NCT07011667 already has 609 enrolled—why are the others still recruiting?

Could be. I’d rather see results than enrollment counts. None of these have headline data posted yet.

Then why is NCT06989203 sitting at 140 and still recruiting? Maybe they need specific subgroups.

Active, not recruiting means done enrolling. 609 is likely final.

Agree on lag, but 609 still stands out. Is NCT07011667 done enrolling, or just paused?

Registries lag. I wouldn’t read too much into exact numbers week to week.

Then why is NCT06897475 at 200 and still recruiting?

I’ve seen clinics push studies when they need a very specific group. Could explain NCT07401992 at 62.

Right, and NCT07011667 at 609 could be many countries. The recruiting ones may be narrower or slower sites.

Without results, that 30-person completed study doesn’t tell us much.

Site count and inclusion criteria explain a lot. NCT02079870 completed with 30 is a different animal.

609 doesn’t surprise me if it’s multi-site. Active, not recruiting usually means enrollment closed.

609 across tons of sites can still take years; 62 at one clinic can fill faster if the target is narrow.

I’ve watched trial listings for months and the number that matters is screens vs enrolled vs sites. A 609-person study might have 70 sites and a huge pool; a 62-person one can have a strict washout, 2:1 placebo, or require no prior GLP-1 for 6 months, so it trickles. Another surprise: bigger studies often close enrollment early when interim data hits, so 'active, not recruiting' isn't always full.

Honestly the 62-person one would scare me more—harder to hit target, more screen fails, longer sit.

I’d bet site count explains it; four clinics can’t recruit like fifty, no matter how easy the design looks.

The number that never shows up on those listings is how many people got screened and bounced. I went through screening for one last year and the coordinator said they budget roughly 4 screens for every 1 person enrolled, so a study sitting at 62 might have already churned through 250+ phone screens and still be behind. The big driver is washout: if a protocol makes you stop any GLP-1 for 90 days plus a two-week run-in, you lose a chunk of exactly the population that's motivated to sign up. And "active, not recruiting" usually just means they hit their target and moved everyone into the treatment/follow-up phase, not that the whole thing is wrapping. So 609 is often a closed door, not a finish line.

Registration number is basically a timestamp. NCT0701... is older than NCT0740..., so the recruiting ones are just younger listings that haven't had time to fill. A trial posted four months ago sitting at 62 is a totally different situation from one that's been up two years at 609. Check the first-posted date on each record before you compare headcounts.

Some of these are just newer listings with a shorter runway. Recruiting status is a clock, not a verdict.

Going the other way: a big headcount isn't automatically the better-designed study, it often just means the protocol is broader. I compared two listings last spring and the 600-person one had looser criteria (wider BMI range, no requirement to have failed anything first) while the 140-person one wanted a specific history plus a 12-week washout. Guess which filled faster. People also underestimate the dropout cushion, sponsors enroll well past the stated target to cover the folks who vanish around week 20. And visit burden is a filter nobody talks about: one of the bigger studies I read had 14 visits over 68 weeks, six of them in-clinic. That's a lot of Tuesdays off work.

Eligibility screening eats most of the funnel. One listing I read required fasting labs, a two-hour glucose draw, and two separate screening visits before anyone even gets randomized, with a narrow A1c window on top. At a local info session of maybe 40 people, staff sad around 8 made it through. Slow enrollment is usually a strictness problem, not a popularity problem.

Target numbers move, too. I watched one listing sit at 200 for a couple months and then jump to 340 after a protocol amendment, and another stayed flagged recruiting for weeks after the last site had already closed its door. So a 62-person study can be moving faster than a 609-person one. Different clocks, different paperwork.

@questioning_quinn said: Slow enrollment is usually a strictness problem, not a popularity problem.

Lead-in phases are the quiet killer. Some designs run everyone through 4-8 weeks of diet and behavior stuff before randomization, and a good chunk quit in that window because the scale isn't moving yet. I weigh every morning and I had a 22-day stretch stuck inside a 1.5 lb range, then a salty weekend shot me up 4 lbs overnight before it fell off by Wednesday. If a study wants six weeks of stable weight just to qualify you, that normal fluctuation knocks people out constantly. So the smaller recruiting numbers may just be designs that filter harder, not worse-run trials.

Visit burden is the other filter nobody mentions. I looked into one that wanted four in-person visits in the first six weeks, 90 minutes each way, plus a phone check-in, and I noped out over the drive alone. People bail before they ever count as enrolled, so a study in a metro where that's a bus ride fills way faster than one out in the sticks.

I got screened for one—six months of weight logs and a food diary was the real filter.

In the trials, I’ve learned to check whether that enrollment number is “actual” or “estimated.” Recruiting studies usually show an estimated target, while active-not-recruiting often flips to actual enrollment. So 609 may be people already randomized, not a goal, while 62/200/140 are planned. Also peek at enrollment type and primary completion date—some smaller ones may be substudies or have a narrow window. Are those recruiting numbers listed as estimated? That would explain a lot.

Geography is my pet theory. I’m in a small town and the closest trial site is 2 hrs away, so anything within an hour fills up with locals fast. The 609 study might be a rollover/extension from an earlier trial—same volunteers, already screened, so it looks huge and closes quick. The smaller recruiting ones might need a very specific BMI range, age, or med history, and they’re stuck hunting for a narrow slice. Do you know if NCT07011667 is an extension? If so, that’s your answer, not site count.

Honestly, Quick thing to check: on ClinicalTrials, that 609 might be actual enrollment, while the others’ 62/200/140 are estimated targets. Active-not-recruiting usually means they hit the target and are now in treatment/follow-up—not that the design was better. Also look at each record’s Last Update Posted and Primary Completion Date. Some recruiting numbers look low because sites are still being activated or the target is rolling. Am I reading those fields right? If they’re all actual, then site count/timeline doesn’t explain a 10x gap.

Check the enrollment field, not the raw number. “Active, not recruiting” usually means they hit target—609 is actual. The recruiting ones show current vs. estimated, so 62 could be against a 600 target. Also look at site activation dates and country mix; 40 US/EU sites fills faster than 6 sites in one metro, no matter the design. My shortcut is Last Update Posted—if it’s stale, they may be recruiting on paper only. What are the estimated enrollments for those three?

Yeah—it’s not just site count. Some protocols have extra phenotype gates: documented apnea, knee OA, or a 3-month weight-stability window. I lift 4x and was in a slow recomp, so my scale barely moved and I still got bounced for being outside their range. Add washes for prior weight-loss meds and the eligible pool shrinks fast. NCT07011667 having 609 enrolled might just mean its criteria are broader or it’s further along. What are the inclusion/exclusion cliffs on those smaler ones?

Whether a trial feeds you or just reimburses is the whole ballgame for me. I'm on a commercial crew out of Alaska — broke half the year, and food is the expense that actually moves. A full study near my winter place had a freezer and a grocery stipend; filled in a day. The still-recruiting one wanted me to bring my own high-protein food, and once I priced that out for a full run I stopped answering. Does NCT07011667 cover meal support? Might explain the 609 while the others limp.

My sheet has columns for actual vs. anticipated enrollment and last update date, and that explains a lot. CT.gov status is self-reported and lags, so “recruiting” can be stale by a month or two. 609 looks like actual enrollment; the others may be showing targets. I’d bet it’s not site count. Is NCT07011667 an extension or rollover? Those fill fast because the pool is already screened and enrolled—no de novo screen failures. If it’s de novo, then I’d look at randomization ratio and whether one arm is more attractive.

I keep noticing it’s less about design and more about the site map plus exclusion criteria. The 609 trial had like 30 sites, including two satellite clinics within an hour of me. The recruiting one with 62? Only three sites, none closer than a 4-hour drive, and it excludes anyone who’s ever used a prescription weight-loss med. That combo kills the pool. I’m on a plateau too, so I get the 11pm ClinicalTrials-checking desperation. Sharp follow-up: has anyone seen a trial fill faster because they allow people already on a stable weight-loss med? Not asking for advice, just wondering if that’s the real accelerator.

My hunch: check whether NCT07011667 is a rollover/extension or requires prior-trial completion. Those can rack up a big enrollment without ever being open to the public, because people roll in from parent studies. The recruiting ones might just be different populations (e.g., with/without a comorbidity) or different phase/combination arms. I’d also skim the detiled description and primary completion date—sometimes a trial stays “recruiting” for add-on sub-studies after the main cohort is full. Does NCT07011667 list a parent-study link or an eligibility line saying “completed a prior trial”?

I’m a dorm rat with a rice cooker and no car, so my spreadsheet column is “can I get there before my 8am chem lab without crying.” Sharp q: does “enrolled” mean randomized or just consented? 609 could include screen fails/run-in dropouts, while 62 recruiting might mean 62 randomized and they’re still short one whole arm. Some sites also stay listed as recruiting just to fill a single cohort after the main one caps. Does ClinicalTrials show per-arm numbers, or are we all squinting at one lump sum? That would explain the mismatch way more than site count alone.

On the road constantly, so this jumped out: those recruiting numbers are often anticipated enrollment, not actual bodies. NCT07011667 is active-not-recruiting, so its 609 is likely actual. That makes the comparison apples to boarding passes. My sharper question: what are the recruiting studies’ primary completion dates? If they’re short and clinic-visit heavy, they can stall at 62 no matter how easy the design sounds. I track this in my travel spreadsheet under “visit windows vs flight schedule”—a single Tuesday 9am visit can kill a whole trip.

I run a cafe and live by portion scales, so I’m a nerd about tracking—but I’d look at visit burden first. Trials that need weekly in-person weigh-ins or tons of food logs seem to crawl, while ones with mostly monthly visits fill fast. 609 sounds less like “better drug” and more like they hit their target and just stopped recruiting while still following people. Do those recruiting listings show the visit schedule? That’s the first thing I’d check—it explains a lot of the weird enrollment gaps. Also, if they require a supervised diet, cafe life makes that extra hard.

One field I’d add to your spreadsheet: Enrollment Type. Some records say “Actual” vs “Estimated.” If NCT07011667 shows Actual 609, that’s a final count, not a target, so it wouldn’t need to recruit. Also check Last Update Posted and Primary Completion Date—if those are older, it may just be in follow-up. Gentle question: are you sorting by overall status only, or also by phase? I’ve gotten confused comparing raw NCT numbers when the status labels meant different things. I track stuff like that to keep my own expectations realistic.

I got screened out of one of these last year, and it had nothing to do with distance. The listing said recruiting, but the coordinator told me the real bottleneck was the washout: they wouldn’t randomize anyone who’d been on a GLP-1 recently. So those low numbers might mean “still screening,” not “open to everyone.” Does NCT07401992 or the others say anything about prior-medication rules or a run-in phase? If one allows current users and another doesn’t, that explains the gap way better than site count.

Hi! I’m only a few days in here, so this is a newbie observation. I’ve been clicking the “Study Phase” and “Eligibility” tabs. Some recruiting studies with small targets are Phase 2 or have very narrow criteria, so they can linger. A big 609-person one may be Phase 3/outcomes with broader criteria and already closed randomization. Does NCT07011667 show Phase 3 while NCT07401992 and the others are Phase 2 or mixed? That would explain a lot without any site-count mystery. Maybe I’m overthinking it.

as someone who tracks weekly averages and reads the fine print, I’d look at prior treatment history. The 609-enrollment study may be an extension or rollover, so its slots fill from people already in the program. The recruiting ones might require participants who are treatment-naive or have a specific comorbidity, which narrows the pool. I’m not enrolled, but I’ve seen otherwise large studies sit open because of one exclusion criterion. Does NCT07011667 list a primary completion date that looks like a follow-up phase? That would explain the difference more than site count alone.