Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
S P E C I A L F E A T U R E E d i t o r i a l Myostatin Inhibition: A New Treatment for Androgen Deprivation-Induced Sarcopenia? Mathis Grossmann Department of Medicine Austin Health, University of Melbourne, and Endocrine Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria 3052, Australia I n nonobese individuals, muscle is the largest organ by mass (40% of body weight) and serves important physical and metabolic functions. Not surprisingly, sarcopenia, defined as age-related loss of muscle mass and function, is a significant public health issue associated with loss of functional independence and substantial health care costs (1). Sarcopenia not only leads to loss of muscle mass and strength, but is associated with systemic consequences mediated via reciprocal interactions with other tissues, such as fat and bone. Skeletal muscle plays a prominent role in insulin-mediated glucose disposal. It also releases biological mediators collectively referred to as myokines that counteract the effects of proinflammatory adipokines (2). Therefore, sarcopenia promotes insulin resistance and visceral adiposity. In turn, diabetes and obesity accelerate the age-related loss of muscle mass and quality (1). Sarcopenia diminishes bone strength via reduced mechanical load, reduced secretion of anabolic myokines, and increased falls and hence fracture risk (3). Sarcopenia therefore plays a key role in the self-perpetuating cycle of sarcopenic obesity, metabolic dysregulation, and bone decay leading to frailty. The pathogenesis of sarcopenia is multifactorial and involves physical inactivity, systemic inflammation, and age-associated hormonal changes. In men, androgen deficiency is an important contributory cause. Skeletal muscle is one of the most androgen-responsive somatic tissues. Randomized controlled trials have consistently shown robust dose-response relationships between circulating T and muscle mass and strength, ranging from low to supraphysiological T levels, in both young and older men (4, 5). In addition, low T predicts frailty in observational studies of community-dwelling men (6). The increased risk of functional decline associated with low T may be mediated through effects on muscle mass and strength (7). The most common contemporary cause of severe T deficiency is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) given to men with prostate cancer (8). Lifetime incidence of prostate cancer is 1:6 in US men and is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Because prostate cancer is an androgen-dependent malignancy, ADT provides effective palliation and, as adjuvant therapy, improves survival in appropriately selected highrisk men. Evidence for benefit in other settings in more limited, in part because the antitumor effects of ADT are offset by its toxicities. There is evidence that ADT is overused: 3% of the US Medicare population currently receives this treatment, or more than 500 000 US men (9). The 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival exceeds 90% for most men, and therefore survivorship issues become an important consideration. ADT induces therapeutic hypogonadism with a number of constitutional and somatic side effects, including profound skeletal muscle loss, obesity, diabetes, and bone architectural decay (10, 11). Although effective medications for diabetes and osteoporosis are available, there is currently no approved pharmacotherapy to improve skeletal health. Exercise improves muscle strength and physical performance in clinical trials of men receiving ADT and should be recommended routinely (12). Implementation and sustainability, however, remain challenging, especially in older men receiving ADT, who commonly have a substantial comorbid burden and may experience ADT-associated fatigue and low mood. A variety of pharmacological interventions to improve skeletal muscle health are currently being explored in early clinical trials. One such strategy is based on the inhibition ISSN Print 0021-972X ISSN Online 1945-7197 Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 2014 by the Endocrine Society Received August 24, 2014. Accepted August 25, 2014. Abbreviation: ADT, androgen deprivation therapy. For article see page E1967 doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-3290 J Clin Endocrinol Metab, October 2014, 99(10):3625–3628 jcem.endojournals.org 3625 3626 Grossmann Myostatin Inhibition and Androgen Deprivation of myostatin, a highly conserved member of the TGF superfamily. As the name implies, myostatin is a strong negative regulator of skeletal muscle mass. Myostatin signals through the activin type IIB receptor to regulate genes involved in the differentiation and proliferation of skeletal muscle precursor cells and in the regulation of protein turnover in mature myocytes. Genetic inactivation of myostatin is associated with marked hypermuscularity in mammalian species including humans (13), and its transgenic overexpression or systemic delivery leads to muscle atrophy in adult mice. Myostatin also modulates adipose tissue and metabolic functions: myostatin knockout mice display reduced body fat mass and are resistant to fat accumulation and to the development of insulin resistance (14). In this issue of the JCEM, a team of leading clinical prostate cancer researchers collaborating with Amgen present results of one of the first trials using a myostatin inhibitor in humans. In this phase I study, Padhi et al (16) report on the tolerability and pharmacodynamic effects of the antimyostatin peptibody AMG 745, previously characterized in mice (15), in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer receiving ADT. The rationale of this study is based on preclinical data suggesting that the myogenic actions of androgen are mediated, at least in part, through inhibition of myostatin expression, although not all studies concur (17). Men with prostate cancer receiving ADT are a logical cohort to study. First, given that increasing age and insulin resistance are risk factors for prostate cancer, they have a high baseline prevalence of sarcopenic obesity and reduced bone mass even before ADT is commenced (18). Second, T is anabolic not only to muscle but also, either directly or via its metabolite estradiol, to bone, and it reduces fat mass and insulin resistance. ADT therefore exacerbates sarcopenic obesity and bone decay and accelerates the age-related frailty cycle (8). In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose phase I study (16), men with prostate cancer without documented metastatic disease treated with ADT for at least 6 months were allocated to receive weekly doses of AMG 745 (n ⫽ 25, including six men participating in a dose-escalation study) or placebo (n ⫽ 23) for 4 weeks (16). Participants had a good performance status, were body composition matched, and maintained castrate T levels throughout the study. Adverse effects were more common in men receiving AMG 745 compared to placebo and included fatigue (13 vs 4%), diarrhea (13 vs 9%), and contusion (10 vs 0%). Although numbers were small, among men receiving AMG 745, all but two of the 12 adverse events occurred in men receiving the maximum 3 mg/kg dose of AMG 745. All adverse events were reported as mild or moderate, except for one event of J Clin Endocrinol Metab, October 2014, 99(10):3625–3628 syncope associated with electrocardiogram changes occurring 19 days after the last dose of AMG 745 3 mg/kg. One subject required discontinuation of AMG 745 because of erythema, and one participant developed anti-AMG 745 binding antibodies. Change in lean body mass, a prespecified pharmacodynamic endpoint, was evaluated by DEXA in a subgroup of 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 allocation to the maximum 3 mg/kg dose of AMG 745 or placebo. Remarkably, given the short duration of the study, AMG 745 modestly, but significantly, increased lean body mass by 2.2 ⫾ 0.8% vs placebo (P ⫽ .008) and, in an exploratory analysis, decreased fat mass by ⫺2.5 ⫾ 1.0% (P ⫽ .02) at study end (day 29). Lower extremity muscle size, assessed by computed tomography scanning, increased significantly in AMG 745 subjects (between-group difference, ⫹2.8 ⫾ 1.0%; P ⫽ .007) at 1 month after study end. No significant between-group differences in muscle strength or physical performance were seen, which is not unexpected given the small study size, the use of relative insensitive methodology (knee extension strength and short physical performance battery test), and the high baseline functional status of the participants (16). In addition, there were no significant changes in fasting glucose, insulin, or lipid levels. Limitations of the study include the short duration and small size inherent to a phase I clinical trial. Physical activity levels were not recorded, and actual evidence demonstrating that myostatin was in fact inhibited in AMG 745-treated participants was not provided. Men who received ADT for less than 6 months, the period during which the most rapid loss of muscle associated with ADT occurs (11), were not enrolled in the study. Therefore, it remains plausible that myostatin inhibition may be particularly effective if used in a preventative, rather than in a restorative, fashion. The study by Padhi et al (16) provides justification for further clinical trials of myostatin inhibition for ADT-associated sarcopenia, a central component of frailty for which currently no approved pharmacological therapy exists. Given that the clinical experience with myostatin inhibitors is currently very limited and is restricted to mostly ongoing phase I-II studies (19), important questions regarding safety and efficacy remain. Cardiovascular safety is particularly important, given that men with prostate cancer commonly have cardiovascular disease. Myostatin is expressed in cardiac muscle, and preclinical studies have reported both beneficial and adverse effects of myostatin on the heart (20). The syncopal event with associated electrocardiogram changes in one subject, although occurring almost 3 weeks after the last dose of AMG 735, is of potential concern. Cardiotoxicity has not been reported in doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-3290 other early clinical studies of myostatin inhibition, although very few have been completed (19). Myostatin peptibody-associated fatigue, if confirmed in larger studies, may reduce engagement in regular physical exercise. The observed improvements in body composition after only 4 weeks of AMG 745 treatment are intriguing, although the between-group differences may have been amplified by greater than expected (11) adverse changes in body composition occurring in the placebo-treated men. Nevertheless, similar increases in muscle mass with myostatin inhibition have also been observed in other human trials (19). Of central importance is the question of whether myostatin inhibition will improve muscle function and lead to clinically meaningful improvements in physical performance. In rodent models of myostatin inhibition, the increase in muscle mass was not necessarily matched by a proportional increase in muscle force and function, resulting in a relative strength deficit (21). By contrast, exercise increases muscle strength well before a noticeable increase in muscle mass occurs, emphasizing that improvement of muscle quality is important for functional outcomes. If confirmed, the decrease in fat mass observed with AMG 745 may prove to be an important additional benefit of myostatin inhibition. Although it is unclear whether this simply reflects the increase in metabolically active lean mass or is due to direct actions related to low levels of myostatin expression in adipose tissue, this raises the possibility that myostatin inhibition has the potential to improve glucose metabolism and cardiometabolic health (22). This is of particular relevance for men with prostate cancer receiving ADT who are more likely to die from cardiovascular events than their underlying malignancy (8). In summary, given the central role of sarcopenia in the frailty cycle, more effective treatments to improve skeletal muscle health are needed. This is important not only for men with prostate cancer receiving ADT, who may be particularly vulnerable to the consequences of sarcopenia, but also for the wider aging population. Innovative and even more potent forms of ADT, some of which require glucocorticoid cotreatment, have been shown to improve prognosis but may further accelerate the sarcopeniafrailty cycle (23). Clearly, sarcopenia is a complex multifactorial condition, and optimal treatment will require a multifaceted approach with tailored physical exercise as the cornerstone. Padhi et al (16) provide early evidence that myostatin inhibition may be a potentially promising approach. However, myostatin inhibition is at a very early stage of clinical development, and clearly further evidence is required to clarify whether this treatment is safe and whether it meaningfully improves physical performance and other patient-important health outcomes. jcem.endojournals.org 3627 Acknowledgments Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Associate Professor Mathis Grossmann, Department of Medicine Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]. M.G. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Career Development Fellowship (no. 1024139). Disclosure Summary: The author has nothing to disclose. References 1. Kalyani RR, Corriere M, Ferrucci L. Age-related and disease-related muscle loss: the effect of diabetes, obesity, and other diseases [published online March 6, 2014]. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. doi: 10.1016/S2213– 8587(14)70034 – 8. 2. Pedersen BK, Febbraio MA. Muscles, exercise and obesity: skeletal muscle as a secretory organ. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2012;8:457– 465. 3. Drake MT, Khosla S. Male osteoporosis. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2012;41:629 – 641. 4. Bhasin S, Storer TW, Berman N, et al. The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1–7. 5. Srinivas-Shankar U, Roberts SA, Connolly MJ, et al. Effects of testosterone on muscle strength, physical function, body composition, and quality of life in intermediate-frail and frail elderly men: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:639 – 650. 6. Hyde Z, Flicker L, Almeida OP, et al. Low free testosterone predicts frailty in older men: the Health in Men Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:3165–3172. 7. Hsu B, Cumming RG, Naganathan V, et al. 2014 Longitudinal relationships of circulating reproductive hormone with functional disability, muscle mass and strength in community-dwelling older men: The Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project [published online March 14, 2014]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. doi:10.1210/jc.2014 – 1124. 8. Grossmann M, Zajac JD. Management of side effects of androgen deprivation therapy. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2011;40: 655– 671, x. 9. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Gilbert SM. Reimbursement policy and androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1822–1832. 10. Hamilton EJ, Ghasem-Zadeh A, Gianatti E, et al. Structural decay of bone microarchitecture in men with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95: E456 –E463. 11. Smith MR, Saad F, Egerdie B, et al. Sarcopenia during androgendeprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30: 3271–3276. 12. Gardner JR, Livingston PM, Fraser SF. Effects of exercise on treatment-related adverse effects for patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen-deprivation therapy: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:335–346. 13. Schuelke M, Wagner KR, Stolz LE, et al. Myostatin mutation associated with gross muscle hypertrophy in a child. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2682–2688. 14. Tu P, Bhasin S, Hruz PW, et al. Genetic disruption of myostatin reduces the development of proatherogenic dyslipidemia and atherogenic lesions in Ldlr null mice. Diabetes. 2009;58:1739 – 1748. 15. Zhang L, Rajan V, Lin E, et al. Pharmacological inhibition of myo- 3628 Grossmann Myostatin Inhibition and Androgen Deprivation statin suppresses systemic inflammation and muscle atrophy in mice with chronic kidney disease. FASEB J. 2011;25:1653–1663. 16. Padhi D, Higano CS, Shore N, Sieber P, Rasmussen E, Smith MR. Pharmacologic inhibition of myostatin and changes in lean body mass and lower extremity muscle size in patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:E1967–E1975. 17. Dubois V, Laurent MR, Sinnesael M, et al. A satellite cell-specific knockout of the androgen receptor reveals myostatin as a direct androgen target in skeletal muscle. FASEB J. 2014;28:2979 –2994. 18. Cheung AS, Pattison D, Bretherton I, et al. Cardiovascular risk and bone loss in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer: implementation of standardized management guidelines. Andrology. 2013;1:583–589. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, October 2014, 99(10):3625–3628 19. Smith RC, Lin BK. Myostatin inhibitors as therapies for muscle wasting associated with cancer and other disorders. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2013;7:352–360. 20. Biesemann N, Mendler L, Wietelmann A, et al. Myostatin regulates energy homeostasis in the heart and prevents heart failure. Circ Res. 2014;115:296 –310. 21. Mendias CL, Marcin JE, Calerdon DR, Faulkner JA. Contractile properties of EDL and soleus muscles of myostatin-deficient mice. J Appl Physiol. 2006;101:898 –905. 22. Basaria S, Bhasin S. Targeting the skeletal muscle-metabolism axis in prostate-cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:965–967. 23. Ryan CJ, Smith MR, de Bono JS, et al. Abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer without previous chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:134 –148.