Peptides Similar to Enobosarm
Compare Enobosarm with related peptides and alternatives
📌TL;DR
- •5 similar peptides identified
- •Bimagrumab: High - Both preserve lean mass during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both have positive Phase 2 data in the obesity setting.
- •Apitegromab: High - Both aim to preserve muscle during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both have Phase 2 data in this setting.
Quick Comparison
| Peptide | Similarity | Key Differences |
|---|---|---|
| Enobosarm (current) | - | - |
| Bimagrumab | High - Both preserve lean mass during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both have positive Phase 2 data in the obesity setting. | Bimagrumab is an activin type II receptor antibody (IV Q4W) that blocks myostatin and activin signaling. Enobosarm is an oral SARM acting through androgen receptor activation. Different mechanisms, routes, and safety profiles. |
| Apitegromab | High - Both aim to preserve muscle during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both have Phase 2 data in this setting. | Apitegromab is a selective latent myostatin inhibitor (SC antibody). Enobosarm is an oral SARM. Apitegromab attenuated lean tissue loss by ~55% vs tirzepatide alone in EMBRAZE trial. Enobosarm achieved 71% lean mass preservation vs semaglutide alone in QUALITY. |
| Trevogrumab | High - Both preserve muscle during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both in Phase 2 clinical development for this indication. | Trevogrumab is an anti-myostatin monoclonal antibody (Regeneron). In the COURAGE trial, trevogrumab preserved lean mass with semaglutide. Enobosarm works through androgen receptor pathway rather than myostatin inhibition. |
| Tirzepatide | Moderate - Enobosarm is being developed specifically as a combination partner for tirzepatide in the planned PLATEAU trial. | Tirzepatide is a GLP-1/GIP agonist for weight loss; enobosarm is a SARM for muscle preservation. They target opposite aspects of the weight loss problem. Completely different mechanisms, routes, and indications. |
| Semaglutide | Moderate - Enobosarm was evaluated specifically in combination with semaglutide in the QUALITY trial. | Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist causing weight loss (including lean mass loss); enobosarm preserves lean mass during that weight loss. They are complementary rather than competitive. |
BimagrumabHigh - Both preserve lean mass during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both have positive Phase 2 data in the obesity setting.
Differences
Bimagrumab is an activin type II receptor antibody (IV Q4W) that blocks myostatin and activin signaling. Enobosarm is an oral SARM acting through androgen receptor activation. Different mechanisms, routes, and safety profiles.
Advantages
Oral administration (vs IV for bimagrumab); no immunogenicity risk; longer clinical history; FDA-confirmed approval pathway at 3 mg.
Disadvantages
SARM class carries hormonal suppression risk; ALT elevations observed; WADA-banned substance class; Lilly paused bimagrumab + tirzepatide trial for strategic reasons, not safety.
ApitegromabHigh - Both aim to preserve muscle during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both have Phase 2 data in this setting.
Differences
Apitegromab is a selective latent myostatin inhibitor (SC antibody). Enobosarm is an oral SARM. Apitegromab attenuated lean tissue loss by ~55% vs tirzepatide alone in EMBRAZE trial. Enobosarm achieved 71% lean mass preservation vs semaglutide alone in QUALITY.
Advantages
Oral route; greater lean mass preservation (71% vs 55%); FDA-confirmed approval pathway.
Disadvantages
Different GLP-1 partners make direct comparison difficult; hormonal suppression risk; shorter treatment duration in QUALITY (16 wk vs 24 wk).
TrevogrumabHigh - Both preserve muscle during GLP-1-induced weight loss. Both in Phase 2 clinical development for this indication.
Differences
Trevogrumab is an anti-myostatin monoclonal antibody (Regeneron). In the COURAGE trial, trevogrumab preserved lean mass with semaglutide. Enobosarm works through androgen receptor pathway rather than myostatin inhibition.
Advantages
Oral route; established dose (3 mg); no muscle spasm side effects; FDA-confirmed approval pathway.
Disadvantages
Different mechanism class; hormonal suppression risk; ALT elevation risk; trevogrumab may offer greater total weight loss.
TirzepatideModerate - Enobosarm is being developed specifically as a combination partner for tirzepatide in the planned PLATEAU trial.
Differences
Tirzepatide is a GLP-1/GIP agonist for weight loss; enobosarm is a SARM for muscle preservation. They target opposite aspects of the weight loss problem. Completely different mechanisms, routes, and indications.
Advantages
Addresses the primary limitation of tirzepatide therapy (lean mass loss); may help patients break through weight loss plateaus.
Disadvantages
Enobosarm is investigational while tirzepatide is approved; adds complexity and potential drug-drug interactions to treatment.
SemaglutideModerate - Enobosarm was evaluated specifically in combination with semaglutide in the QUALITY trial.
Differences
Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist causing weight loss (including lean mass loss); enobosarm preserves lean mass during that weight loss. They are complementary rather than competitive.
Advantages
Converts semaglutide-induced weight loss from mixed (lean + fat) to pure fat loss at 3 mg; prevents physical function decline.
Disadvantages
Investigational; adds another medication to the treatment regimen; additional monitoring requirements for liver and hormones.
Compounds Related to Enobosarm#
Enobosarm occupies a unique position in the emerging muscle preservation space as the only oral selective androgen receptor modulator being developed specifically for combination with GLP-1 receptor agonists. The relevant comparison landscape includes antibody-based myostatin/activin pathway inhibitors and the GLP-1 agonists that serve as combination partners.
Muscle-Preserving Approaches: Mechanism Classes#
The muscle preservation field has converged on three main mechanistic approaches:
- Androgen receptor modulation (enobosarm): Directly activates muscle AR to promote protein synthesis
- Myostatin inhibition (trevogrumab, apitegromab): Blocks the negative regulator of muscle growth
- Activin receptor blockade (bimagrumab): Broader blockade of TGF-beta family signaling that limits muscle growth
Bimagrumab (Versanis/Eli Lilly)#
Bimagrumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting activin type II receptors (ActRIIA and ActRIIB). It blocks signaling by myostatin, activin A, and other TGF-beta family members.
Clinical data: In combination with semaglutide, bimagrumab shifted weight loss composition so that 92.8% of total weight loss was from fat mass (vs 71.8% for semaglutide alone), with total weight loss of 22.1%.
Key differences from enobosarm: IV administration every 4 weeks (vs oral daily); broader mechanism (blocks multiple ligands vs single receptor); immunogenicity risk inherent to antibody therapeutics; Eli Lilly paused one development program for "strategic business reasons."
Trevogrumab (Regeneron)#
Trevogrumab is a monoclonal antibody directly targeting myostatin. In the Phase 2 COURAGE trial with semaglutide, trevogrumab preserved lean mass and the triple combination (semaglutide + trevogrumab + garetosmab) showed the greatest effects.
Key differences: Injectable antibody; more specific myostatin targeting; muscle spasms reported in approximately half of triple-combination patients; one-third had adverse events leading to discontinuation.
Apitegromab (Scholar Rock)#
Apitegromab selectively inhibits latent myostatin activation, which may provide a more targeted approach than blocking all myostatin signaling. In the Phase 2 EMBRAZE trial, apitegromab + tirzepatide attenuated lean soft tissue loss by approximately 55% compared with tirzepatide alone over 24 weeks.
Key differences: Subcutaneous antibody; selective latent myostatin inhibitor; favorable safety profile; paired with tirzepatide rather than semaglutide.
Comparison Table#
| Feature | Enobosarm | Bimagrumab | Trevogrumab | Apitegromab |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | Oral SARM | ActRII antibody | Anti-myostatin mAb | Anti-latent myostatin |
| Mechanism | AR activation | TGF-beta blockade | Myostatin neutralization | Latent myostatin inhibition |
| Route | Oral daily | IV monthly | SC | SC |
| GLP-1 partner studied | Semaglutide | Semaglutide | Semaglutide | Tirzepatide |
| Lean mass preservation | 71% reduction in loss | ~93% fat composition | Significant preservation | ~55% attenuation |
| Trial duration | 16 weeks | Phase 2 | Phase 2 (COURAGE) | 24 weeks (EMBRAZE) |
| Key safety concern | ALT elevation, hormones | Immunogenicity | Muscle spasms (~50%) | Favorable profile |
| Developer | Veru | Versanis/Lilly | Regeneron | Scholar Rock |
| Oral option | Yes | No | No | No |
Practical Considerations#
Enobosarm's oral route of administration is a significant differentiator:
- Patient convenience: No injection, no cold chain, no healthcare visits for infusion
- Compliance: Daily oral dosing is familiar and well-accepted
- Cost potential: Small molecule manufacturing is typically less expensive than antibody production
- Combination simplicity: Adding an oral pill to an injectable GLP-1 regimen is simpler than adding a second injectable
However, the SARM mechanism carries specific considerations:
- Hormone suppression (testosterone, SHBG, LH, FSH)
- Liver enzyme monitoring needed
- WADA-banned substance class
- Regulatory perception of androgen-modulating compounds
Related Reading#
Frequently Asked Questions About Enobosarm
Explore Further
Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. Not medical advice. Read full disclaimer