Yes — and I think your risk–reward framing is exactly the interesting part here.
The article is about rentosertib, an experimental drug developed for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), not an established anti-aging treatment. In a very small phase 2a trial, just 42 people, researchers measured about 2,800 blood proteins at several points over 12 weeks. Six different “proteomic clocks” independently indicated that the treated patients' biological age was moving downward relative to placebo.
That's intriguing, but there's an enormous distinction between:
“The drug changes proteins that are associated with aging”
and
“The drug makes an 83-year-old healthier or live longer.”
We don't yet know the latter.
But your point about age is important
At 83, I wouldn't dismiss something like this merely because you're 83. I'd ask a much more pragmatic question:
What is the downside of taking it, and what is the plausible upside during the years I have left?
That's a very different calculation from the one made by a 40-year-old contemplating an experimental longevity drug.
For someone young, you might reasonably demand fairly strong evidence of long-term safety before deliberately altering a fundamental biological pathway. At 83, if a treatment had:
-
a plausible chance of reducing a major age-related disease,
-
a reasonably well-understood mechanism,
-
demonstrated short-term safety,
-
and relatively modest treatment burden,
then the value of even a modest extension of healthy life could be substantial, while the opportunity cost of waiting for 20-year safety data is essentially 20 years you don't have.
That's not recklessness. It's ordinary expected-value reasoning.
The catch with this particular study
The anti-aging evidence is biomarker evidence, not longevity evidence.
The investigators found that 326 proteins changed in directions associated with reduced cellular aging, tissue scarring, metabolism and cellular stress. The effect appeared to be partly independent of improvement in lung function.
But the trial was only 12 weeks and tiny. And a “younger” proteomic clock doesn't necessarily mean that someone has actually become physiologically younger in any clinically meaningful sense. These clocks are proxies.
The more encouraging part is that rentosertib isn't merely a speculative longevity molecule. It is being developed against a genuinely serious disease, and the biological target, TNIK, has a plausible connection both to fibrosis and aging biology. That's considerably more interesting than someone finding that a supplement makes an aging clock move two points.
There is also a broader trend here: researchers are beginning to incorporate biological-aging measurements into ordinary drug trials rather than treating “aging” as something completely separate from disease. That's potentially a big deal.
And I think there's a particularly interesting philosophical consequence:
If aging is partly a collection of treatable biological processes, chronological age becomes a progressively worse proxy for medical decision-making.
An 83-year-old with good cardiovascular numbers, decent kidney function, no smoking history, controlled diabetes, and generally good function isn't biologically equivalent to every other 83-year-old. The question becomes increasingly, “What is this person's remaining physiological reserve, and what interventions have favorable expected value?”
So no, I wouldn't say “too late.” I'd say “too early to know whether this particular thing is worth taking.”
And there's a delicious irony in the study: the researchers weren't initially trying to prove that an anti-aging drug works. They found evidence of an aging effect while studying a lung-fibrosis drug. That's exactly the sort of accidental discovery from which genuinely useful longevity medicine may emerge.
Right — and I think that makes your point more interesting than simply “I wish there were an anti-aging pill.”
You're already doing something rather more sophisticated: taking drugs whose primary indication is something else, but whose possible effects might have favorable consequences beyond the original reason for prescribing them.
-
Alendronate: primarily protects against fractures by slowing bone resorption. At 83, preventing a hip fracture has an enormous expected-value payoff.
-
Metformin: prescribed for glucose control, but there has long been interest in whether its effects on insulin signaling, inflammation, cellular metabolism, etc. might translate into broader healthspan benefits. The longevity evidence remains unsettled.
-
Empagliflozin (assuming that's the “enoligliphosin” you mean): this is particularly interesting because its benefits aren't simply about lowering glucose. SGLT2 inhibitors have demonstrated cardiovascular and kidney benefits in people with several different conditions, including some people who don't have diabetes.
So I wouldn't characterize what you're doing as taking anti-aging drugs. I'd call it choosing conventional treatments where the conventional benefit is worthwhile and any plausible longevity benefit is a bonus.
That's a very different risk calculation from taking an experimental drug solely because a biological-age clock moved in the favorable direction.
And there's an important distinction with the rentosertib story: your three drugs already have decades of clinical experience behind them; rentosertib doesn't. That's a huge advantage when you're 83. You don't need to gamble on speculative biology when several boring old drugs already have outcomes that matter.
The really exciting future would be drugs for which the calculation becomes:
“It reduces a serious disease and appears to slow several independent manifestations of aging.”
That's much more compelling to me than trying to make an 83-year-old's laboratory “biological age” say 73. A younger number on a clock isn't the objective. More good years is.
No comments:
Post a Comment