A combined treatment with selective androgen and estrogen receptor modulators prevents bone loss in orchiectomized rats

Sarcopenic obesity and osteoporosis: Research progress and hot spots

Sarcopenic obesity (SO) and osteoporosis (OP) are associated with aging and obesity. The pathogenesis of SO is complex, including glucolipid and skeletal muscle metabolic disorders caused by inflammation, insulin resistance, and other factors. Growing evidence links muscle damage to bone loss. Muscle-lipid metabolism disorders of SO disrupt the balance between bone formation and bone resorption, increasing the risk of OP. Conversely, bones also play a role in fat and muscle metabolism. In the context of aging and obesity, the comprehensive review focuses on the effects of mechanical stimulation, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), chronic inflammation, myokines, and adipokines on musculoskeletal, at the same time, the impact of osteokines on muscle-lipid metabolism were also analyzed. So far, exercise combined with diet therapy is the most effective strategy for increasing musculoskeletal mass. A holistic treatment of musculoskeletal diseases is still in the preliminary exploration stage. Therefore, this article aims to improve the understanding of musculoskeletal -fat interactions in SO and OP, explores targets that can provide holistic treatment for SO combined with OP, and discusses current limitations and challenges. We hope to provide relevant ideas for developing specific therapies and improving disease prognosis in the future.

Selective androgen receptor modulator use and related adverse events including drug-induced liver injury: Analysis of suspected cases

PURPOSE

Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) have demonstrated agonist activity on the androgen receptor in various tissues, stimulating muscle mass growth and improving bone reconstruction. Despite being in clinical trials, none has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency for pharmacotherapy. Still, SARMs are very popular as performance-enhancing drugs. The FDA has issued warnings about the health risks associated with SARMs, but the long-term exposure and possible adverse events still need to be fully understood. This review aims to evaluate the adverse events associated with using SARMs by humans.

METHODS

PubMed database was searched from September 16, 2022, to October 2, 2023. In total, 20 records were included in the final review. Data from preclinical and clinical studies supported the review.

RESULTS

Since 2020, 20 reports of adverse events, most described as drug-induced liver injury associated with the use of SARM agonists, have been published. The main symptoms mentioned were cholestatic or hepatocellular liver injury and jaundice. Limited data are related to the dosages and purity of SARM supplements.

CONCLUSION

Promoting SARMs as an anabolic agent in combination with other performance-enhancing drugs poses a risk to users not only due to doping controls but also to health safety. The lack of quality control of consumed supplements makes it very difficult to assess the direct impact of SARMs on the liver and their potential hepatotoxic effects. Therefore, more detailed analyses are needed to determine the safety of using SARMs.

Effects of ligandrol as a selective androgen receptor modulator in a rat model for osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

The selective androgen receptor modulator ligandrol (LGD-4033 or VK5211) has been shown to improve muscle tissue. In the present study, the effect of ligandrol on bone tissue was investigated in ovariectomized rat model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three-month-old Sprague Dawley rats were either ovariectomized (OVX, n = 60) or left intact (NON-OVX, n = 15). After 9 weeks, OVX rats were divided into four groups: untreated OVX (n = 15) group and three OVX groups (each of 15 rats) treated with ligandrol orally at doses of 0.03, 0.3, or 3 mg/kg body weight. After five weeks, lumbar vertebral bodies (L), tibiae, and femora were examined using micro-computed tomographical, biomechanical, ashing, and gene expression analyses.

RESULTS

In the 3-mg ligandrol group, bone structural properties were improved (trabecular number: 38 ± 8 vs. 35 ± 7 (femur), 26 ± 7 vs. 22 ± 6 (L), 12 ± 5 vs. 6 ± 3 (tibia) and serum phosphorus levels (1.81 ± 0.17 vs.1.41 ± 0.17 mmol/l), uterus (0.43 ± 0.04 vs. 0.11 ± 0.02 g), and heart (1.13 ± 0.11 vs. 1.01 ± 0.08 g) weights were increased compared to the OVX group. Biomechanical parameters were not changed. Low and medium doses did not affect bone tissue and had fewer side effects. Body weight and food intake were not affected by ligandrol; OVX led to an increase in these parameters and worsened all bone parameters.

CONCLUSION

Ligandrol at high dose showed a subtle anabolic effect on structural properties without any improvement in biomechanical properties of osteoporotic bones. Considering side effects of ligandrol at this dose, its further investigation for the therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis should be reevaluated.

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators Combined with Treadmill Exercise Have No Bone Benefit in Healthy Adult Rats

The effects of combination treatments using the selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) ostarine (OST) or ligandrol (LIG) with treadmill exercise (TE) were studied in healthy adult rats. Fifteen-week-old male Wistar rats were divided into groups (n = 10/group). Experiment 1 consisted of (1) Control group: sedentary rats receiving vehicle; (2) OST: sedentary rats receiving OST; (3) TE: training rats receiving vehicle; (4) OST + TE: training rats receiving OST. Experiment 2 consisted of (1) LIG: sedentary group receiving LIG; (2) LIG + TE: training group receiving LIG. The TE regime was as follows: 25 m/min, 5° elevation, 40 min, five times/week, and the sedentary regime was 5 min, three times/week. OST and LIG were administered subcutaneously (0.4 mg/kg body weight/day, five times/week). After eight weeks, bone samples underwent microcomputed tomographical, biomechanical, histological, and ashing analyses. All the treatments had weak effects on the bone structure without affecting bone biomechanics. The OST + TE improved bone structure, while the LIG + TE had unfavorable effects. In serum, OST, OST + TE, and LIG + TE altered cholesterol and lipoprotein levels; TE did not change the serum parameters. The SARM treatments had no clear bone benefit, and the serum effects can be considered as side effects. TE represents a safe treatment. Because SARMs are increasingly applied in gyms along with physical activities, attention should be paid to possible side effects.

Treatment of osteoporosis using a selective androgen receptor modulator ostarine in an orchiectomized rat model

PURPOSE

The selective androgen receptor modulator ostarine has been shown to have advantageous effects on skeletal tissue properties, reducing muscle wasting and improving physical function in males. However, data on effects in male osteoporosis remain limited. In this study, the effects of ostarine on osteoporotic bone were evaluated in a rat model of male osteoporosis and compared with those of testosterone treatments.

METHODS

Eight-month-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were either non-orchiectomized to serve as a healthy control (Non-Orx, Group 1) or orchiectomized (Orx, Groups 2-6) and then grouped (n = 15/group): (1) Non-Orx, (2) Orx, (3) Ostarine Therapy, (4) Testosterone Therapy, (5) Ostarine Prophylaxis and (6) Testosterone Prophylaxis. Prophylaxis treatments started directly after orchiectomy and continued for 18 weeks, whereas Therapy treatments were initiated 12 weeks after Orx. Ostarine and Testosterone were applied orally at daily doses of 0.4 and 50 mg/kg body weight, respectively. The lumbar vertebral bodies and femora were analyzed using biomechanical, micro-CT, ashing, and gene expression analyses.

RESULTS

Ostarine Prophylaxis showed positive effects in preventing osteoporotic changes in cortical and trabecular bone (femoral trabecular density: 26.01 ± 9.1% vs. 20.75 ± 1.2% in Orx and in L4: 16.3 ± 7.3% vs 11.8 ± 2.9% in Orx); biomechanical parameters were not affected; prostate weight was increased (0.62 ± 0.13 g vs 0.18 ± 0.07 g in Orx). Ostarine Therapy increased solely the cortical density of the femur (1.25 ± 0.03 g/cm3 vs. 1.18 ± 0.04 g/cm3 in Orx); other bone parameters remained unaffected. Testosteron Prophylaxis positively influenced cortical density in femur (1.24 ± 0.05 g/cm3 vs. 1.18 ± 0.04 g/cm3 in Orx); Test. Therapy did not change any bony parameters.

CONCLUSION

Ostarine Prophylaxis could be further investigated as a preventative treatment for male osteoporosis, but an androgenic effect on the prostate should be taken into consideration, and combination therapies with other anti-osteoporosis agents could be considered.