This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Oxandrolone does in the body
Oxandrolone is testosterone rebuilt so that a ring oxygen replaces one carbon and a methyl group blocks the position the liver normally attacks.
Those two changes mean it survives being swallowed, and that it is a weak androgen relative to how strongly it builds muscle. In a burn patient, whose body is dismantling its own muscle to fuel the healing, that shifts the protein balance back. The same methyl group that makes it work as a tablet is what makes it stress the liver, and the label carries a boxed warning about blood-filled cysts in the liver and about liver tumours.
Why people take it. Weight gain after severe illness, injury or burns — approved, and no longer marketed in the United States
What happened in people
Across 14 randomised trials and 2,822 burn patients: fewer surgical procedures, shorter stay normalised to burn surface area, and greater weight and lean mass gain
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
That oxandrolone is a "mild" steroid in the sense that matters — the mildness is androgenic, and the liver risk comes from 17alpha-alkylation, which it has
Where it acts
Androgen receptor in skeletal muscle myonuclei; hepatic first-pass metabolism minimal
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · 7H6TM3CT4L · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C19H30O3, weighing 306.4.
PubChem record · 5878 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
The recorded use, written for a reader without medical training. Not signed off.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 144 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Receptor
A receptor is a part of a cell that a signal fits into.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A receptor is like a lock waiting for one key.
Where that stops being true. A lock either opens or does not. A receptor can be half-triggered, or worn out.
What people get wrong. Fitting a receptor is read as causing a benefit. It causes a step, and nothing more.
A protein that binds a specific ligand and converts that binding into a cellular response.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 4 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Muscle
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
△Only a number moved1 registered test measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Body weight
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
△Only a number moved1 registered test measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Muscle
lean body mass
Body weight
body fat percentage
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
△ Only a number moved
1 registered test measure.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
Who was studied is listed further down the page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Lean body mass in the recovery phase, hepatic dysfunction or oedema, infections, mortality, surgical procedures and length of stay normalised to burn surface area
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Lou 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomised trials
How many people
2822
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, 2005 to 2025
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Surgical procedures SMD -1.25 (P = 0.04); LOS/TBSA SMD -1.07 (P = 0.007); lean mass SMD 1.30 and weight gain SMD 0.58 (both P < 0.001); mortality RR 1.04 (P = 0.913); infections RR 0.83 (P = 0.639)
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Heterogeneity was extreme across outcomes, I-squared at or above 95%. Adult transaminase elevation 19% versus 5% on placebo (P = 0.002). Two efficacy confidence intervals reported in the abstract cross zero while their P-values do not.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 2.5 mg and 10 mg strengths in the approved product
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 2 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.3 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Rat. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
■Cells in a dishEvidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Oxandrolone
What a person takes: Oral tablet, 2.5 mg and 10 mg strengths in the approved product.
The measurement behind this step
Oxandrin was supplied as 2.5 mg and 10 mg oral tablets. Five generic ANDAs were approved between December 2006 and July 2007 and all are now discontinued, as is the brand. What circulates outside the supply chain is a tablet or capsule with no content uniformity testing behind it.
Getting in
Survives the first pass because of a methyl group
A methyl group at one position blocks the enzyme the liver would use to destroy it, so it works as a tablet rather than an injection.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
17alpha-methylation blocks hepatic 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase oxidation, which is what confers oral bioavailability on this whole family of steroids. The 2-oxa substitution in the A-ring further reduces androgenicity relative to the anabolic effect.
Binds the androgen receptor weakly but effectively
It attaches to the same receptor as testosterone with less masculinising force, but enough to switch on the muscle programme.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Androgen receptor agonism with a high anabolic-to-androgenic ratio in the classical levator ani assay. That ratio is the reason it was the steroid of choice in paediatric indications where virilisation was the limiting concern.
In a burn patient whose body is consuming its own muscle for fuel, it pushes the balance back towards building.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Androgen response element transactivation raises muscle protein synthesis and reduces net proteolysis during the burn hypermetabolic response. The same 17alpha-methyl group that permits oral dosing impairs canalicular bile transport in hepatocytes, which is the mechanistic route to the cholestatic injury and the peliosis in the boxed warning.
Lean mass, fewer operations, shorter stay; deaths and infections unchanged
Across fourteen trials the measurable gains were body composition, operations and length of stay. Death rate and infection rate did not change.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Pooled SMD 1.30 for lean mass and 0.58 for weight gain, both P < 0.001; surgical procedures SMD -1.25, P = 0.04; length of stay per unit burn surface area SMD -1.07, P = 0.007. Mortality RR 1.04, P = 0.913; infection RR 0.83, P = 0.639. Adult transaminase elevation 19% against 5%, P = 0.002.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
area under the plasma concentration versus time curve
lean body mass
body fat percentage
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (1)
rate and extend of absorption
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Patients with major burns, in the countries where it remains available, and historically patients with AIDS wasting, Turner syndrome and constitutional growth delay. Outside medicine, bodybuilders using it as a "mild" oral steroid.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
Mortality, infection rate and donor-site healing all failed to separate from control in the pooled analysis
Heterogeneity across the pooled trials was extreme, I-squared at or above 95% for most outcomes, which the authors flag as a reason for cautious interpretation
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Withdrawn
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet, 2.5 mg and 10 mg strengths in the approved product
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
A register records the withdrawal of an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
5 mg and 10 mg oral tablets. Five generic ANDAs were approved between December 2006 and July 2007 and all are now discontinued, as is the brand. What circulates outside the supply chain is a tablet or capsule with no content uniformity testing behind it.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
The approved label carries a boxed warning covering peliosis hepatis, hepatic tumours that may be silent until intra-abdominal haemorrhage, and blood lipid changes associated with increased atherosclerotic risk. In the pooled burn trials, transaminase elevation to at least twice the upper limit of normal occurred in 19% of adults against 5% on placebo. Contraindications on the label include known or suspected prostate or male breast carcinoma, breast carcinoma in women with hypercalcaemia, and pregnancy. Suppression of endogenous testosterone and gonadotropins follows by mechanism, as with every androgen.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Oxandrolone appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 9 most-reported reaction terms, 33 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
The recorded terms (9)
dehydration — 13 reaction mentions
drug-induced liver injury — 6 reaction mentions
anorexia — 3 reaction mentions
drug toxicity — 3 reaction mentions
biliary dilatation — 2 reaction mentions
mood disorder due to a general medical condition — 2 reaction mentions
refusal of treatment by relative — 2 reaction mentions
gerstmann's syndrome — 1 reaction mentions
human bite — 1 reaction mentions
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet, 2.5 mg and 10 mg strengths in the approved product
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
mg and 10 mg oral tablets. Five generic ANDAs were approved between December 2006 and July 2007 and all are now discontinued, as is the brand. What circulates outside the supply chain is a tablet or capsule with no content uniformity testing behind it.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
9 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 9 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 64181-0003 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as powder.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 64181-0003 · read 2026-08-29
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine, withdrawn medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Oxandrolone studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That oxandrolone is a "mild" steroid in the sense that matters — the mildness is androgenic, and the liver risk comes from 17alpha-alkylation, which it has
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That improvements in lean mass and length of stay imply a survival benefit, which the pooled mortality estimate specifically excludes
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the burn-care evidence supports use in healthy people for body composition, a population no trial has included
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Oxandrolone are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Pooling every randomised trial of oxandrolone in burn patients from 2005 to 2025 showed fewer surgical procedures, shorter hospital stay for the size of the burn, and more weight and lean mass gained.
What was measured
Surgical procedures, length of stay per unit burn surface area, weight gain and lean mass
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Lou et al. searched nine databases and pooled 14 randomised controlled trials published between 2005 and 2025, totalling 2,822 patients (1,203 intervention, 1,619 control). Random-effects meta-analysis found significant reductions in surgical procedures (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.04, P = 0.04) and in length of stay normalised to total burn surface area (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -2.43 to 0.29, P = 0.007), with increased weight gain (SMD 0.58, P < 0.001) and lean mass (SMD 1.30, P < 0.001). Heterogeneity was extreme throughout, I-squared at or above 95%, and the authors say so directly. Note that two of those confidence intervals cross zero while the reported P-values do not, which is a reporting inconsistency in the source paper that this page reproduces rather than smooths over.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
No mortality benefit, no reduction in infection, no better donor-site healing
In plain words
In the same pooled analysis, oxandrolone did not reduce deaths, did not reduce infections and did not improve healing of the skin-graft donor sites.
What was measured
All-cause mortality, infection rate and donor site healing
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
In the same 14-trial, 2,822-patient meta-analysis: mortality risk ratio 1.04 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.32, P = 0.913); infection risk ratio 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02, P = 0.639); donor site healing SMD -1.48 (95% CI -2.18 to 0.77, P = 0.116). The endpoints that moved are process and body-composition endpoints. The endpoints that did not move are the ones a patient would name first. A drug can genuinely shorten a hospital stay without saving a life, and the honest description of oxandrolone in burn care is exactly that.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Transaminase elevation in 19% of adults against 5% on placebo
In plain words
Nearly one in five adults treated with oxandrolone in the pooled burn trials had liver enzymes rise to at least twice the normal limit, against one in twenty on placebo.
What was measured
Proportion with ALT or AST at or above twice the upper limit of normal
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The same meta-analysis reports a non-significant overall increase in treatment-related side effects defined as hepatic dysfunction (ALT or AST at or above twice the upper limit of normal) or oedema (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.42, P = 0.34), but notably higher transaminase elevations in adults specifically: 19% against 5% on placebo, P = 0.002. A separate single-centre analysis compared transaminitis incidence between oxandrolone and testosterone therapy in major burn injury. The measured liver signal is therefore real, dose-relevant and adult-specific, and it sits alongside the efficacy findings rather than replacing them.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The label carries a boxed warning about peliosis hepatis and liver tumours
In plain words
The approved US label warns in capital letters that this class of drug can cause blood-filled cysts in the liver and liver tumours, sometimes silent until a life-threatening bleed, and that it markedly worsens the blood lipid profile.
What was measured
Boxed warning text on the approved United States label
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The Oxandrin label's boxed warning states that peliosis hepatis, in which liver and sometimes splenic tissue is replaced with blood-filled cysts, has been reported with androgenic anabolic steroid therapy; that these cysts are often unrecognised until life-threatening liver failure or intra-abdominal haemorrhage develops; that liver cell tumours are also reported, most often benign and androgen-dependent but sometimes fatally malignant; and that such tumours are more vascular than other hepatic tumours and may be silent until intra-abdominal haemorrhage develops. It separately warns that blood lipid changes associated with increased atherosclerosis risk — decreased HDL and sometimes increased LDL — occur, may be very marked, and could seriously affect coronary risk. The label also records the drug's Schedule III status under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Approved, generically available, and then withdrawn from the market entirely
In plain words
Oxandrolone had an approved label and five generic versions approved in 2006 and 2007. Every one of them is now listed as discontinued, and no oxandrolone product is marketed in the United States.
What was measured
That a drug being off the market means it was withdrawn for safety — here the approvals stand and only the marketing stopped
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Drugs@FDA lists five oxandrolone ANDAs — Sandoz and Upsher-Smith approved 1 December 2006, Upsher-Smith 22 March 2007, Par 22 June 2007 and Roxane 10 July 2007 — and every one carries the marketing status Discontinued, as does the Oxandrin brand. This is a commercial withdrawal rather than a safety withdrawal: the approval was never rescinded and the label was never pulled for a new finding. The consequence for a reader is nonetheless concrete. A drug with fourteen randomised trials behind it in burn care is unobtainable through the lawful supply chain in the United States, while the same molecule is freely purchasable from grey-market sellers with none of the manufacturing controls the ANDAs required.
Source
openFDA Drugs@FDA: ANDA076761, ANDA076897, ANDA077249, ANDA077827, ANDA078033 and the Oxandrin brand, all marketing status Discontinued
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
"Mild" is a claim about androgenic side effects, not about the liver
In plain words
Oxandrolone is described as the gentlest oral steroid. That reputation comes from its weak masculinising effects, which is a different question from what it does to the liver.
What was measured
That a low androgenic-to-anabolic ratio implies liver safety, when the liver risk comes from the 17alpha-methyl group rather than from androgenicity
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The classical rodent bioassays give oxandrolone a high anabolic-to-androgenic ratio, and it was the steroid chosen for use in children with Turner syndrome and constitutional growth delay for exactly that reason. But it is 17alpha-alkylated, and 17-alkylation is the structural feature that causes the cholestatic and peliotic liver injury the boxed warning describes. Those are two independent properties of the same molecule. The pooled burn data quantify the second: 19% of adults with transaminases at twice the upper limit of normal against 5% on placebo. Describing the drug as mild without that qualifier carries a true statement about virilisation into a false implication about hepatotoxicity.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
4 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
The one anabolic steroid here with 2,822 randomised patients behind it: pooled trials show fewer operations, shorter stay and more lean mass in burn care, no mortality benefit, no reduction in infections, and transaminase elevations in 19% of adults against 5% on placebo.
Recorded evidence blocks (11)
Q1
What did Oxandrolone's largest trial (1126 people) and its longest (16 years) measure?
1126 people in Oxandrolone's largest registered study, 16 years in its longest registered window, measuring Peak Plasma Concentration (Cmax) curve. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
7 phase2, 5 phase1, 5 phase3, 3 na, 2 phase4; NCT00675714; 2019-07-15; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2017, NCT03218631.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Oxandrolone was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase2
7
phase1
5
phase3
5
na
3
phase4
2
Last recorded human testNCT03218631
2017-11-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
From rat to human: where has Oxandrolone shown biomarker?
7 of Oxandrolone's trials stopped: futility/efficacy, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?
futility/efficacy (1), accrual/recruitment (2), funding/business (1) and other (3): Oxandrolone's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
"futility analysis showed low probability of detecting a significant difference"; 7 of 19 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00101361
terminated; "futility analysis showed low probability of detecting a significant difference"
NCT00675714
terminated; "At the request of the study site, this study has been closed and access to study-related data is unavailable. We are unable to submit the results-data."
NCT02047552
withdrawn; "No Participants enrolled"
NCT03091075
terminated; "Recruitment difficulties"
NCT04090697
terminated; "FDA withdrawal of Oxandrin NDA and generic ANDAs"
NCT05516849
withdrawn; "FDA requested manufacturers of Oxandrolone Tablets, to voluntarily remove previously approved drug applications for Oxandrolone from the U.S. market \& the funding decided to prematurely terminate the funding."
1 further recorded trialNCT05893069
suspended; "FDA withdrew approval of the study product"
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
Human studies of Oxandrolone used Oxandrolone 20 mg — over how long?
Could one person measure Oxandrolone's effect on rate and extend of absorption?
Rate and extend of absorption: measured in Oxandrolone's trials.
Interpretation rate and extend of absorption is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
rate and extend of absorption; 2026-09-01
area under the plasma concentration versus time curve; 2026-09-01
lean body mass; 2026-09-01
body fat percentage; 2026-09-01
human trials at or under30
7
Not recorded for this substance
a recorded half-life
smallest human trial
0; NCT02047552; PHASE2; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; WITHDRAWN
Q6
Which of area under the plasma concentration versus time curve, body fat percentage and lean body mass did Oxandrolone's trials measure?
area under the plasma concentration versus time curve, body fat percentage and lean body mass lead 4 outcome terms across Oxandrolone's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
Interpretation body fat percentage follow.
Show the evidence
rate and extend of absorption
1
area under the plasma concentration versus time curve
1
lean body mass
1
body fat percentage
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
What will the one ongoing trial of Oxandrolone report, and when?
Proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (SAE) over 24-week follow-up period
Show the evidence
TrialNCT06974526
"Subdermal Implant-bioabsorbable Oxandrolone Pellet For Rehabilitation Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Surgical Reconstruction"; n 96; "Proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (SAE) over 24-week follow-up period"; 2027-04-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q8
Which 9 trials of Oxandrolone posted no result?
Posted no result
9 of 9 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00006167, NCT00027391, NCT00652886, NCT00223769, NCT00070148 and NCT00001343, and 3 more
Completion dates
oldest 2000-08; newest 2017-11-30
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00006167
2000-08
NCT00027391
2004-08
NCT00652886
2005-06
NCT00223769
2006-05
NCT00070148
2007-08-01
NCT00001343
2007-10-10
3 further recorded trials
NCT00243399
2010-01
NCT01048632
2016-05
NCT03218631
2017-11-30
Q9
At the median, Oxandrolone's trials enrolled 50 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
50
Largest enrolment
1126
Registered trials counted
18
Q10
What do 33 spontaneous reports say about Oxandrolone — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Oxandrolone appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 9 most-reported reaction terms, 33 reaction mentions were counted: dehydration 13; drug-induced liver injury 6; anorexia 3; drug toxicity 3. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1200436 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
dehydration
13
drug-induced liver injury
6
anorexia
3
drug toxicity
3
biliary dilatation
2
mood disorder due to a general medical condition
2
3 more recorded rows
refusal of treatment by relative
2
gerstmann's syndrome
1
human bite
1
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q11
What is recorded about Oxandrolone and IGF-1?
"Possible anti-catabolic agents include testosterone, oxandrolone, IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), bortezomib, and MURF1 (muscle RING-finger protein-1) inhibitors." — where Oxandrolone and IGF-1 appear together. Europe PMC · pathway abstract search · 2024-01-04
IGF-1; PMID 38177003
Show the evidence
IGF-1PMID 38177003
"Possible anti-catabolic agents include testosterone, oxandrolone, IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), bortezomib, and MURF1 (muscle RING-finger protein-1) inhibitors."
recorded 2024-01-04 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 8 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.