<p>Testosterone is an important anabolic in humans, but its conversion to dihydrotestosterone in skin and prostate and to oestradiol in adipose tissue also yields untoward androgenic and estrogenic effects. It was therefore a breakthrough of considerable interest, when Dalton and colleagues in 1998 reported the synthesis of non-steroidal arylpropionamide ligands for the androgen receptor. Three of these newly discovered ligands bound the receptor with affinity similar to dihydrotestosterone and mimicked its effects on receptor-mediated transcriptional activation, thus demonstrating agonist activity [<span>1</span>]. Since then, a number of different non-steroidal chemical scaffolds have been developed to mimic androgen receptor ligands, including bicyclic hydantoins, bicyclic thiohydantoins, imidazolopyrazoles, benzimidazoles, anilines and quinolinones. The umbrella term for these substances is selective androgen-receptor modulators (SARMs), and they were developed with the aim of preserving anabolic effects in muscle and bone while reducing androgenic side effects (e.g., prostate stimulation, virilization and gynecomastia) and other safety concerns [<span>2</span>].</p><p>One of the SARMs that has seen considerable research efforts over the last 25 years is enobosarm (GTx-024), also known as ostarine (Figure 1) [<span>3</span>]. The drug was initially licensed and advanced by GTx Inc. (Memphis, TN) for age-related muscle loss and cachexia. In 2007, GTx even struck a large SARM collaboration with Merck to pursue the treatment of sarcopenia/cachexia and other musculoskeletal conditions [<span>4</span>]. Early trials were indeed encouraging: A Phase II randomized controlled trial in healthy elderly men and postmenopausal women (<i>n</i> = 120) showed dose-dependent gains in lean body mass (LBM) and better stair-climb power over 12 weeks [<span>5</span>]. A Phase II cancer-cachexia trial (<i>n</i> = 159) improved LBM with signals in stair-climb power, both in the 1 and 3 mg daily arm, but no signal in the placebo group [<span>6</span>]. The authors concluded that ‘enobosarm might lead to improvements in LBM, without the toxic effects associated with androgens and progestational agents’. This was followed by two near-identical Phase III studies in non-small cell lung cancer (differences mainly in chemotherapy backbone)—POWER-1 and POWER-2—designed with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use co-primary responder endpoints combining LBM and stair-climb power [<span>7, 8</span>]. It was a major setback when it became clear that both programmes increased LBM but failed to deliver consistent, clinically meaningful functional gains, and thus no approval followed. Subsequent pursuit in stress urinary incontinence (ASTRID, Phase II) was negative [<span>9</span>], reinforcing the lack of approvable benefit on functional endpoints [<span>10</span>]. Broader commentary has since emphasized how regulator-preferred functional endpoints—and safety expect
{"title":"Enobosarm in Muscle Wasting: The Rest of the Story","authors":"Stephan von Haehling","doi":"10.1002/rco2.70027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rco2.70027","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Testosterone is an important anabolic in humans, but its conversion to dihydrotestosterone in skin and prostate and to oestradiol in adipose tissue also yields untoward androgenic and estrogenic effects. It was therefore a breakthrough of considerable interest, when Dalton and colleagues in 1998 reported the synthesis of non-steroidal arylpropionamide ligands for the androgen receptor. Three of these newly discovered ligands bound the receptor with affinity similar to dihydrotestosterone and mimicked its effects on receptor-mediated transcriptional activation, thus demonstrating agonist activity [<span>1</span>]. Since then, a number of different non-steroidal chemical scaffolds have been developed to mimic androgen receptor ligands, including bicyclic hydantoins, bicyclic thiohydantoins, imidazolopyrazoles, benzimidazoles, anilines and quinolinones. The umbrella term for these substances is selective androgen-receptor modulators (SARMs), and they were developed with the aim of preserving anabolic effects in muscle and bone while reducing androgenic side effects (e.g., prostate stimulation, virilization and gynecomastia) and other safety concerns [<span>2</span>].</p><p>One of the SARMs that has seen considerable research efforts over the last 25 years is enobosarm (GTx-024), also known as ostarine (Figure 1) [<span>3</span>]. The drug was initially licensed and advanced by GTx Inc. (Memphis, TN) for age-related muscle loss and cachexia. In 2007, GTx even struck a large SARM collaboration with Merck to pursue the treatment of sarcopenia/cachexia and other musculoskeletal conditions [<span>4</span>]. Early trials were indeed encouraging: A Phase II randomized controlled trial in healthy elderly men and postmenopausal women (<i>n</i> = 120) showed dose-dependent gains in lean body mass (LBM) and better stair-climb power over 12 weeks [<span>5</span>]. A Phase II cancer-cachexia trial (<i>n</i> = 159) improved LBM with signals in stair-climb power, both in the 1 and 3 mg daily arm, but no signal in the placebo group [<span>6</span>]. The authors concluded that ‘enobosarm might lead to improvements in LBM, without the toxic effects associated with androgens and progestational agents’. This was followed by two near-identical Phase III studies in non-small cell lung cancer (differences mainly in chemotherapy backbone)—POWER-1 and POWER-2—designed with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use co-primary responder endpoints combining LBM and stair-climb power [<span>7, 8</span>]. It was a major setback when it became clear that both programmes increased LBM but failed to deliver consistent, clinically meaningful functional gains, and thus no approval followed. Subsequent pursuit in stress urinary incontinence (ASTRID, Phase II) was negative [<span>9</span>], reinforcing the lack of approvable benefit on functional endpoints [<span>10</span>]. Broader commentary has since emphasized how regulator-preferred functional endpoints—and safety expect","PeriodicalId":73544,"journal":{"name":"JCSM rapid communications","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/rco2.70027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145904841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}