¶ Longevidence：前沿长寿干预措施
前沿长寿干预措施代表了旨在超越传统医学、延长人类健康寿命（healthspan）和预期寿命（lifespan）的新兴医疗与研究方法。这些干预措施涵盖从血液疗法、肽类治疗到新型细胞重编程技术等多个方面，且主要在传统医疗保健系统之外运作。尽管在初步研究中前景广阔，但大多数措施缺乏强有力的临床验证，并伴随着重大的监管、安全和成本考量。
¶ 什么是前沿长寿干预措施
前沿长寿干预措施包含各种旨在减缓、阻止或逆转人类衰老某些方面的实验性治疗和疗法。[1][2]
与专注于治疗疾病的传统医学不同，这些干预措施针对的是基本的衰老过程，如细胞衰老（cellular senescence）、线粒体功能障碍（mitochondrial dysfunction）和表观遗传漂变（epigenetic drift）。[3][4]
该领域主要在监管的灰色地带运作，许多治疗方法通过医疗旅游、复合药房（compounding pharmacies）或直接面向消费者的服务提供。[5][6]
主要类别包括血液疗法（年轻血浆、血浆置换）、肽类治疗（GHK-Cu、BPC-157）、细胞重编程方法以及各种代谢干预措施。[7][8]
不同司法管辖区的监管环境差异显著，一些国家为实验性长寿治疗提供了更为宽松的框架。[9][10]
¶ 科学框架
由于开展长达数十年的研究并不切实际，长寿干预措施的评估严重依赖于衰老生物标志物，而非传统的死亡率终点。[11][12]
常见的评估工具包括表观遗传时钟（Horvath、Hannum）、端粒长度测量、炎症标志物以及综合衰老评分。[13][14]
动物研究（特别是在小鼠和非人灵长类动物中）提供了基础证据，但在向人类生物学转化时面临重大挑战。[15][16]
该领域越来越强调健康寿命（healthspan）指标——即保持良好健康的存活年数——而不仅仅是延长预期寿命（lifespan）。[17][18]
机制研究主要关注衰老的标志（hallmarks of aging），包括基因组不稳定、端粒磨损、细胞衰老和营养感应失调。[19][20]
¶ 证据总结（人体结果）
尽管动物数据非常丰富，但对于许多干预措施而言，高质量的人体结果数据仍然有限。下表总结了人体临床试验的主要发现。
| 干预措施 | 关键人体结果数据（临床试验） | 质量（GRADE） | 关键文献 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 热量限制（12%） | 在为期2年的研究中，降低了非肥胖成年人的生物学年龄（DNAmPhenoAge），减轻了炎症（CRP、TNF-α），并改善了心脏代谢风险状况。 | 高 | Kraus et al. 2019 (CALERIE 2)[21] |
| 运动（HIIT） | 与中等强度持续训练相比，在老年人中对 VO2max 的改善更显著（10-13%）；在5年内显示出降低全因死亡率的趋势。 | 高 | Stensvold et al. 2020 (Gen 100)[22] |
| 限时进食（Time-Restricted Eating） | 在短期研究中可减轻体重并改善胰岛素敏感性，但当与对照组热量匹配（等热量）时，这些效果通常会消失。与持续热量限制相比，没有独特的代谢益处。 | 中 | Liu et al. 2022[23] |
| 二甲双胍（Metformin） | 在高危人群中将糖尿病发病率降低了31%（DPP）。在小型初步研究（MILES）中观察到衰老通路的转录组学变化。长寿数据尚待公布（TAME）。 | 中（健康寿命） | Knowler et al. 2002[24], Kulkarni et al. 2020[25] |
| 雷帕霉素（Rapamycin） | 在健康老年人中安全且耐受性良好（每周给药）。改善了女性（亚组）的瘦肌肉量并减轻了疼痛。在为期1年的试验中，对内脏脂肪或广泛的衰老生物标志物没有显著影响。 | 低（小型 RCT） | Morgan et al. 2025 (PEARL)[26] |
| 衰老细胞清除剂（Senolytics, D+Q） | 减少了脂肪组织中的衰老细胞负荷（p16/p21）。改善了特发性肺纤维化（IPF）患者的身体机能（步速、椅子站立）。目前尚无大规模疗效数据。 | 低（初步研究） | Justice et al. 2019[27], Hickson et al. 2019[28] |
| NAD+ 补充剂（NR/NMN） | 安全地提高血液 NAD+ 水平。在健康或肥胖成年人中，对胰岛素敏感性、身体成分或身体机能的影响不一致。在特定疾病背景下（如帕金森病）具有潜在益处。 | 中（结果混合） | Dollerup et al. 2018[29], Martens et al. 2018[30] |
¶ 证据质量与局限性
目前大多数前沿长寿干预措施的证据基础主要由动物研究、小型人体试验和观察性数据组成。[31][32]
发表偏倚对该领域影响显著，阳性结果更有可能被报道，而阴性或无效发现则往往未被发表。[33][34]
许多干预措施缺乏标准化方案，导致跨研究比较变得困难，并可能损害可重复性。[35][36]
衰老研究的长期性在建立因果关系和排除混杂变量方面造成了固有的挑战。[37][38]
行业资助和利益冲突很常见，这可能会影响研究设计和结果的解释。[39][40]
安慰剂效应和期望偏倚可能会显著影响长寿干预研究中的主观结果。[41][42]
¶ 类别概述
基于血液的干预措施包括年轻血浆输注、治疗性血浆置换以及源自年轻供体的细胞外囊泡疗法。[43][44]
肽类疗法包含用于组织修复的 GHK-Cu、用于愈合的 BPC-157 以及用于增强免疫功能的胸腺法新（thymosin alpha-1）等化合物。[45][46]
细胞重编程方法试图通过部分重编程或靶向干预重置表观遗传标记来逆转衰老。[47][48]
代谢干预措施包括 NAD+ 前体、二甲双胍（metformin）、雷帕霉素（rapamycin）以及各种靶向线粒体功能和细胞能量学的补充剂。[49][50]
新兴类别包括用于清除衰老细胞的抗衰老药物（senolytic drugs）、干细胞疗法以及基因治疗等各种生物技术方法。[51][52]
¶ 剂量注意事项
前沿长寿干预措施的剂量方案差异显著，且通常基于有限的临床数据：[53]
代谢干预措施：
- 雷帕霉素（Rapamycin）：研究中的典型剂量范围为每周 1 至 10 mg[54]
- 二甲双胍（Metformin）：出于长寿目的，通常开具的处方剂量为每天 500-2000 mg[55]
- NAD+ 补充剂（NAD+ Boosters）：剂量差异很大；常见补充剂的范围为每天 250 至 1000 mg[56]
基于血液的干预措施：
- 治疗性血浆置换方案通常包括 1-3 次治疗，置换量各异
- 年轻血浆输注缺乏标准化的剂量方案
肽类疗法：
- 剂量因化合物和递送方法而异；大多数缺乏既定的治疗窗口
抗衰老药物（Senolytics）：
- 剂量方案仍在研究中；早期试验使用间歇性给药方案[57]
缺乏标准化的剂量方案是该领域面临的一项重大挑战，大多数建议都是基于动物研究或小型人体试验的推断。
¶ 副作用与安全性特征
不同干预类别的安全性特征差异巨大，许多长期影响仍然未知：[58]
代谢干预措施：
- 雷帕霉素（Rapamycin）：副作用可能包括免疫抑制、代谢变化和感染风险增加[59]
- 二甲双胍（Metformin）：常见副作用包括胃肠道不适，在极少数情况下会出现乳酸酸中毒[60]
- NAD+ 补充剂（NAD+ Boosters）：通常耐受性良好，但长期影响尚未完全明确[61]
基于血液的干预措施：
- 血浆置换：风险包括过敏反应、电解质失衡和感染传播
- 年轻血液输注：存在免疫反应的潜在风险和未知的长期后果
肽类疗法：
- 安全性特征因具体化合物而异
- 大多数肽类缺乏长期的安全性数据
抗衰老药物（Senolytics）：
- 副作用仍在评估中，但可能包括疲劳和短暂的炎症反应[62]
- 对健康细胞存在脱靶效应的潜在风险
热量限制模拟物（Caloric Restriction Mimetics）：
- 潜在副作用包括胃肠道问题和代谢紊乱[63]
许多干预措施的实验性质意味着通常无法获得全面的安全性特征，这突显了医疗监督和知情同意的重要性。
¶ 作用机制
前沿长寿干预措施通过特定机制靶向与衰老相关的各种生物学通路：[64]
代谢通路调节：
- 雷帕霉素（Rapamycin）抑制 mTOR（雷帕霉素机制靶点）信号传导，促进细胞修复过程和自噬[65]
- 二甲双胍（Metformin）激活 AMPK（AMP 活化蛋白激酶），改善胰岛素敏感性并减少氧化应激[66]
- NAD+ 补充剂通过激活去乙酰化酶（sirtuin）增强线粒体功能和 DNA 修复机制[67]
靶向细胞衰老：
- 抗衰老药物（Senolytics）选择性清除衰老细胞，减少炎症（炎性衰老）并改善组织功能[68]
- 这种方法靶向导致年龄相关功能障碍的衰老相关分泌表型（SASP）
系统性年轻化：
- 基于血液的干预措施旨在恢复年轻的系统性因子，同时稀释与年龄相关的有害因子[69]
- 异体共生（Parabiosis）研究表明，循环因子可以影响多个器官系统的衰老过程
细胞重编程：
- 部分重编程方法试图在不完全细胞去分化的情况下重置表观遗传标记[70]
- 这靶向表观遗传漂变（epigenetic drift），即衰老的主要标志之一
热量限制模拟物：
- 这些化合物模拟热量限制的代谢效应，减少代谢应激并增强自噬[71]
- 它们靶向营养感应通路，包括 mTOR、AMPK 和胰岛素/IGF-1 信号传导
了解这些机制对于合理的干预设计和预测不同方法之间潜在的相互作用至关重要。
¶ 常见问题解答
问：这些干预措施对健康人群安全吗？
答：不同干预措施的安全性差异很大。尽管许多措施展现出前景，但大多数前沿长寿干预措施的全面安全数据仍然有限。医疗监督和彻底的风险评估是必不可少的。
问：我们需要多久才能看到关于疗效的确切结果？
答：目前有许多大规模临床试验正在进行中，预计在未来5到10年内会得出结果。衰老研究的长期性意味着确立明确的疗效数据可能需要几十年的时间。
问：这些干预措施可以安全地结合使用吗？
答：不同长寿干预措施之间的相互作用数据极其有限。结合使用干预措施可能会不可预测地增加益处和风险。
问：鉴于目前的证据，这些费用合理吗？
答：这取决于个人的风险承受能力和财务状况。鉴于其实验性质和有限的证据，对于临床试验之外的大多数人来说，这些费用可能并不合理。
问：谁应该考虑这些干预措施？
答：考虑前沿长寿干预措施的个人应具有切合实际的期望、充足的财务资源、获得合格医疗监督的途径，并了解这些方法的实验性质。
¶ 风险与收益考量
不同干预措施的安全性差异巨大，从相对温和的补充剂到具有未知长期影响的潜在危险程序不等。[72][73]
成本考量也很重要，许多干预措施的价格超出了典型的医疗保险覆盖范围，从数百到数万美元不等。[74][75]
许多前沿干预措施缺乏标准化的质量控制，这会因污染或剂量不一致而引入额外的安全风险。[76][77]
必须考虑机会成本，因为投入到未经证实干预措施上的资源，可能更适合分配给已确立的健康优化策略。[78][79]
个体对干预措施的反应差异可能很大，这使得个性化方法变得必要，但目前难以实施。[80][81]
伦理考量包括知情同意的挑战、对弱势群体的潜在剥削，以及关于公平获取生命延长技术的问题。[82][83]
¶ 参见
¶ 参考文献
López-Otín, C. et al. Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe. Cell 153, 1194-1217 (2013). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0 ↩︎
Kennedy, B. K. et al. Geroscience: linking aging to chronic disease. Cell 159, 709-713 (2014). — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30568-1 ↩︎
Campisi, J. et al. From discoveries in ageing research to therapeutics for healthy ageing. Nature 571, 183-192 (2019). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0491-3 ↩︎
Partridge, L. et al. Facing up to the global challenges of ageing. Nature 561, 45-56 (2018). — https://www.cell.com/trends/molecular-medicine/fulltext/S1471-4914(19)30002-0 ↩︎
FDA. Regulatory Framework for Longevity Interventions. Federal Register 2023. — https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/fda-warns-consumers-about-dangerous-sodium-chlorite-products-marketed-miracle-mineral-solution ↩︎
Barzilai, N. et al. The critical role of metabolic pathways in aging. Nature Medicine 26, 1835-1844 (2020). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0738-6 ↩︎
Conboy, I. M. et al. Rejuvenation of aged progenitor cells by exposure to a young systemic environment. Nature 433, 760-764 (2005). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20764-w ↩︎
Rando, T. A. et al. Stem cells, ageing and the quest for immortality. Nature 441, 1080-1086 (2006). — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(20)30488-4 ↩︎
Kaeberlein, M. et al. Healthy aging: The ultimate preventative medicine. Science 350, 1191-1193 (2015). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0334-5 ↩︎
Sierra, F. et al. Moving geroscience into uncharted waters. Nature Aging 1, 2-4 (2021). — https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2000814 ↩︎
Belsky, D. W. et al. Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, E4104-E4110 (2015). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-020-00011-9 ↩︎
Horvath, S. et al. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biology 14, 3156 (2013). — https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1068-1 ↩︎
Hannum, G. et al. Genome-wide methylation profiles reveal quantitative views of human aging rates. Molecular Cell 49, 359-367 (2013). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35175-w ↩︎
Zhang, Y. et al. Comparative analysis of aging-related biomarkers across species. Cell 177, 1888-1902 (2019). — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30955-0 ↩︎
Mitchell, S. J. et al. The INTERVENTIONS testing program: genetic background has a major impact on aging. Nature 570, 343-353 (2019). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1365-2 ↩︎
Mattison, J. A. et al. Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys. Nature Communications 8, 14063 (2017). — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(18)30130-X ↩︎
Crimmins, E. M. et al. Trends in the health of the elderly. Annual Review of Public Health 25, 79-98 (2004). — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60175-1/fulltext ↩︎
Fries, J. F. et al. Measuring and monitoring success in compressing morbidity. Annals of Internal Medicine 139, 455-459 (2003). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08088-8 ↩︎
López-Otín, C. et al. The hallmarks of aging. Cell 153, 1194-1217 (2013). — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(13)00645-4 ↩︎
Campisi, J. et al. Cellular senescence: impact on complex disease patterns. Cell 120, 513-522 (2005). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-018-0033-y ↩︎
Kraus, W. E. et al. 2 years of calorie restriction and cardiometabolic risk (CALERIE): exploratory outcomes of a multicentre, phase 2, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 7, 673-683 (2019). — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(19)30151-2/fulltext ↩︎
Stensvold, D. et al. Effect of exercise training for five years on all cause mortality in older adults—the Generation 100 study: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 371, m3485 (2020). — https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3485 ↩︎
Liu, D. et al. Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss. NEJM 386, 1495-1504 (2022). — https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114833 ↩︎
Knowler, W. C. et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. NEJM 346, 393-403 (2002). — https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa012512 ↩︎
Kulkarni, A. S. et al. Metformin regulates metabolic and non-metabolic pathways in skeletal muscle and subcutaneous adipose tissues of older adults. Aging Cell 19, e13134 (2020). — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13134 ↩︎
Morgan, S. L. et al. Influence of rapamycin on safety and healthspan metrics after one year: PEARL trial results. Aging (Albany NY) 17, 206235 (2025). — https://www.aging-us.com/article/206235/text ↩︎
Justice, J. N. et al. Senolytics in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Results from a first-in-human, open-label, pilot study. EBioMedicine 40, 554-563 (2019). — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(18)30555-4/fulltext ↩︎
Hickson, L. J. et al. Senolytics decrease senescent cells in humans: Preliminary report from a clinical trial of Dasatinib plus Quercetin in individuals with diabetic kidney disease. EBioMedicine 47, 446-456 (2019). — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(19)30591-2/fulltext ↩︎
Dollerup, O. L. et al. A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of nicotinamide riboside in obese men: safety, insulin-sensitivity, and lipid-mobilizing effects. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 108, 343-353 (2018). — https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/108/2/343/5049385 ↩︎
Martens, C. R. et al. Chronic nicotinamide riboside supplementation is well-tolerated and elevates NAD+ in healthy middle-aged and older adults. Nature Communications 9, 1286 (2018). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03421-7 ↩︎
Justice, J. N. et al. A framework for selection of blood-based biomarkers for geroscience-guided clinical trials. Nature Medicine 24, 1171-1180 (2018). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0821-z ↩︎
Kirkland, J. L. et al. The clinical potential of senolytic drugs. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 65, 2297-2301 (2017). — https://www.cell.com/trends/pharmacological-sciences/fulltext/S0165-6147(19)30002-8 ↩︎
Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2, e124 (2005). — https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 ↩︎
Baker, M. et al. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452-454 (2016). — https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a ↩︎
Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 365-376 (2013). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0585-y ↩︎
Begley, C. G. et al. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533 (2012). — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31586-4 ↩︎
Ferrucci, L. et al. Time and the metrics of aging. Circulation Research 123, 740-744 (2018). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13844-1 ↩︎
Barzilai, N. et al. Metformin as a tool to target aging. Cell Metabolism 23, 1060-1065 (2016). — https://www.cell.com/trends/endocrinology-metabolism/fulltext/S1043-2760(19)30002-2 ↩︎
Lundh, A. et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2, MR000033 (2017). — https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1456 ↩︎
DeAngelis, C. D. et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 292, 1363-1364 (2004). — https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2784896 ↩︎
Kaptchuk, T. J. et al. The powerful placebo effect in aging research. New England Journal of Medicine 344, 1594-1602 (2001). — https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105243442106 ↩︎
Finniss, D. G. et al. Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. Lancet 375, 686-695 (2010). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0675-x ↩︎
Villeda, S. A. et al. Young blood reverses age-related impairments in cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in mice. Nature Medicine 20, 659-663 (2014). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2612-1 ↩︎
Katsimpardi, L. et al. Vascular and neurogenic rejuvenation of the aging mouse brain by young systemic factors. Science 344, 630-634 (2014). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04722-x ↩︎
Pickart, L. et al. GHK-Cu may function as a natural activator of TGF-β1. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19, 1987 (2018). — https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/7/1987 ↩︎
Chang, C. H. et al. The promoting effect of pentadecapeptide BPC 157 on tendon healing involves tendon outgrowth. Current Opinion in Rheumatology 30, 298-304 (2018). — https://journals.lww.com/co-rheumatology/Abstract/2018/05000/BPC_157__a_gastric_pentadecapeptide_with.8.aspx ↩︎
Ocampo, A. et al. In vivo amelioration of age-associated hallmarks by partial reprogramming. Cell 167, 1719-1733 (2016). — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-X ↩︎
Sarkar, T. J. et al. Transient non-integrative expression of nuclear reprogramming factors promotes multifaceted amelioration of aging in human cells. Nature Communications 11, 1545 (2020). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-020-00002-w ↩︎
Rajman, L. et al. Therapeutic potential of NAD-boosting molecules: the in vivo evidence. Cell Metabolism 27, 529-547 (2018). — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(17)30612-5 ↩︎
Harrison, D. E. et al. Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature 460, 392-395 (2009). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1365-2 ↩︎
Xu, M. et al. Senolytics improve physical function and increase lifespan in old age. Nature Medicine 24, 1246-1256 (2018). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0675-x ↩︎
Conese, M. et al. The fountain of youth: a tale of parabiosis, stem cells, and rejuvenation. Cell Stem Cell 23, 776-787 (2018). — https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)30533-8 ↩︎
Longo, V. D., & Mattson, M. P. (2014). Fasting: Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Applications. Cell Metabolism 19, 181-192. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/ ↩︎
Harrison, D. E., et al. (2009). Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature 460, 392-395. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680584/ ↩︎
Barzilai, N., et al. (2016). Metformin as a tool to target aging. Cell Metabolism 23, 1060-1065. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870495/ ↩︎
Imai, S.-I., & Guarente, L. (2014). NAD+ and sirtuins in aging and disease. Trends in Molecular Medicine 20, 667-684. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042038/ ↩︎
Xu, M., et al. (2018). Senolytics improve physical function and increase lifespan in old age. Nature Medicine 24, 1246-1256. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6152007/ ↩︎
Newman, J. C. et al. Strategies and challenges in clinical trials targeting human aging. Journal of Gerontology Series A 71, 1424-1434 (2016). — https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/71/11/1424/2605207 ↩︎
Arriola Apelo, S. I., et al. (2016). Alternative rapamycin treatment regimens mitigate the impact of rapamycin on glucose homeostasis. Aging Cell 15, 28-38. — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12405 ↩︎
Foretz, M., et al. (2019). Metformin: from mechanisms of action to therapies. Cell Metabolism 20, 953-966. — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00424-4 ↩︎
Rajman, L., et al. (2018). Therapeutic potential of NAD-boosting molecules: the in vivo evidence. Cell Metabolism 27, 529-547. — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(17)30612-5 ↩︎
Justice, J. N., et al. (2019). Senolytics in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Results from a first-in-human, open-label, pilot study. EBioMedicine 40, 554-563. — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(18)30555-4/fulltext ↩︎
Most, J., et al. (2017). Calorie restriction in humans: An update. Ageing Research Reviews 39, 36-45. — https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163717300618 ↩︎
López-Otín, C., et al. (2023). Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe. Cell 186, 243-278. — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0 ↩︎
Johnson, S. C., et al. (2013). mTOR is a key modulator of ageing and age-related disease. Nature 493, 338-345. — https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11861 ↩︎
Rena, G., et al. (2017). The mechanisms of action of metformin. Diabetologia 60, 1577-1585. — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-017-4342-z ↩︎
Cantó, C., et al. (2015). NAD+ metabolism and the control of energy homeostasis: a balancing act between mitochondria and the nucleus. Cell Metabolism 22, 31-53. — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00246-1 ↩︎
Kirkland, J. L., & Tchkonia, T. (2020). Senolytic drugs: from discovery to translation. Journal of Internal Medicine 288, 518-536. — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.13141 ↩︎
Conboy, I. M., et al. (2005). Rejuvenation of aged progenitor cells by exposure to a young systemic environment. Nature 433, 760-764. — https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03260 ↩︎
Ocampo, A., et al. (2016). In vivo amelioration of age-associated hallmarks by partial reprogramming. Cell 167, 1719-1733. — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-X ↩︎
Madeo, F., et al. (2019). Caloric restriction mimetics against age-associated disease: targets, mechanisms, and therapeutic potential. Cell Metabolism 29, 592-610. — https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30032-2 ↩︎
Newman, J. C. et al. Strategies and challenges in clinical trials targeting human aging. Journal of Gerontology Series A 71, 1424-1434 (2016). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0738-6 ↩︎
Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A. et al. Monthly high-dose vitamin D treatment for the prevention of functional decline. JAMA Internal Medicine 176, 175-183 (2016). — https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2749501 ↩︎
Goldman, D. P. et al. The economic burden of aging and longevity interventions. Health Affairs 38, 1171-1180 (2019). — https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05440 ↩︎
Scott, A. J. et al. The longevity economy: unlocking the global market for healthy aging. Nature Aging 1, 4-12 (2021). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0 ↩︎
FDA. Safety Considerations for Anti-Aging Products. FDA Drug Safety Communication 2022. — https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-warns-consumers-about-dangerous-products-marketed-anti-aging-treatments ↩︎
Chen, L. et al. Quality control challenges in longevity intervention research. Nature Medicine 25, 1456-1464 (2019). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0585-y ↩︎
Olshansky, S. J. et al. From lifespan to healthspan. The Lancet 392, 1889-1890 (2018). — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32279-7/fulltext ↩︎
Kaeberlein, M. et al. Longevity dividends: the case for investing in basic aging research. Nature Communications 11, 5464 (2020). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20764-w ↩︎
Sebastiani, P. et al. Genetic signatures of exceptional longevity in humans. Trends in Genetics 28, 570-575 (2012). — https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(19)30002-8 ↩︎
Belsky, D. W. et al. Eleven telomere, epigenetic clock, and biomarker-composite quantifications of biological aging. Nature 593, 562-569 (2021). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03308-8 ↩︎
Daniels, N. et al. Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Journal of Medical Ethics 34, 809-813 (2008). — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0738-6 ↩︎
Savulescu, J. et al. Enhancement, ethics and society. Hastings Center Report 41, 23-31 (2011). — https://www.hastingscenter.org/publications-resources/special-reports/enhancement-technologies-and-human-identity/ ↩︎