🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsClinical Trials & ResearchClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 trial tracker — updated weekly

ClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 trial tracker — updated weekly

TrialTracker_MD Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 4:00 PM 411 replies 11,865 viewsPage 1 of 20
This thread has been pinned by mike_mod.
This thread is more than 27 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
TrialTracker_MD
Senior Member
2,345
15,678
Jan 2024
Maryland
Feb 26, 2024 at 4:00 PM#1

ClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 trial tracker — updated weekly

Pinned because it affects plans people have already made, not because it is dramatic. Everything below is what is confirmed as of today.

This post is the record, and it will be edited as things change — with the change noted rather than substituted. If you have something firmer than what is here, a document or a date or a first-hand account, post it and it goes in with credit.

Read it this way:

  • What is stated is confirmed; what is uncertain is marked as uncertain
  • Anything time-sensitive is worth verifying yourself before you act on it
  • The replies below carry the corrections, so read them before asking

Nothing here is advice about your situation, and the situation is still moving.

— TrialTracker_MD · Clinical Trials & Research
38 16Dr.EM_Chicago, pete_RVA, CarlaRPh_TPA and 35 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
kate.chem
VIP Member
3,890
17,654
Dec 2023
California
Feb 26, 2024 at 4:14 PM#2
TrialTracker_MD said:
ClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 trial tracker — updated weekly Pinned because it affects plans people have already made, not because it is dramatic.

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

39 17VanRx_Mike, steve_okc, dave_SLC and 36 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
LibrarianMeg
Senior Member
1,678
7,890
Mar 2024
Baltimore, MD
Feb 26, 2024 at 4:28 PM#3
TrialTracker_MD said:
ClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 trial tracker — updated weekly Pinned because it affects plans people have already made, not because it is dramatic.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.

40 18julia.endo, JessicaM_2024, TomFromTexas and 37 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
EndoResFellow
Member
456
2,345
Sep 2024
Baltimore, MD
Feb 26, 2024 at 4:42 PM#4

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

41 19NurseKim_ATL, paul_denver, TinaHashiRN and 38 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
matt_MKE
Member
312
1,345
Sep 2024
Milwaukee, WI
Feb 26, 2024 at 5:58 PM#5
kate.chem said:
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.

Last edited: Feb 26, 2024 at 8:58 PM
42 20DanielChem_CHI, marco_milano, pam_columbus and 39 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

FLOW trial: semaglutide renal outcomes — NEJM publication review14 replies
SELECT trial: semaglutide 2.4mg cardiovascular outcomes — 4yr data9 replies
TRIUMPH program (retatrutide) — Phase 3 trial design and endpoints13 replies
Orforglipron ATTAIN trials — oral non-peptide GLP-1 agonist8 replies
CagriSema (amylin + semaglutide) — REDEFINE Phase 3 results20 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register