Three recruiting semaglutide trials: 62, 200, 140 enrolled — what am I missing?

The 609 one isn’t recruiting because it’s already full. That’s the main difference. The 62 one might be a narrow sub-study.

Narrow how? I assumed all semaglutide trials were basically the same. 62 seems tiny.

Not even close. Different endpoints, different populations. The NCT number alone doesn’t tell you much without the eligibility section.

I’m in a recruiting one but not those. We were told enrollment is slow because of washout requirements. Not sure if that applies to the 62-enrolled trial.

Washout is the worst. Waited almost two months to screen.

Does anyone know why NCT06989203 has 140 and still recruiting? That seems like decent enrollment.

Recruiting just means not closed. It can stay open for years even after target enrollment. 140 isn’t necessarily the final number.

Then why does NCT07011667 say active, not recruiting at 609? Sounds like they hit their target.

I work adjacent to research, so general only: active-not-recruiting usually means they met the enrollment goal or stopped adding new people while follow-up continues. Recruiting can mean any point before that. The 62, 200, 140 numbers are snapshots, not final trial sizes. Some trials also have multiple sites, and listings can lag. The only fair comparison is reading primary outcome and inclusion criteria.

So 609 porbably hit its target. Makes sense.

I’d still want to know if the 62-enrolled one is phase 1 or has a very specific population. Enrollment number alone isn’t a red flag.

Has anyone ehre actually enrolled in NCT07401992? Curious what the screening burden is like. 62 feels like a lot of visits.

Enrollment numbers on those listings are targets, not progress bars — 609 likely means it filled and locked, not that it failed. A 62-person study is usually a different animal entirely: different phase, tighter eligibility, maybe one or two sites. I'd compare phase and primary endpoint before anything else, because a small early-phase study still recruiting tells you almost nothing about the big one.

Distance is the part nobody warns you about. I screened for one with a single site about four hours away and dropped after the second visit — the coordinator said most of their dropouts were travel, not side effects. A narrow geographic radius can keep a small trial in recruiting status for months even when it looks easy to fill. Worth counting the actual locations listed per study.

What I'd compare is visit burden. I looked at two protocols, one with roughly 14 clinic visits across 68 weeks and one with 6 plus phone check-ins, and the visit-heavy one was the one practically begging for people. Number of labs and whether there's a washout period before you start also changes who qualifies. Fewer visits usually fills faster.

Honestly these numbers pushed me to track better on my own. I do a weekly waist measure at the navel plus a morning weigh-in, and over 4 months my waist dropped 3 inches while the scale sat flat for two solid weeks mid-way — salt and water, I assume. If you ever enroll, find out what they'll actually measure, because scale-only data hides a lot.

Small correction that changed how I read those pages: the number listed is usually the target, not the current headcount. So 62 isn't 62 people enrolled and starving for more, it's the site's goal, and if they're at 40 the page still says recruiting. I spent two months refreshing a listing for a totally different study that showed "recruiting, 180" the whole time, then called and found they'd stopped screening six weeks earlier. Meanwhile the 609 going active-not-recruiting usually just means it filled and rolled into the treatment and follow-up phase, which says nothing about how promising it is. When you call a site, ask how many people they've actually randomized so far and whether the target has been revised, because those two answers tell you way more than the number on the page.

I'm not in any of those, but the waist thing is what keeps me sane between appointments. Same pair of jeans, first of every month, no stretch fabric. Went from a snug 38 to a 34 over about five months, and there were two separate stretches where the scale didn't budge but the waistband clearly did. Scales lie for a week after a salty dinner; a zipper doesn't.

Weekends are where my whole week goes sideways. I can be solid Monday through Friday and then two days of restaurant food and a couple of drinks puts me back four days, every single week, and it took months before I actually noticed the pattern. What fixed it wasn't willpower, it was eating the same boring breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday as on weekdays. Three weeks of that and Monday morning stopped being a horror show.

The thing that moved numbers for me was a 20 minute walk after dinner, four or five nights a week, no gym, no app. Resting heart rate dropped about 8 bpm over three months and I stopped getting the 9pm pantry raid. Catch is I spent the first six weeks eating back every step because I'd "earned" it, so the scale sat flat and I almost quit. Worth the boring version.

I went down the same rabbit hole on a Sunday. My takeaway: those numbers are usually planned enrollment, and the 609 didn't close because it filled instantly — it hit its target and stopped taking people, while a 62 might still be open cohort by cohort as slots clear. Screen fails and dropouts eat seats too. For comparing, I'd look at visit frequency and how far the site is from your house, not the headcount.

The tracker I actually trust is a winter jacket that wouldn't zip in February. First zip came at week 6, then week 9 it wouldn't again and I spiraled — turned out I'd worn it straight after a salty takeout night. Same jacket, 2 lb swing morning to night. Now I check it once a week at the same time and ignore the number in between.

Sleep is the variable nobody wants to hear about, but it's mine. I logged 5.5 hours a night for two weeks during a work crunch and my morning number didn't budge — same food, same steps. Then a nrmal 7.5-hour week and it dropped 1.8 lb with zero other changes. Boring answer, but lights out by 10:30 on weeknights now.

62 people and still recruiting — that's either the friendliest trial ever or the pickiest.

Recruitment number isn’t a popularity score — it’s a site puzzle. I travel constantly and compare it to airport gates: one flight boards forever because only one desk is open, another empties fast because they’ve got six agents. A small trial can stay “recruiting” for rolling cohorts or because only a couple sites are actually screening; a big one may close early once its target mix is met or enrollment pauses. If you’re in one: did they tell you how many listed sites are actively enrolling, or just how many exist on paper?

Airport-layover nerd here. First thing I check isn’t the headline number, it’s whether “62 enrolled” is actual or estimated, and how many sites are actually open. A 200-person study can stop recruiting once it hits its target or moves into follow-up, while a tiny one keeps the door open because it’s still short at one or two sites. Eligibility filters — travel schedule, local labs, visit windows — can make a small trial crawl. Are you looking at actual enrollment or estimated? That distinction usually explains the whole mismatch.

Tbh The number I’d want is sites, not enrolled. I did a non-GLP study where 50 people across 12 cities took forever because each site needed a handful of locals; a 600-person one filled fast at 3 big academic centers. If NCT07401992 has a narrow inclusion window, 62 can sit there for months. Also, weekday-only visits kill anyone with a travel job. Are those 62 all at one clinic, or spread thin?

I peeked at those too after my pharmacist mentioned trial patients sometimes still fill their regular scripts with us. What jumped out was site count, not enrollment number. A 62-person study spread over a dozen rural clinics can stay “recruiting” for ages because each site needs just a few folks, while a 609-person one at three big centers can fill and slam shut. Also, if a trial has a placebo arm or a washout, insurance/prior-auth paperwork for other meds can slow enrollment way down. Do the listings show locations? That’d explain a lot.

Hi, I’m brand new here (week one, nervous). I’m not in any trial either, but I noticed some listings hve separate “estimated” and “actual” enrollment numbers, and a few have extension or substudy arms that keep recruiting after the main cohort closes. Could NCT07401992’s 62 be an actual enrolled number for a small PK or tolerability piece, while the big ones filled their main phase? Also, does anyone know if “recruiting” can just mean a site is still screening for a specific subgroup (e.g., certain BMI or comorbidity) rather than open spots? Sorry if that’s a silly question.

I’m in maintenance after hitting goal, so I look at trial design before raw N. On those listings, “62” is often planned enrollment, not bodies already in. A 609-person study can flip to active-not-recruiting the day they hit target, while a smaller one may recruit by cohorts or need a narrow prior-med history. Check the actual vs estimated enrollment fields and last update date — sometimes “recruiting” just hasn’t been refreshed. Also, are these all the same phase? A small early-phase study can stay open a long time for safety follow-up, not because nobody wants in.

The number isn’t the tell; the first-posted date usually is. NCT07011667 probably hit 609 because it opened way earlier, while the 62-person one may be Phase 1/2, narrow eligibility, or slow rolling enrollment. I keep a nerd sheet: phase, target, primary completion, last update. That explains most “why is this still open?” gaps. I’d take a 62-person trial with a 20-minute commute over a 609-person one two states away. Are you optimizing for access or speed?

Honestly, I’m not enrolled either, but when I poked at those listings, the number wasn’t always “people enrolled.” One showed 62 as anticipated at a single site, while another big number was already closed to new folks. So it can be planned vs. actual, not just friendlier or pickier.

Are you comparing visit schedules and locations too? That’s what stops me — I’m newly into long walks and cooking from scratch, and I’m not ready to hand over every Tuesday. Curious whether any of these have a site that’s actually nearby for you.

not enrolled, but I’ve been down this rabbit hole during snack time. “Recruiting” can stay open if they’re adding a satellite site or a sub-study, so the number isn’t the whole story. And active-not-recruiting usually means enrollment is done and people are in follow-up — not that it flopped. If you’re hoping to join, ask the coordinator if there’s a waitlist and whether any visits are phone/local-lab vs the main site. With two kids, school-hours-only appointments are my dealbreaker. Are you just watching the listings, or trying to get in?

I run a cafe, so my first filter is geography and visit schedule. A trial can be “recruiting” forever if it’s one site with 8 a.m. weekday visits — impossible during our breakfast rush. A multi-site one can enroll hundreds fast just from having more locations and evening slots. Do you know if those three are single-site or spread out? Also whether any do virtual screening or early blood draws? That logistics piece is what usually knocks me out, not the trial size. I've tried tracking my portions around 6 a.m. prep, and clinic timing is the real dealbreaker.

Check the enrollment row: Actual vs Anticipated. A 62-person trial can still say Recruiting if it’s only enrolled 41 and 62 was the target. Also, status is trial-level; one site can be screening while the parent record flips to Active, not recruiting. I keep a spreadsheet of Last Update Posted and Primary Completion, and those dates explain more than raw N. Are those three even the same phase and population? If one’s a sub-study or different comorbidity stratum, comparing enrollment is apples-to-oranges.

Not enrolled either, but I went down the same list last night. The thing I’d check is the arms/eligibility, not just size: a 62-person study might target a very narrow sub-population (post-bariatric, sleep apnea, people who plateaued on prior meds), so it stays recruiting longer. The big 609 one may have filled slots early and moved to follow-up. I’ve been tracking protein, steps, waist, and a 7-day weight average for 11 weeks; scale is flat, but waist is down 1.5", which messes with my head. Question: are these all obesity-only, or do some require prediabetes/T2D?

Not enrolled, but I’ve been down this road while maintaining. The enrolled number matters less than the study design. A 609-person Phase 3 can hit its randomization target and flip to active-not-recruiting even though follow-up continues. A 62-person trial might be a mechanistic sub-study—needing specific baseline measres like sleep, liver fat, or body composition—so it trickles in slowly. Check the “Study Type” and primary outcome; if it’s narrow, slow enrollment is normal. Is NCT07401992 listed as interventional or observational, and does its eligibility section look unusually long?

I’m just a forum lurker, not enrolled, but I’ve started a tiny tracking note for trials: NCT number, status, last update posted, and whether it’s a roll-over/extension. That last bit explained a lot for me — a small “recruiting” one may be topping up a subgroup or adding follow-up, not competing with the big one. The 609 study being “active, not recruiting” usually means enrollment is done and they’re in data/follow-up mode. Check the “Last Update Posted” date, too; some records go stale. Does NCT07401992 maybe link to a parent study? I’d look there before reading too much into the 62.

I’d click into Phase and Study Type before comparing raw enrollment. NCT07011667 at 609 being active-not-recruiting often means it’s fully enrolled and just in follow-up; the 62-person one may be Phase 1 or a narrower sub-study that’s slow to fill. My tell is the Last Update Posted date—if it’s recent but status hasn’t moved, the site may just be lagging. Sharp Q: are all four the same phase and eligible population? If not, 62 vs 609 is mostly apples-to-oranges.

I track my sleep, hunger cues, and resting heart rate, so I always check the fine print for things like a stable-weight period or washout. A 62-person trial can stay “Recruiting” if it needs a narrow subgroup—say, a specific comorbidity or baseline A1c range. Does anyone know if NCT07401992 is enrolling a particular population, or is it just a slow site? That might explain why the bigger one closed to new enrollment first.

I’ve been scrolling those same listings during a stubborn plateau, and for me the blocker isn’t the enrollment number—it’s the visit burden. One trial near me wanted something like 12–14 clinic visits plus weekly e-diaries, and the site is 90 minutes away. That’s a part

Check whether those numbers are “Estimated” or “Actual” on the record. ClinicalTrials often shows target enrollment while recruiting, so 62 can be a goal, not a headcount. The 609 one may be actual and closed because it hit target or rolled into follow-up. Site-level recruitment also lags the listing, so “recruiting” can be stale. Do any of yours say Actual? That’d make the comparison less apples-to-oranges.

Hi, fellow newbie here, still figuring out the listings. One thing that helped me was looking at whether the Enrollment number says “Actual” or “Estimated”—estimated is just the target, so a trial can stay Recruiting while it works toward that goal. The big 609 one might be Actual, which would explain why it’s closed. Does NCT07401992 show Estimated beside the 62? Also the “Last Update Posted” date can make a status look current when it’s actually stale. Sorry if that’s obvious—I’m only week one and trying not to get lost.

I’ve noticed the “Enrollment” field is usually an estimated target while recruiting, not actual bodies. Actual numbers often only get posted later. So 62 may be planned, not enrolled. Also check “Last Update Posted” — stale listings happen. A small trial can stay recruiting if it’s still activating sites or enrolling a narrow subgroup, while a big one closes once its target is met. Are any of those listed as “Enrollment: actual” yet? That’s the first thing I’d compare.

I’m not in any of these either, but I treat the listings like airport gates: compare “Actual” vs “Estimated” enrollment and number of sites, not just the headline number. A 62-person trial can stay open if it’s recruiting site-by-site or needs a narrow slice of people; the 609 one may have hit target and flipped to active-not-recruiting. Quick question: does NCT07401992 list multiple locations or just one? I’m on the road most weeks, so a site near a hub airport is the only kind I’d realistically stick with. Hotel treadmill + grocery-store rotisserie chicken is my current food-plan logistics, for whatever that’s worth.

I’m an empty-nester too, and I’ve learned those overall numbers can hide what’s happening locally. When I looked at one listing, the “Locations” tab showed only two sites still enrolling near me, while the main record still said recruiting. The bigger one may have closed because all sites hit their target or stopped early; the smaller one might still need a specific age/BMI range or just be slower to fill. Did you check whether any sites are within a reasonable drive, or just the headline enrollment? I’ve been walking after dinner and batch-cooking soups while I wait and watch—keeps me from refreshing the page every hour.

Small thing I learned while lurking: the “enrolled” number can be estimated vs actual, and records sometimes update only every few months. A 62-person trial may still say recruiting because one site is still screening, while the 609 one is active-not-recruiting because randomization closed but follow-up continues. I’d open the Locations tab and see if the small one is single-site or has narrow eligibility. Does NCT07401992 list one site or several? That often explains the pace better than the headline number.

For what it's worth, hi, I’m brand new here too—week one and still nervous about posting. I’m not enrolled, but I’ve been clicking the Locations tab on the listings, and total enrollment can be misleading if a small number is spread across only one or two sites. The 62-person one might just be filling slowly at a single clinic, while the larger one wrapped because it had dozens of sites. Does anyone know if any of these are limited to people who haven’t tried a GLP-1 before? That eligibility filter seems like it could explain the weird recruiting pattern more than the raw number.