Landogrozumab dosage and evidence
Written by Aaron CuhaReviewed Sep 2026
The short answer
The clearest test in the whole field. In 201 older adults who had fallen, it added 0.43 kg of lean mass, a very clear result. It moved only two of about seven tests of how well people could move.
Evidence grade for Landogrozumab: Moderate. The rule: at least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. The sum on this page: 3 completed trials, 726 people given it. A grade counts how much has been done to people, not whether it works.
- People given it
- 726
- Human studies
- 3
- Found nothing
- 1
Dose
No human dose established
Amounts that were given in studies sit in Human evidence on this page. None of them is a personal dose.
3 completed trials, 726 people given it
No first-hand reports gathered yet. That is a gap in what we have collected, not a finding that nothing has been reported.
Goal pages: Muscle and strength, Ageing and longevity, Immune system and inflammation
In plain English
In plain English, from Aaron
This is how I would explain it to a friend. The evidence, with the numbers, is further down the page.
Landogrozumab is a lab-made antibody that blocks myostatin, the body's brake on muscle growth. Eli Lilly tested it in older adults who were weak and had fallen. It was a monthly shot. It was never approved, and Lilly did not take it further.
What people take it for
- Adding muscle in older people who are weak and falling.
- Holding on to muscle around surgery, like a hip replacement.
- Fighting muscle loss from cancer.
What studies in people showed
The main study had 201 older adults who had fallen. After 24 weeks, the drug group had 0.43 kg more arm and leg muscle than the group on a dummy shot. That result is clear. Function barely moved. Stair climbing got 1.28 seconds faster. Two other tests only passed a bar that had been loosened ahead of time. The rest showed nothing, and nobody counted falls. In 400 people having a hip replaced, muscle went up more at higher doses. In 125 people with pancreatic cancer, the drug groups did worse. People on the dummy shot lived about ten and a half months. On the higher dose it was about eight.
What people report
Reports, not study results
The good
- Arm and leg muscle went up in the studies on this page.
The bad
- Reactions where the needle went in hit 30% on the drug, against 9% on the dummy shot.
- More muscle did not turn into much better movement.
- In pancreatic cancer, people on the drug did worse than people on the dummy shot.
Where these come from: These come from the studies on this page. We have not collected user reports on this one yet.
My bottom line
This is the cleanest proof that more muscle on a scan does not mean a stronger person. In my opinion, if you are older and worried about falls, get checked, lift, and eat enough protein. Those are the tools with real study support.
An opinion, not a finding. I am a coach, not a doctor.
What it has been measured to do
Measured in people
Goals Landogrozumab has been tested for in people, biggest studies first. We count only what the studies on this page say, so the real numbers may be higher.
- Keeping or building muscle601 people · 2 studies · 1 found nothing
- Getting stronger201 people · 1 study · 1 found nothing
- Living longer125 people · 1 study
- Cancer and tumours125 people · 1 study
32 of the 36 indexed goals have no study of any kind behind Landogrozumab
No study in people, animals or cells on this page reports a result for these. That does not prove Landogrozumab does nothing for them. It does mean anything you have heard about Landogrozumab and one of these did not come from a study cited here.
Show full evidence
What is Landogrozumab?
The clearest test in the whole field. In 201 older adults who had fallen, it added 0.43 kg of lean mass, a very clear result. It moved only two of about seven tests of how well people could move.
Read this study if you want to know what blocking myostatin really delivers. It was run in exactly the people the idea is meant to help: older adults who were weak and had fallen.
The muscle result is clear. Arm and leg lean mass went down 0.12 kg on the dummy injection and up 0.30 kg on the drug. That is a gap of 0.43 kg, and chance almost certainly does not explain it. A body makeup result does not get much cleaner.
The function result is the interesting half. Of the movement tests, only the twelve-step stair climb clearly improved. Standing up from a chair using the arms, and fast walking speed, only passed because the study had set a looser bar for these tests in advance. It did that because it expected small effects. Everything else showed nothing. The drug added tissue, and the people who got it did not become much more capable.
How does Landogrozumab work?
Landogrozumab is an antibody that grabs and blocks myostatin, the body's brake on muscle growth. With the brake off, muscle builds more protein. It has the same target as stamulumab, but was built to be stronger.
What have studies in people found about Landogrozumab?
The best-designed test of blocking myostatin, in the people the idea is meant to help. Clearly positive for muscle, mostly empty for function. The authors' own summary is honest about both.
- 201 older adults who were weak and had fallen, given a monthly shot or a dummy injection for 24 weeks. 86% finished on the dummy and 80% on the drug.
- Arm and leg lean mass was 0.43 kg higher on the antibody. Chance is very unlikely to explain that.
- The twelve-step stair climb got 1.28 seconds faster. This is the one clearly positive function result.
- Standing up from a chair using the arms, and fast walking speed, only passed a bar that had been loosened in advance for these tests. The four-step stair climb did not clearly improve.
- No effect showed up on the other movement tests.
- Reactions where the needle went in hit 30% on the drug against 9% on the dummy. They were mostly mild, and two people stopped because of them.
- The authors worded it carefully. The drug adds lean mass and might improve some measures of muscle power, and more studies are needed.
What this does not tell you: This was a 24-week early test in 201 people. It checked many function tests against a loose bar. That setup is the most likely to throw up a scatter of borderline results. It did not count falls, broken bones or hospital stays. So the result the whole idea points at was never tested. Lilly did not take the drug further. That tells you something, even though the reason is not published.
The state of the research
Look at all the myostatin blockers together and one result repeats. Blocking myostatin reliably adds lean mass, by roughly a quarter to half a kilogram in the studies that measured it well. And it reliably fails to improve what a person can actually do. Stamulumab found no gain in strength or function. Domagrozumab missed its main goal and every other clinical measure it checked. Landogrozumab added 0.43 kg of arm and leg lean mass, a very clear result, and moved two of about seven movement tests. Bimagrumab, which this site covers on its own page, made the biggest change in body makeup in the group, and it did not bring a matching gain in function either. The muscle shows up. The ability does not follow.
The evidence, in charts
Fig. 1a · how many people
726people, across 3 studies in people cited here
| Study | People | Share |
|---|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov 2014 | 400 | 55% |
| Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology 2015 | 201 | 28% |
| ClinicalTrials.gov 2015 | 125 | 17% |
One study holds 55% of these people, so the total rests more on one study than its size suggests. Counts are the number of people each study on this page says it signed up. That includes studies that only watched people and gave nobody the compound. 1 more study in people gives no headcount and is not counted here. Studies still signing people up are left out, and only studies cited on this page are counted.
Fig. 1b · evidence mix
All 4 sources here are studies in people.
- Study in people · done in people4100%
Counted from the list of sources on this page. It counts only what we cite, so there may be more studies out there. A review counts once, however many studies it sums up.
Fig. 2 · evidence over time
Sources here come from just two years, 2014 and 2015.
Too few different years on this page to draw a timeline. The newest source on file is from 2015, more than five years ago. Research on it may have gone quiet.
Fig. 3 · legal status at a glance
US
Not approved
UK
Not approved
AU
Not approved
CA
Not approved
Not approved in any of the four countries shown. This is what the law says, not a verdict on the science. See Legal status below for the full text and any notes.
Fig. 4 · how much does what
Nobody has tested different amounts in people
This chart would show how the effect changes as the amount goes up. For this compound, nobody has measured that in people. So we leave it empty. We will not borrow an animal chart and pretend it works the same in people.
Fig. 5 · what the molecule is
- Kind of compound
- Biologic
- Molecule weight
- Humanised monoclonal antibody, roughly 150 kDa. Not a peptide.
- Half-life
- Stated in words, not a numbersee the exact wording below
- Chain length
- None on file
Half-life as stated on file: Not asserted. No half-life figure was resolved in the sources loaded. Dosing in the falls trial was monthly subcutaneous injection.
No amino acid sequence is on file for Landogrozumab, so none is drawn rather than guessed from a name.
The studies we cite
- Study in people2015Myostatin antibody (LY2495655) in older weak fallers: a proof-of-concept, randomised, phase 2 trial
A myostatin antibody added muscle to older people who fall, and barely moved how they function. Two hundred older adults were split by chance between the drug and a dummy injection. After six months the drug group had gained about four hundred grams of arm and leg muscle, while the dummy group had lost a little. Climbing twelve stairs got slightly faster. Most other movement tests did not separate. Injection site reactions were far more common on the drug. Eli Lilly paid for it.
201 older adults randomised, 99 to placebo and 102 to the antibody, from 365 screened. At 24 weeks appendicular lean body mass changed by minus 0.123 kg on placebo and plus 0.303 kg on drug, a difference of 0.43 kg (95% CI 0.192 to 0.660, p < 0.0001). On function: twelve-step stair climb minus 1.28 s (p = 0.011), four-step stair climb minus 0.46 s (p = 0.093), chair rise with arms minus 4.15 s (p = 0.054), fast gait speed plus 0.05 m/s (p = 0.088), tested against a prespecified two-sided alpha of 0.1 for performance tests. No effect on other performance measures. Injection site reactions in 30% on drug against 9% on placebo (p < 0.0001). Funded by Eli Lilly.
- Study in people2015A study of LY2495655 in older participants who have fallen
This is the registry entry for the falls trial above. It records that the trial ran and finished. The result the reader wants is in the published paper above, not here: muscle went up, and function mostly did not.
The registry record for the falls trial above.
- Study in people2014A study of LY2495655 in participants undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty
The same antibody was tested around hip replacement surgery, and again it built muscle. Four hundred adults having a planned hip replacement were split by chance between three doses and a dummy injection. Twelve weeks later, arm and leg muscle had risen at every dose, and it rose more the higher the dose. The dummy group gained a little too. These results sit on the registry. Nothing here shows that the extra muscle helped anyone walk, recover or leave hospital sooner.
400 participants undergoing hip replacement, randomised to LY2495655 at 35, 105 or 315 mg or placebo (NCT01369511, results posted 2018). Appendicular lean body mass rose dose dependently at week 12: 0.297 kg on placebo against 0.741, 1.018 and 1.357 kg across the three doses. A setting where rapid muscle loss around surgery is predictable and measurable, and one of three populations the programme tested.
- Study in people2015A study of LY2495655 in participants with pancreatic cancer
In people with pancreatic cancer, the antibody did not help and the treated groups did worse. 125 patients on chemotherapy were split by chance between two doses of the drug and a dummy injection. Those on the dummy lived about ten and a half months. On the lower dose it was just under ten months, and on the higher dose about eight. Tumour shrinkage and time before the cancer grew again also favoured the dummy. Wasting from cancer is not the wasting of old age.
125 participants with pancreatic cancer on chemotherapy, randomised to LY2495655 at 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo (NCT01505530, results posted 2018). Every measure favoured placebo. Median overall survival 10.45 months on placebo against 9.82 at 100 mg and 8.02 at 300 mg. Progression free survival 8.21 against 6.87 and 4.90 months. Response rate 26.8 percent against 25.6 and 22.0 percent. The treated arms did worse. Wasting from cancer is a different mechanism from disuse or ageing, and this is the population where the idea failed hardest.
Common questions
Has Landogrozumab been tested in people?
Yes. 726 people given it across 3 completed trials cited here, 1 of which found nothing. The clearest test in the whole field. In 201 older adults who had fallen, it added 0.43 kg of lean mass, a very clear result. It moved only two of about seven tests of how well people could move.
What is the Landogrozumab dosage?
No human dose established. Amounts that were given in studies sit in Human evidence on this page. None of them is a personal dose. 3 completed trials, 726 people given it
Is Landogrozumab FDA-approved?
Never approved. Eli Lilly did not take it past mid-stage studies.
Did it actually build muscle?
Yes, and the result is clean. At 24 weeks, people on the drug had 0.43 kg more arm and leg lean mass than people on the dummy injection, and chance is very unlikely to explain that. The dummy group lost lean mass over the same time, as you would expect in weak older adults. So part of the effect is stopping loss rather than adding tissue.
Did the people get stronger or steadier?
Barely. One test, the twelve-step stair climb, got 1.28 seconds faster. Two more only passed a bar that had been loosened on purpose for these tests. The rest showed nothing. And nobody counted falls, even though preventing falls was the whole point.
Why does that gap keep appearing?
Nobody has proven the reason, but the leading ideas are worth knowing. Lean mass on a body scan includes water. An antibody that makes muscle fibres bigger may not change the nerve signals, tendon stiffness or coordination that strength depends on. With age, people also lose strength several times faster than they lose muscle. That suggests muscle size was never the main limit.
Could it help someone losing muscle on a GLP-1 drug?
That is the open question, and it has not been tested with this antibody. The groups differ in a way that might matter. Someone losing lean mass fast during weight loss is not the same as an older adult who has been weak for years. GYM329 is the antibody now being tested there, including alongside tirzepatide.