pounds over eight weeks, which sounds tiny until you remember I'd spent three months getting zero. The other half was sleep. I was averaging five and a half hours for a work thing, and my appetite on those days was a different animal — hungry by 10am, snacking by 3, resting heart rate up six beats. Nothing dramatic fixed it. I moved dinner 45 minutes earlier, put my phone in the kitchen, and walked 25 minutes after lunch instead of doomscrolling. The plateau broke in about three weeks, slowly. Not saying that's your situation, but if you're around 72 weeks and flat, the boring stuff I'd stopped doing was the boring stuff that had been working.

Mild disagreement: 'hidden' is doing a lot of work there. I've gone hunting for results on three different obesity trials and two were simply blank on the public record for close to two years after completion, then appeared all at once when the paper dropped. Annoying, not sinister. Meanwhile what actually messed with my head around month 12 was water weight. I had a five-day stretch where I was up 4.6 pounds on identical food and steps, and I nearly threw out my whole log over it — salty weekend, long flight, hormones, gone by day six, gone plus another pound. What saved me was a photo in the same mirror every two weeks in the same outfit. At week 40 the scale said down 22 pounds and the phoos said I'd changed shape way more than that — shoulders back, waistband sitting flat, a shirt that used to pull across the chest hanging straight. If your fasting and A1c numbers are just sitting there boring at this point, boring might be the win. The trial numbers will show up eventually; your own trend line is the one you can read this week.

Results tabs usually lag a year past completion, so I'd refresh the registry before assuming anything's buried.

Week 58 here: my spreadsheet shows 1.8 lb of movement across three months while my jeans went from a 38 waist to a 34, so the closet was telling a louder story than the scale. I measure waist and take one photo the first Sunday of each month, and the months I skip that ritual are exactly the ones where I convince myself nothing's changing.

Under six hours of sleep and my morning number jumps 2 lb like clockwork, and stress does the same thing to my appetite.

Honestly I'd stop framing week 72 as a finish line, since it's a report card for a trial, not for a Tuesday. I run 12-week blocks now: one tape measure, one photo, a 20-minute walk after dinner, and I've logged more wins in six months of that than in a year of starig at weekly numbers. Are you tracking anything that isn't the scale?

I gave up refreshing trial pages and started measuring my waist on the first of the month instead.

I quit chasing the scale midweek and weigh only Sunday and Monday. Weekend restaurant meals used to add 3-4 lb by Monday, then it vanished by Wednesday, but my real loss showed as a belt notch at week 36. If your labs feel stuck, a two-week step-count log was eye-opening: my 'plateau' was mostly Friday takeout and 2k steps.

My scale plateaued for nine weeks, but a pair of old jeans went fom paint-on to actually zippable.

Adding a 20-minute walk after lunch did more for my waist than two extra gym days.

I slept under six hours four nights straight and my Sunday weigh-in jumped 3.2 lbs while eating the exact same stuff, which flipped my whole theory about what was stalling me. I'd been blaming a food or two, but the fix was boring: lights out by 10:30 and a hard stop on doomscrolling. Back to baseline in five days without changing a single meal. So if you're sitting around week 72 and flat, honest tracking of sleep and stress might say more than the scale does. On the registry question, sponsors usually get about a year past the primary completion date to post results, and delay requests are allowed, so an empty outcomes table isn't automatically a cover-up, it's often just lag. I've watched trials sit blank for two years past that and then dump everything at once.

Two glasses of wine Friday and my Monday number was up two pounds. Water, not fat. Took three days to settle.

Tbh NCT04184622 is SURMOUNT-1. The Week 72 outcomes aren't in the registry summary; they're in Jastreboff et al., NEJM 2022, Table 2 and the supplement. ClinicalTrials.gov results tabs often lag or post only selected AEs. I've tracked weekly weight and quarterly labs in a plain spreadsheet, and my flattening around that point matched the trial's average curve. Are you comparing against the arm you're on or pooled? The supplement splits prediabetes vs normoglycemia, which might explain a boring A1c plateau.

That registry page drove me nuts too. NCT04184622 is SURMOUNT-1 — the 72-week outcomes ended up in the NEJM paper (2022), and the registry results tab lags. I’m maintaining now and rely on the supplement tables for the glucose/A1c subplots, since the main text is mostly weight. If you want, search the trial acronym + “supplementary appendix” rather than the NCT number. Curious: did your clinic give you any Week 72 lab trend printout, or just the portal numbers?

NCT04184622 is SURMOUNT-1. The Week 72 outcomes aren’t missing—they’re in the primary NEJM publication; ClinicalTrials.gov results tabs often lag the paper by months. I cross-checked because my own Week 72-ish labs were flat too: A1c and fasting glucose plateaued while waist circumference and fasting insulin kept drifting down. Scale was the least useful metric by then. If you want the full tables, pull the supplement/appendix. Are you seeing any discordance between weight and waist/labs?

The registry’s results tab is stale—72-week SURMOUNT-1 numbers live in the NEJM paper, not the raw record. Primary endpoint: mean % weight change at week 72. Placebo: low single digits. Drug arms: mid-teens to low twenties. I drive a school bus, so my fasting glucose check happens before my first route, not at 8 a.m. like the lab assumes. My A1c flattened near month 14. Which comparison are you making for your plateau—the lower drug arm only, or every arm pooled? Pooling can make a stall look worse than it is.

Hi, total newbie here (day 5), so mostly lurking. I also went down the NCT04184622 rabbit hole. I think that record is SURMOUNT-1, and the Week 72 weight outcmes ended up in NEJM rather than the registry page—which still looks oddly bare. I couldn’t find much on glucose/A1c at 72 weeks, though. Sharp question: did your plateau show up in weight/waist too, or just the labs? I’m tracking waist weekly because my scale jumps around too much to trust day to day.

NCT04184622 is SURMOUNT-1. The Week 72 outcomes aren’t in the registry record; they’re in the NEJM write-up (Jastreboff et al., 2022). Headline means: 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9% weight loss across the three active arms vs 3.1% placebo. I track weekly slope, and mine went from -0.17 lb/day early to -0.03 after month 6, so a Week 72 plateau isn’t odd. Did you pull the supplement? That’s where the ≥5%/≥10% responder splits and secondary A1c data live, which is more useful than the raw enrollment record.

I coach U12 soccer and handle our club’s insurance paperwork, so registry teasers annoy me. NCT04184622 is SURMOUNT-1. The real Week 72 data is in the NEJM paper—search PubMed, open Table 2: 2539 people, 72 weeks. Registry records lag or post a skimpy summary. I skip hype and read the source. If your glucose/A1c plateaued, did weight keep falling or stall too?

Tbh I’ve been tracking weekly averages in a spreadsheet, and my own plateau around the one-year mark looked similar: weight variance shrank, fasting glucose stayed flat, A1c barely budged. One thing that helped was comparing 4-week blocks instead of single weeks, plus waist and how clothes fit. For the trial data, the 72-week results are usually reported as co-primary endpoints—mean percent weight change and the share reaching ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%. Are you trying to see the full randomized population, or just completers? That distinction changed how I read the numbers.

The numbers you want aren't on the registry card — they're in the 2022 NEJM primary paper and its supplement, usually Table S-something. I only know because I went down that rabbit hole between a stats quiz and microwaving lentils. The supplement breaks out completers vs. all randomized, which changes how boring your plateau looks. Are you comparing yourself to the completers in your assigned arm, or the whole randomized group including dropouts? That distinction always makes me feel slightly less like a lab rat.

I track price/stock restocks for a hobby, and registry lag hits the same nerve: paper first, results tab later. The 2022 NEJM gives the Week 72 ITT numbers, but the supplement’s completer/observed-case table is where the denominator story is. Dropout wasn’t tiny, so ITT and completer averages can diverge by several points. Anyone have the Week 72 observed n per arm? I can find 2539 and the arm split, but not that number. That’s the one I’d compare against any tracker’s 72-week averages.

not to relitigate the primary paper, but the registry gap I keep hitting is the adjusted stuff. In the trials the Week 72 secondary endpoints included A1c, fasting glucose, waist, lipids, and BP — and I’ve never found a clean mediation analysis separating how much of the glycemic effect was weight-loss-independent versus just weight loss. My n=1 tracking had fasting glucose dropping

Registry cards are just the trailer. The number that matters is per-visit n: 2539 randomized, but Week 72 completers can be much

I’m in the same boat, but the pice I keep tripping over is the last updated date on the registry. Ours still says 2024 with no results tab, yet my insurance portal

I run a café, so portion control is a contact sport—broken croissants, taste spoons, “just one bite” of cake. For 10 weeks I logged every pre-lunch nibble and latte, and realized I was basically eating a whole extra meal before noon. That’s the outcome I wish these long trials captured: not just scale/glucose, but whether food-cue habits actually change. Did the NEJM supplement include any appetite or portion-control secondary endpoints, or only the headline weight stuff? I can never tell from the registry card, and it’s exactly the real-life part I’d want to see.

I also keep weekly averages, and my own fasting-glucose line tends to flatten in those last 10–12 weeks, so the tail end of that 72-week window really interests me. Does anyone know whether the Week 72 results were reported as LS means with a missing-data model, or as observed completers? That distinction matters a lot if dropout rose late. I would also be curious whether the supplement includes a sensitivity analysis for people who stayed through Week 72.

One concrete thing I'd check: the main registry summary can look empty while a separate “Results” tab and “Study Documents” section hold the outcome tables, SAP, and sometimes the adjusted analyses. The primary completion date field is my tell — if it's blank, outcomes may not be due; if it's older, I start side-eyeing the posting timeline. Does your raw record show a primary completion date, or is that blank too? I track my own fasting glucose/A1c as monthly averages, and I've found the summary card almost never tells the whole 72-week story.