[Goose]

Note that the trials in the link that Martyup sent were for sarcopenia, which is weakness due to muscle loss.  I am not a physician but I think that is quite a bit different than osteoarthritis, which was the first condition mentioned in the Stanford article.  (Same drug in both trial and article, I believe)

I am guessing they decided to do the trial in sarcopenia at least partially (mostly?) because there is no FDA approved therapy for that condition. Knees and hips have surgical treatment alternatives that work pretty well. It is easier to get approval for a therapy if there is no alternative therapy available. If you get that approval, "off label" use of the therapy for other diseases becomes possible. The drug has FDA safety approval. This approach has been used in the past to "fast track" the use of a drug into a market that otherwise would require much longer and more expensive clinical trials. Orphan drug designation is the ideal vehicle for such use, but sarcopenia is too common to receive such status. The trials for the "other indications" still get done, but will happen while it is already being used (potentially extensively) off label for those indications. The main downside of off label use is that insurance companies often will not pay for it.

[Goose]

Note that the trials in the link that Martyup sent were for sarcopenia, which is weakness due to muscle loss.  I am not a physician but I think that is quite a bit different than osteoarthritis, which was the first condition mentioned in the Stanford article.  (Same drug in both trial and article, I believe)

I am guessing they decided to do the trial in sarcopenia at least partially (mostly?) because there is no FDA approved therapy for that condition. Knees and hips have surgical treatment alternatives that work pretty well. It is easier to get approval for a therapy if there is no alternative therapy available. If you get that approval, "off label" use of the therapy for other diseases becomes possible. The drug has FDA safety approval. This approach has been used in the past to "fast track" the use of a drug into a market that otherwise would require much longer and more expensive clinical trials. Orphan drug designation is the ideal vehicle for such use, but sarcopenia is too common to receive such status. The trials for the "other indications" still get done, but will happen while it is already being used (potentially extensively) off label for those indications. The main downside of off label use is that insurance companies often will not pay for it.