NCT05931367 knee OA trial: 445 enrolled, where are weight outcomes?

CTgov results often lag behind conference posters and journal pubs. Completed doesn't mean posted.

True, but 445 isn't tiny for an OA trial.

28.7% is four company trials, not peer-reviewed. Still cautious.

Cautious is fair, but the Phase 2 24.2% at 48 weeks is the number I keep coming back to. That one has an efficacy estimand, so it's not the same as a completers analysis. If Phase 3 is up to 28.7% across different populations and maybe different dose arms, the headline is doing a lot of work. And none of it is peer-reviewed yet. I want the tables before I compare it to 24.2. Otherwise we're just ranking press releases. I'd rather see one full body-weight table than ten headlines.

Are you comparing all four Phase 3 trials together? Up to 28.7 could be one dose arm.

I'm more curious about NCT06039826. 46 postmenopausal participants is small, but body composition endpoints would be interesting.

Body comp is exactly where I'd expect the glucagon piece to show up, but we still don't have peer-reviewed numbers from that trial. The knee OA study might post symptom outcomes before weight, and if weight is secondary it could be easy to miss. Until then I see 24.2% at 48 weeks as the cleaner anchor and file 28.7% under company-reported, not settled.

I stopped trusting CTgov numbers alone after watching a 300-person trial sit with zero results for two years — the weight data showed up in a supplement table of all places. The 445-person OA study probably had weight as a safety-ish secondary, and those get buried. My tip: check the study's publication list, not the registry. My own log taught me scale weight can stall while my waist drops two inches in 8 weeks, so blank scale numbers don't mean nothing happened.

The thing that finally made me stop obsessing over published percentages was my own spreadsheet. I weigh every morning but only judge by the 7-day average, and I tape my waist at the navel on the 1st of each month. Week 6 my average was down 0.4 lb and I nearly quit — then I measured and I was down 1.75 inches and a jacket that hadn't zipped since 2022 zipped. Weekends are the whole story for me: pizza Friday plus two restaurant meals puts 3 lb of water on by Sunday, gone by Wednesday. A 32-person trial with four weigh-ins catches mostly that noise, not the trend. I'd rather see a full data table than a headline number.

Knee pain is its own scale problem. When my knee flared last spring I dropped from 9k to 3k steps a day and gained 4 lb in five weeks without changing anything I ate. So a 445-person OA trial where half the people are limpng is going to have messy weight data no matter what the drug does — which may be exactly why it isn't front and center.

Small n, big claims, and a blank results tab — that's the whole genre, isn't it?

I weigh daily and log it, and the only pattern that matches those splashy percentages is my Sunday-to-Wednesday water swing: 3.1 lbs up after pizza and beer, gone by Thursday. Over 445 people for 48 weeks, that noise could bury the headline number. If I only counted Friday mornings I’d swear I lost 8 lbs; all seven days says 5.4. Trials need a rule for that, I just need pants that fit.

My scale sat at the same 2 lbs for five weeks while my jeans went from a 38 waist to a 36, and that’s the exact gap I’d want a knee OA trial to report. Weight on a bum knee can look flat because you’re moving less, then water and inflammation drop and the scale lies. I started taking waist and thigh measurements every other Sunday; that’s what actually tracked my 14-week change.

Honestly I’d rather see the sleep and stress data than a clean weight line. I did a 10-week experiment: same calories-ish, but kept Friday/Saturday takeout to one meal instead of two. Weekends went from +3.2 lbs average to +1.1, and Monday scale stopped being a horror show. Trial weight averages can hide that weekly whiplash, and flare weeks probably do the same.

Trial weight numbers are like my knee: fine on paper, screaming on stairs.

I tracked my wast instead of the scale after week 12 and lost 3 inches before the needle moved.

My Friday Thai takeout used to add 4 lbs by Sunday and vanish by Wednesday, so I stopped weighing Mondays. Now I weigh Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday, same time after bathroom, and I log restaurant meals by rough sodium/volume instead of trying to guess calories. Over 14 weeks the trend is down 18 lbs, but any single Monday would've made me think I stalled. That's why I get suspicious of trials that only post baseline-to-end numbers for people who finished; the folks who drop out early often do it before the scale reflects anything, and their missing weights can make the completers look superhuman. My own worst stall was 11 days of nothing, then a 3.4 lb drop after a normal low-sodium day. Weight data without timing and missingness is just a magic trick.

I measure cooked oatmeal by the same bowl now—portion creep was my real stall, not the med.

If these OA trials captured WOMAC pain scores, did anyone pre-register weight as a secondary endpoint? Otherwise 445 people did all that for knee function and weight is a side note. I'd want the 24-week and 52-week change, plus how many had no weight data at all, before comparing it to the Phase 2 numbers.

I weigh every morning and only ever trust the 7-day average — day to day I bounce 3-4 lbs, so a 32-person study over a short window can show you basically anything and still mean nothing. That's my honest read on why the little completed trials don't have weight numbers splashed anywhere: 32 people over 12-16 weeks can't reliably detect a 5% bodyweight difference, and if weight was a secondary measure it probably was never powered for it. Meanwhile my own nine-month log is down 41 lbs, but if I compared the first week of one month to the last week of the next I could "prove" a 4 lb gain. The trials I'd actually want weight data from are the long, big ones, and that's where the 24-28% figures came from. Small n isn't hiding a miracle or a disaster, it's just noise.

Sleep messes with my food log more than anything else. I wear a cheap band and when my weekly average drops under 6 hours, my logged intake jumps roughly 300 kcal a day, almost all of it after 9pm. The odd part: the scale barely moved those weeks, maybe a pound, but my waist crept up half an inch, which I only caught because I measure at the navel every Sunday. So when weight data goes missing from a study, my first question is what else they tracked — appetite ratings, intake, waist — because those can tell a totally different story than one number. Also worth remembering 48 weeks is a long runway. Plenty of these smaller studies just don't run that long, so there's genuinely less to report even if someone wanted to.

@ashley_15 said: the scale barely moved those weeks, maybe a pound, but my waist crept up half an inch

Yeah, clothing fit has been a way better marker than the scale for me — I've gone from an 18 to a snug 14 in about seven months and the scale only shows 19 lbs, which makes no sense until you factor in that I started lifting twice a week. The knee side is what I'd actually want out of a study like that. I added a flat 20-minute walk four days a week and after six weeks the stairs at work stopped being a negotiation; my weight was

Half the people I know would trade 15 lbs of loss for a staircase that doesn't hurt.

Friday night sushi and a salty brunch can add 4 lbs by Monday, then it’s gone by Wednesday. I used to panic-delete my food log over that. Now I weigh daily and only trust the 7-day average; it moved 1.8 lbs down over the last month while individual mornings bounced 3+ lbs. Trial weight outcomes probably get muddied by the same water swings, especially in 32-person studies.

My knee test is whether I can get up off the stage floor without grabbing the sawhorse — I build sets for our community theater, and that's most of the job. So with the 445-person knee study, I want to know if weight change is actually in the results tables or filed as exploratory/secondary. If it's exploratory, that could be the whole reason there's no clean topline. Did the CTgov entry even list weight, or just pain and function?

Fellow broke student here. My knee metric is whether I can squat to haul laundry from under the bunk without my knees sounding like a bag of chips. For tracking, I log protein per dollar—tuna packets, Greek yogurt, dining-hall eggs—not pounds. I also poked around CTgov and it looks like the knee OA study’s main endpoint is probably WOMAC pain/function, so weight loss may only be secondary or exploratory. That could explain why the 445-person numbers aren’t front and center. Sharp question: did anyone see a conference poster or supplement where they actually reported body weight for that cohort, or are we stuck waiting for full results?

i went down that rabbit hole too. ctgov often shows 'completed' but resuts get posted way later, and if the primary endpoint was knee pain/function, weight might

I’d poke at the protocol/SAP rather than the results tab. In a knee OA study, weight might be secondary/exploratory and not powered, especially if baseline mobility is low. I also wonder whether rescue pain treatments were allowed—flares can stall the scale while function improves. My own split tracking helps: weekly averae weight, daily steps, and a 0–10 pain

Random thought: check whether weight change is even a pre-specified secondary on that knee study’s CTgov record. If the primary endpoint is WOMAC pain/function, weight may be exploratory — and results post

One thing I’ve learned digging through results: weight often shows up as a secondary outcome, not the headline. For an OA trial the primary is probably WOMAC pain/function, so body

Different angle: I set PubMed/Scholar alerts for the NCT number and PI names, not just CT.gov. Results often show up in a conference abstract months before the tab updates. Also worth checking whether weight was a powered secondary or just exploratory—if no alpha assigned, they can report pain/function and quietly skip the scale data. With n=32, any weight change will have huge error bars regardless. I track waist and stairs-climb time alongside the scale during my own plateau, and function moves before pounds. Has anyone found the SAP or supplement secondary-endpoint table? That’s where I’d dig.

Bet it’s collected as a vital sign, not an outcome. CTgov only surfaces weight if it’s in the registered outcome hierarchy; knee OA trials register pain/function/structural, so weight becomes a baseline covariate or safety table. That’s how 445 people can have serial weights and zero public weight-change numbers. Sharp follow-up: does the baseline characteristics table list weight but the outcome tables don’t? That’s the tell. My tracking-brain read: unless it was a registered endpoint, nobody’s incentivized to publish it—it’ll sit in IPD or an appendix. Check the supplement before assuming it vanished.

I've noticed the same gap on the OA trials. One thing worth checking: those are often designed and powered around a joint endpoint (WOMAC pain, cartilage, etc.), and weight can get collected as a safety/vital-sign style variable rather than a powered secondary. That means it may never hit the results tab even when the trial completes. Also, pooled weight data for a program sometimes only surfaces in a conference abstract or the CSR, not CTgov. Were all three of those run by the same sponsor? If so, a single pooled analysis might be hiding somewhere outside the individual registries.

Tbh hi, total newbie here—week one, so sorry if this is obvious. I’ve been tracking my own weight in a spreadsheet for years, and it made me notice trial records sometimes hide weight in the statistical analysis plan PDF rather than the outcomes list. Has anyone checked the “Study Documents” tab for NCT05931367? For another trial I followed, the SAP listed weight as exploratory, and the actual numbers eventually showed up in a company results report before CT.gov. If it just completed, maybe that report is still pending. Does anyone know how long that usually takes?

I feel you—this is like hunting a decent airport salad. When CTgov’s results tab is a ghost town, I check the conference route: OARSI abstracts or the sponsor’s clinical study report often

Honestly, before blaming the SAP, I’d check the CTgov Results “Adverse Events” and “Outcome Measures” sections. Sometimes weight is only posted as a categorical (≥5%, ≥10%) instead of a continuous mean change, so it looks absent. For a knee OA cohort, my bigger worry is measurement: were weights standardized fasted morning visits on one scale, or just vitals at ortho visits? If it’s the latter, even a real 5–8% signal can get mushy. Did the protocol specify central weights or site-level? That’d explain a lot.

Completed on CTgov doesn’t mean results are posted—they can lag a year-plus. I’d search OARSI/ACR conference abstracts and the sponsor’s pipeline deck; knee OA trials often bury weight as a change-from-baseline line in a poster, not the results tab. Also, between school runs and snack-drawer negotiations, I’ve learned unbalanced rescue pain meds or injections can muddy any weight signal. Did anyone check baseline BMI or whether weight-loss meds were allowed as concomitant? That’s usually where the missing numbers hide.

I’ve been stalking these too. For NCT05931367, I’d check conference abstracts—ObesityWeek, EASD, OMA—before CT.gov. Sponsors often drop knee OA/weight data as a poster months before the results tab updates. Also search PubMed for the NCT number; sometimes weight change is buried in a supplement, not the abstract. My own tracking brain wants the 445-person number because it’s big enough to see if knee pain improvement tracks with pounds lost. Has anyone found a poster PDF? I couldn’t. If it’s past the results-due date, that’s a whole other red flag.

One concrete place I’d check is the CT.gov record’s “Results” tab and the “More Information” section, not just the main summary. For completed trials, results are sometimes posted separately, and weight can be buried in a secondary outcome table or an adverse events table if it was collected as a safety measure. I keep weekly averages in a spreadsheet, so I understand wanting the full curve, not just top-line. Has anyone tried emailing the sponsor’s clinical trials contact listed on the record and asking when results will be posted? Sometimes that yields a timeline.

Separate from the SAP angle, I’d check results-posting history. For completed trials, CT.gov should show a “Results First Posted” date or a delay certification; if that’s missing, weight might only be in a CSR, abstract, or sponsor slide deck. The tiny n’s also matter: 32 and 46 can give a big point estimate with a huge CI, so I wouldn’t treat them as contradicting the Phase 3 numbers. For the 445 knee OA study, was weight even a powered endpoint, or exploratory safety? I weigh daily and even 4-week trends are noisy, so I’d want the pre-specified analysis population before comparing.

Random thought: OA trials often drop weight data at conferences before CTgov, especially OARSI. I’d search OARSI 2024/2025 abstracts and sponsor congress pages, not just the results tab. Also CTgov’s results module mainly captures primary outcomes; secondary/exploratory stuff can lag or get buried in safety/disposition tables. Did anyone see a poster with change in BMI or body weight? If it’s only narrative text, they probably didn’t power it. I log my weight

Different angle: check the Study Documents tab for the SAP/protocol. OA trials usually power on WOMAC/KOOS; weight may just be a baseline covariate or safety vital, not an estimand. If it’s not in the SAP, it’ll never show up in results. I track my own weight weekly and the lesson is the same: collected ≠ reported. Did any of those three post a SAP, or are they all just CTgov shell records?

I’ve been tracking knee pain alongside weight for a while, and my flares track more with overnight swelling, salt, and sleep than the scale itself. For that OA trial, I’d look for whether weight was pre-specified as a categorical secondary: proportion hitting ≥5% or ≥10% loss, not mean kg. Those often get buried in a supplement or results table rather than the main CTgov summary. Has anyone found the SAP or a conference abstract (OARSI/ACR) for NCT05931367? That’s where I’d expect the weight numbers to surface, if they’re reprted at all.

Hey, I ran into this with another OA trial. The weight numbers were hiding in the CTgov “Documents” tab—statistical analysis plan or clinical study report—not the Results tab. In knee trials they power for WOMAC/pain, so weight gets listed as baseline or exploratory and never makes the summary. My pharmacy buddy also says insurers only care if BMI is a predefined endpoint. I track my own weight daily in a notes app and it’s noisy as heck with inflammation/water. Anyone checked OARSI/ACR abstracts or the SAP for this one?

i’ve had better luck finding these in the statistical analysis plan than in the CT.gov results tab. Sometimes weight is listed as an exploratory endpoint in the protocol and then only appears as a mean change from baseline in a safety table, not the main results summary. Did anyone check the SAP for NCT05931367? I ask because I track my own weight and knee pain daily,

I run a cafe, so portion creep is my daily boss fight—I get why you’re chasing these numbers. For the knee OA trial, I’d stop looking only at the CTgov results tab and hunt the conference route: OARSI/ACR posters often show WOMAC and cartilage first, with weight relegated to a baseline table or supplement. If you can find the statistical analysis plan, search “body weight” and “exploratory.” Also worth emailing the PI; many will

I lift 4x/wk and track waist + monthly DEXA, so the missing piece for me isn’t the scale—it’s body comp. In a knee OA cohort, fat mass loss matters way more than total weight for joint load. Anyone seen OARSI/ACR late-breakers or EudraCT results for these? Also, did any protocol include a diet/protein/exercise run-in, or was activity all ad lib? That would explain the efficacy-vs-complete estimand gap better than the raw weight number.

i’ve been tracking my own soda-swap while lurking these, and the thing that jumps out is OA trials usually run KOOS/WOMAC as primary. weight is often just secondary/exploratory, and if it isn’t alpha-protected it can get buried in a supplement or never posted. for 445 people i’d want baseline BMI distribution—if a lot are under 30, weight loss will look way smaller than obesity-only cohorts. anyone know if NCT05931367 even listed weight as a key secondary? that’s what i’d chase before comparing it to the phase 3 numbers.

I keep a weekly-average spreadsheet for my own trends, so I understand wanting the full picture rather than just the headline percentage. One thing I have not seen mentioned: the EU Clinical Trials Register and sponsor quarterly pipeline slides sometimes carry a brief weight-change line when CTgov is still blank. For the knee OA study, weight may also sit in a secondary outcome table or CSR appendix rather than the top-line abstract, since the primary is likely pain/function. Has anyone checked the EU register or a company earnings deck for that one?