The aging field needs to develop reliable biomarkers of aging and a solid evidence base for the safety and efficacy of anti-aging treatments.
A central tenet of aging research is that common mechanisms contribute to pathology across many different types of age-related diseases and conditions — the so-called hallmarks of aging. Accordingly, anti-aging treatments should target these overarching drivers of aging, such as inflammation, cell senescence, epigenetic drift, inadequate autophagy and somatic mutation. Although there has been no shortage of potential targets for intervening in these varied processes, data supporting the clinical benefits of anti-aging treatments in humans remain sparse.
For example, although nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) has been shown in preclinical models to improve health span and is extensively promoted as a supplement and injectable treatment, clinical trials testing the effects of NAD+ supplementation in humans have not yet demonstrated strong disease-modifying effects. NAD+ supplementation has been proposed to counter the age-related decline in NAD+ levels, but a recent study found that blood NAD+ levels remain stable and do not decrease with aging1, casting some doubt on the wisdom of NAD+ supplementation.
Currently, the risks and benefits of injectable peptides, intended to boost wellness and longevity and promoted by influencers on social media2, are a topic of hot debate. For example, the peptide TB-500 is related to the naturally occurring peptide thymosin β4, which is thought to have anti-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic properties. These peptides are not approved in the USA by the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) but are sold in a gray market — they are labeled as being intended for research use, with unclear sources and quality control.
Read the full story: Anti-aging interventions need less hype and more clinical evidence (nature)
