Interesting… It’s probably going to happen sooner than later…
2 Likes
I am not myself certain whether this is good or bad, but I don’t in any event live within the FDA’s jurisdiction.
People argue that the FDA brings in too much regulation for interventions to treat “diseases”. Hence if they include “aging” as a disease that regulation will come in for things for which the claim of “anti-aging” is made.
Is this good or bad?
1 Like
Yes - as John has suggested, there is a lot of discussion in the longevity community as to whether this is good or bad, or even if it will make any difference.
Its easier to prove efficacy in a single disease indication than it is to prove a drug treats aging. There are well defined endpoints, and proven markets and channels.
Proving “anti-aging” is more vague, takes longer (at least until good biomarkers are agreed upon and validated) and so could make things more difficult for the startups that typically are working to get to revenue as quickly as possible so they can be cash-flow positive.
We’ll see…
4 Likes
The good news is that a drug that targets aging will be really great at preventing the diseases of aging.
Any drug that legitimately slows or reverses aging would absolutely have stellar results in a trial testing cancer prevention, cvd prevention, alzheimer’s prevention, or any specific disease that dramatically increases in older people.
So even without specific FDA approval for aging, these interventions could be approved and developed perhaps faster using other indications.
2 Likes