Saxenda rPMS: 758 enrolled, where are the efficacy tables?

758 is tiny for a PMS study. I expected thousands for a real-world safety cohort.

Right? Completed but no feficacy numbers in RAW is the frustrating part. I want tables, not just enrollment.

Worth knowing before comparing anything: rPMS data is built around safety, not weight loss — that's the whole angle. But those 758 patients on 3.0 mg are still a decent look at tolerability, and that's the part people forget is even in there. Common surprise: dropout reasons tell you more than one more averaged-out number ever will.

Dropout reasons would be gold. GI stuff is the usual suspect.

Pattern that keeps showing up in the Saxenda threads: six weeks is about the point where the GI stuff wins. Not a trial number — just n=1.

That n=1 still matters. Trials often exclude people who quit early, so the 758 rPMS cohort may look cleaner than real life. It was a post-marketing safety study in obese patients, not a weight-loss efficacy trial, which might explain missing outcomes. I've seen the six-domain weight-of-evidence review referenced here before; it used 2-year rat carcinogenicity bioassays and concluded the rodent thyroid tumor mechanism is human-irrelevant. That doesn't make me ignore human data, but it reframes the thyroid worry. I'd still like actual data tables before calling it settled for this study.

Six-domain review calmed me too. 'Human-irrelevant' gets overused.

So is the takeaway that 758 is a safety cohort, not a weight-loss study? Or am I misreading the rPMS design?

Ten weeks of my own appetite log (1–10, rated before dinner, same time every night) taught me not to expect much from an rPMS table — mine looked dead flat for three straight weeks until I realized I'd flipped to rating after eating, and the whole "plateau" was a logging artifact, not a biology change. So my contrarian take is that even when that study posts something, it probably won't give you the comparison you're after: post-authorization studies like that are built around safety, and the effectiveness line in the reports is usually a cude mean weight change with zero appetite or side-effect breakdown per person, which is exactly the part you'd want. If you're digging anyway, the EU PAS register and the sponsor's own trial-results page tend to populate before anything hits PubMed, sometimes by a couple years. What actually helped me was accepting my own numbers as the baseline: same scale, same morning window, waist at the navel every Sunday, and the pattern that jumped out was sleep — any week I averaged under six hours, my appetite scores climbed a

I’m in a small town, and our clinic pharmacist is my go-to for registry stuff. She said these post-marketing studies often land in a journal supplement or the EU PAS register long before ClinicalTrials.gov updates. Might try searching the NCT number plus “final report” or

Not exactly a follow-up, but in a 2021 thread about a different GLP-1 PMS, the weight tables weren’t on CT.gov at all — they were in a locked CSR linked from the sponsor’s own trial-results page. EU PAS had the protocol first, then the final report maybe a year later. Have you tried searching the sponsor results portal and EU PAS by the study number? If it’s an rPMS, that’s usually where efficacy outputs surface. I’d check there before assuming 758 was only a safety cohort.

Not a registry guru, but I did learn the hard way that ClinicalTrials.gov can show 758 enrolled and still have zero under the Results tab. For EU rPMS stuff, the EU PAS Register often has the actual report or at least a protocol. Have you tried searching there? My dorm tracking is just a whiteboard: Greek yogurt, eggs, tuna packets, and a 1–10 hunger score before dinner. Ugly data, but it stops me from ordering late-night pizza. If you find those tables, please post — I’m nosy.

Honestly, nCT pages hide results under the “Results” tab only if the sponsor submitted them. For a completed rPMS, I’d also check the EU PAS Register—it often has protocol and final study report PDFs, which is where the weight/efficacy tables usually live. If it’s not there, 758 is just a denominator with no numerator. Has anyone pulled the EU PAS entry or a conference poster? That’s the shortest path to actual outcomes.

I’m with you on wanting the tables, but PMS results often surface later in a journal appendix or an EU PAS register summary, not on the trial page. If you’re

one place I’ve had luck with these post-marketing reports is the EU PAS Register. I remember an old 2019 thread where the final report PDF was sitting there with appendices while the trial registry looked empty. Worth searching by sponsor or acronym. On tracking: after ~10 weeks I stopped obsessing over weekly averages and started noting hunger by time of day; my 3 p.m. score was the only thing that tracked with my overall week. Did your log capture timing like that, or just daily totals?

not a registry thing but I’ve been messing with soda swaps while on a glp-1-ish med: seltzer + lime on weekdays, one real soda saturday, and my evening appetite scores are way lower on the seltzer days. could be just less sugar/caffeine crash, no clue. did your 10-week log separate soda days from non-soda days? that might give you something to eyeball while the 758-person tables stay mia. also curious if your side effects cluster after fizzy drinks, cause mine kinda do.

I’ve been doing a dorky little 1–5 appetite score before dinner plus a note on whether I got my after-dinner walk. It’s my own tiny table while the big study tables stay missing. Have you tried emailing the corresponding author or sponsor’s medical info line and asking for a summary? Sometimes a polite request gets a PDF. Also, sheet-pan roasted veggies have become my empty-nester hobby. Not data, but it’s something.

Yeah, CT.gov is often a dead end for non-interventional PMS. I’d search the sponsor’s transparency portal and the EMA clinical data site by NCT number, not title. WHO ICTRP sometimes mirrors national registry entries too. Often there’s a CSR synopsis PDF that never hits the CT.gov results tab. For your own 10-week log, a 3-day rolling average beats daily appetite scores—daily is mostly noise. Did you track side-effect timing relative to meals? That’s the variable I wish I’d recorded earlier.

I’ve been stuck since around week 34 too, so I feel this. What finally moved my tracker was logging protein at breakfast and a 10-min walk after dinner — not the scale. If that 758-person report never got tables, maybe it only surfaced as a conference poster. I’d dig through EASD/ECO late-breaker PDFs or old obesity congress abstracts. Has anyone actually seen a weight-change curve from it, even a blurry screenshot? I’d settle for n=758 and one graph.

758 enrolled and no tables? That’s like baking a whole case of croissants and forgetting the price tags. I feel your frustration.

I went down a similar rabbit hole for another GLP-1 PMS and ended up emailing the sponsor’s medical info line. Took about three weeks, but they sent a redacted synopsis—still no nice forest plots. If you’re up for it, ask specifically for 52-week completers and discontinuation-due-to-AE counts, not just the 758. Has anyone tried EudraCT or the EU post-authorisation module for this one? I’m never sure if those mirror NCT or stay empty.

Been there, 758 is such a tease. Hope the sponsor replies soon!

I hit a 9-week stall where the scale didn’t move but my waist shrank 2 cm. I only caught it because I started measuring weekly instead of daily. For the study, have you tried the EU PAS Register or the sponsor’s transparency portal? rPMS outputs often land there before ClinicalTrials updates results. Also, if the 758 were mostly completers vs enrolled, that’s a very different story. I’d love to know the discontinuation rate—side effects are half the real-world picture.

Honestly, following—my pharmacist is just as stumped. A 758-person study with no tables is a real cliffhanger.

I've got a spreadsheet tab for this and it's just 758 blank rows staring back.