Any updates from the people using maraviroc? Benefits, side effects, and dosing you’re using?
1 Like
not much to report other than my grip strength went from 38 to 42. If I don’t take it for couple weeks or so the grip strength seems to taper off and get back to the base line of about 38. No other benefits or side effects. At some point I thought it made me a bit agitated, but I’m not 100% sure of it. Nothing else good or bad. I had bought 3 bottles and intend to finish them and take a break for a while if I feel different and then I’ll make my decision if I want to do it longer term. I do 1/2 a pill twice a day.
3 Likes
I have been taking 75 mg of maraviroc daily for approximately 4 weeks. I split the 150 mg tablet in half and take it in the morning. ZERO subjective effects or noticeable effects on any routine blood markers, though I had only been taking maraviroc for about 2 weeks before my latest blood test.
Hoping my natural skepticism is not affecting the outcome.
My advice (certainly not medical) is to wait a while for more human studies, or at least for anecdotal results from forum members, before spending your money on maraviroc.
Starting tomorrow, I will take 150 mg in the morning, at least 1 hour before breakfast.
After 90 days, if I don’t find any subjective improvements, I will stop wasting my money on it, as the cost-benefit ratio won’t be attractive to me. The only blood markers I routinely take that I might see improvement in are inflammation markers like hsCRP.
From Claude Opus 4.7:
What 75 mg daily actually represents pharmacologically
The case for 75 mg QD being plausibly active:
- Receptor occupancy is high even at low doses. CCR5 occupancy is the pharmacodynamic driver for maraviroc’s effects, and it saturates well below the 300 mg BID HIV dose. Modeling suggests 75 mg once daily produces peak CCR5 occupancy around 96–98% and average occupancy around 82–89%, with trough occupancy dropping to ~44%. For a senomorphic effect (damping chronic SASP signaling), you may not need 24-hour full occupancy — intermittent blockade may be sufficient to suppress sustained CCL3/4/5 → CCR5 tonic signaling.
- The mechanism is inflammation/SASP suppression, not acute viral entry inhibition. Unlike HIV, where any unblocked receptor means potential viral entry, a senomorphic effect is about dampening chronic inflammatory tone. That’s more forgiving of partial/intermittent blockade.
- Dose-response in HIV is flat above ~75–150 mg. The 300 mg BID dose was chosen with viral safety margins, not because lower doses were ineffective at CCR5 engagement.
The case against 75 mg QD being sufficient:
- Zero human efficacy data for sarcopenia at any dose. The CUHK study is in 18-month-old mice at 10 mg/kg IP — which, even correcting for the 1400-fold lower affinity at mouse CCR5, represents a very different receptor-engagement scenario than oral human dosing.
- Muscle tissue penetration is not well-characterized. Maraviroc is ~76% protein-bound and concentrates in some tissues (lymphoid, gut) more than others. How much reaches the skeletal muscle stem cell niche at 75 mg QD is unknown.
- The CUHK mouse benefit came from high exposure. The “high-dose short-term” arm (10 mg/kg IP × 3 months) is what produced the muscle phenotype. Lower-dose arms exist but the full dose-response in aged mice has not been published in a form that lets you extrapolate a minimum effective human dose.
- Age, sex, baseline inflammation, and muscle-use history likely matter more than dose. In the CUHK paper, the drug only helped aged mice. If you don’t have a substantial senescent-cell burden in your muscle to begin with, there may be nothing for maraviroc to suppress regardless of dose.
75 mg daily is in the range where some biological effect on CCR5 signaling is plausible, but whether that translates into meaningful muscle preservation in a specific human is genuinely unknown — and would likely be small-to-undetectable over months, possibly meaningful over years, possibly nothing. The CUHK result is one mouse study. It has not been replicated, has not been tested in humans, and the mechanism (senomorphic SASP suppression) would predict gradual rather than dramatic effects.
8 Likes
Could not wait to come share that my hang time record was demolished today!
My past times were between 20-30 ish seconds.
@ageless recommended I try gloves after I shared I let go due to hand pain vs lack of strength.
I’ve only done one other hang since buying the gloves, but my result was in line with my old times.
Today……… wait for it….
52 seconds!!!
(I’m sure the gloves helped quite a bit)
5 Likes
Good news for you, and everyone using this: you should know if your dose is enough via a simple CBC and seeing how elevated your Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio is.
1 Like
I’m not sure that would work… In that other thread you pointed to it mentions:
An aged individual could therefore plausibly have a normal NLR while still carrying an activated CD4 CTL to CCL5 to CCR5 axis, with the neutrophil expansion masked or offset by something else. Conversely, an elevated NLR can be driven by an entirely unrelated process on which maraviroc would have no purchase. NLR is a screening signal for this biology, not a measure of it. [Confidence: High]
But, I did post this prompt to Claude to check:
Could an older person who is trying to use Maraviroc to lower an an activated CD4 CTL to CCL5 to CCR5 axis, with a high NLR, use the NLR as a dosing effectiveness guage, and if at a given level the NLR is still high, that might suggest a higher dose is required?
Claude Response:
Direct answer
No, and the reasoning contains a specific pharmacological flaw worth naming precisely, because it is the part that makes dose escalation not just useless but actively hazardous.
The flaw: the dose-response you are assuming probably does not exist
“Still high, therefore more drug” presupposes an unsaturated dose-response curve, where target engagement rises with exposure across the dosing range. Maraviroc does not behave that way. It is a slow-off-rate allosteric CCR5 antagonist, and receptor occupancy on circulating cells is high and sustained at standard doses, persisting well after plasma concentrations have fallen. Occupancy data from the HIV development program showed sustained receptor blockade across a trough interval where free drug was barely measurable.
The practical consequence: if 300 mg twice daily already occupies most available CCR5, a higher dose adds toxicity and essentially no additional target engagement. You would be climbing the adverse-effect curve on a plateau of the efficacy curve. [Confidence: Medium-High on the qualitative shape; I have not verified current occupancy figures in this conversation and can look them up if you want the numbers]
Worth noting what this implies in reverse: if NLR has not moved at a standard dose and occupancy is already near-complete, that is evidence the axis is not what is driving the NLR, not evidence of underdosing.
The mouse paper cannot support titration in either direction
One dose was tested. 35 mg/kg/day intraperitoneal, no dose-ranging, no time course within the month, no exposure measurements. There is no curve. The study establishes that a single dose did something over 30 days in mice. It says nothing about whether more would do more, less would do the same, or the relationship is non-monotonic.
Body surface area conversion puts 35 mg/kg mouse at roughly 2.8 mg/kg human, about 200 mg for a 70 kg adult. The approved human dose of 300 mg twice daily is already above the mouse-equivalent exposure. On the paper’s own arithmetic, the standard dose is not obviously a low dose. [Confidence: Medium, BSA scaling is crude and the IP versus oral route difference is unmodeled]
NLR is too noisy to titrate against
Within-person NLR varies substantially on a timescale of days from causes unrelated to any chronic axis: circadian neutrophil rhythm, recent exercise, subclinical infection, sleep debt, acute psychological stress, glucocorticoids, smoking. Typical within-subject coefficient of variation is in the 20 to 30 percent range.
The mouse effect was roughly a 45 to 50 percent reduction in group means. To detect a change of that size against 25 percent within-person noise with any confidence, an individual would need multiple baseline draws and multiple on-treatment draws, probably three to five of each, spaced to average out the noise. A single pre-post comparison is uninterpretable. Two measurements separated by a dose change are worse than uninterpretable, because they will appear to show something and that something will usually be noise. [Confidence: High]
Timescale mismatch
The intervention acts on granulocyte-monocyte progenitors, not on circulating neutrophils. Human GMP to mature circulating neutrophil transit is roughly 5 to 7 days, and the progenitor pool itself turns over more slowly. A genuine progenitor-level effect would take weeks to fully express in the peripheral count. Adjusting dose at intervals shorter than that guarantees you are responding to noise rather than to the intervention. The mouse study reported a single 30-day endpoint and no intermediate timepoints, so the actual kinetics are unknown.
The failure mode is the problem
Here is the scenario that concerns me. NLR stays elevated. Under the proposed logic, the dose goes up. But the three most common reasons an older adult’s NLR stays elevated are not this axis: occult infection, an undiagnosed malignancy, and chronic inflammation from an identified or unidentified source. In every one of those cases, escalating maraviroc does nothing for the cause, adds hepatotoxicity and hypotension risk, and substitutes a self-directed dose adjustment for a diagnostic workup that a persistently elevated NLR in someone over 60 genuinely warrants.
A biomarker that fails to move is being treated as a signal to push harder, when the correct interpretation is often that the model is wrong.
Escalation-specific harms in an older adult
Two are worth naming concretely.
Postural hypotension was the dose-limiting toxicity in maraviroc’s early-phase human studies, appearing at supratherapeutic doses. In an older adult, orthostatic hypotension is not an abstract adverse event. It is falls, and falls in that population carry real morbidity.
Hepatotoxicity is the boxed warning, and it is dose-relevant. There is an interpretive trap here specific to this paper: the mouse data show ALT and AST improving on maraviroc. Someone escalating dose and watching transaminases could read a rise as “aging inflammation returning” rather than as the drug injuring the liver. That is a genuinely dangerous misreading, and it is made more likely by having read this paper. [Confidence: High]
Add that maraviroc is a CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein substrate with approved dose adjustments spanning a fourfold range depending on co-medication, plus renal considerations in older adults. Dose and exposure are not the same variable. Two people on the same milligrams can have very different plasma levels, which further breaks any milligram-based titration logic.
A counterintuitive marker problem
If you were to measure circulating CCL5 as a response marker, expect it to rise on treatment, not fall. Receptor blockade reduces ligand internalization and clearance, so the ligand accumulates. Interpreting that rise as treatment failure, and escalating in response, would be exactly backwards. [Confidence: Medium, this is the expected pharmacology for chemokine receptor antagonists generally]
What would actually constitute target engagement
The real pharmacodynamic assay in maraviroc development was CCR5 receptor occupancy on peripheral blood mononuclear cells by flow cytometry. That is the measurement that tells you whether the drug is doing its job. It is not clinically available, it requires fresh samples and a specialist lab, and it has a known technical complication in that some anti-CCR5 antibody clones compete with maraviroc for the binding site and give misleading results.
On this paper’s specific logic, the closer surrogates would be CD4 CTL burden or CCR5 expression on circulating myeloid progenitors. Neither is a routine test. This is the gap: the accessible marker is not the right one, and the right one is not accessible.
Bottom line
NLR is reasonable as an enrollment or screening signal, meaning it may help identify who plausibly has this axis running. It is poor as a dose-titration signal, because it is downstream, noisy, slow, multiply determined, and being compared against a drug whose target engagement is likely already saturated at standard dosing.
1 Like
Yes, that’s what should be done.I didn’t mean to imply a single measurement necessarily would work. In my case, I do CBCs at least once a month, I can plot my NLR last 12 motnhs easily. Thus I would have pretty good idea of the effect of the drug within 2-3 measurements after starting on a dose. CCR5 is a non-starter for 99% here. CBCs are extemely cheap.
3 Likes
@Beth mentioned in the other Maraviroc thread that there had been some studies on the drug in non-HIV populations (e.g. Covid sufferers). So I started looking at other non-HIV studies on the drug to see what I could find out. Here is an interesting study that I thought people would find interesting.
The key take home message is this:
For individuals utilizing maraviroc, administration protocols dictate strict adherence to fasting conditions to ensure predictable systemic exposure. Taking the compound with a high-fat meal reduces total drug exposure (AUC) by 43.3 percent at a 100 milligram dose.
Nonlinear Absorption and Dietary Restrictions of the CCR5 Antagonist Maraviroc
This population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis evaluates maraviroc, a selective and slowly reversible human chemokine CCR5 receptor antagonist, across 413 subjects to map its complex absorption and clearance dynamics. The analysis reveals that maraviroc exhibits nonproportional pharmacokinetics where bioavailability increases asymptotically with higher doses, while high-fat meals severely blunt systemic absorption.
The primary utility of this analysis lies in mapping the precise administration constraints required to achieve target systemic exposure of maraviroc. Maraviroc targets the CCR5 receptor and serves as a substrate for both cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) and P-glycoprotein (Pgp) clearance pathways. Modeling the drug’s behavior required a two-compartment disposition system parameterized to separate absorption and first-pass elimination mechanisms. The researchers pooled rich pharmacokinetic data from 17 clinical pharmacology studies encompassing healthy volunteers and asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects.
A central finding of the analysis is the supraproportional dose-exposure relationship. Traditional drug dosing assumes a linear correlation where doubling a dose doubles the concentration. Maraviroc deviates from this standard mechanism. The data indicates that as the dose increases, a greater fraction of the drug successfully escapes first-pass elimination and local gut metabolism. For a typical non-Asian subject, absolute bioavailability scales from 24 percent at a 100 milligram dose up to 33 percent at a 600 milligram dose.
Dietary intake introduces the most severe variable into the pharmacokinetic profile. High-fat meals drastically reduce both the rate and the overall extent of maraviroc absorption. The presence of food causes a rightward shift in the absorption models and heavily restricts the drug’s ability to enter systemic circulation, especially at lower doses.
The model also tested multiple population covariates including race, age, sex, body weight, and HIV status. Asian subjects exhibited a 26.5 percent higher area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) than non-Asian subjects. This physiological variation stems from a combination of lower systemic clearance and altered peripheral volume in Asian populations. However, the researchers conclude this race-based variance does not warrant clinical dose adjustments. Age correlated with an increase in intercompartmental clearance, but this specific variable did not alter total drug exposure. Variables such as total body weight, biological sex, and viral infection status exerted zero statistically significant influence on the population pharmacokinetic parameters.
Actionable Insights
For individuals utilizing maraviroc, administration protocols dictate strict adherence to fasting conditions to ensure predictable systemic exposure. Taking the compound with a high-fat meal reduces total drug exposure (AUC) by 43.3 percent at a 100 milligram dose. At larger therapeutic doses of 600 milligrams, food still suppresses total exposure by 26 percent. Consequently, oral administration must occur either following an overnight fast or severely separated from caloric intake to achieve baseline therapeutic thresholds.
Furthermore, the nonlinear absorption profile demands caution when scaling or dividing doses. Because bioavailability drops at lower doses (24 percent at 100 milligrams versus 33 percent at 600 milligrams), splitting a single large dose into multiple smaller intervals will result in a lower total aggregate systemic exposure. Asian individuals may experience a 26.5 percent elevation in circulating drug levels compared to non-Asian peers at identical doses, which may be relevant for individuals highly sensitive to CCR5 antagonism, though the study models classify this increase as clinically benign.
Context/Source
Open Access Paper: A population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis of maraviroc in healthy volunteers and asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects.
Institution: Pharmacometrics, Pfizer Global Research and Development.
Country: United Kingdom.
Journal Name: British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
Impact Evaluation: The impact score of this journal is 3.8, evaluated against a typical high-end range of 0-60+ for top general science, therefore this is a Medium impact journal.
Study Design Specifications
- Type: Clinical Trial Meta-Analysis (Phase 1 and Phase 2a pooled pharmacokinetic data).
- Subjects: 413 Human Subjects.
- Demographics: 365 healthy volunteers and 48 asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects.
- Sex: 317 Male, 96 Female.
- Age: Median age 30 years (Range 18 to 54 years).
Pharmacokinetic Baselines: The population mean terminal elimination half-life is 15.9 hours. The baseline absorption rate constant is 0.277 per hour under fasted conditions.
3 Likes
In the following study (in healthy volunteers) they combined Maraviroc dosing with another drug (Fostemsavir).
Healthy participants were given 600 mg of fostemsavir twice daily for four days, followed by a washout period. They then received 300 mg of maraviroc twice daily for five days. Finally, both medications were co-administered for seven days. Researchers took frequent blood samples to measure the maximum concentration, the area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval, and the trough concentration right before the next dose.
These dosing levels for maraviroc are much higher than the “longevity” applications, and the dosing is with another drug - so its not a very direct comparison, but even in this extreme scenario, the side effects seemed quite moderate:
Side Effect Profile
The medications were generally well tolerated by the healthy participants, but adverse events were frequent. Overall, 57 percent (8 out of 14) of the participants reported at least one adverse event during the trial. The most commonly observed side effects were dizziness, headache, and nausea, and all were classified as mild. However, two participants were forced to discontinue the study due to side effects. One individual experienced nausea, dizziness, and cold sweats directly following the combined drug administration, which resolved after receiving fluids. Another participant developed moderate gastroenteritis, nausea, and vomiting during the washout phase after receiving fostemsavir.
Context and Source
Open Access Paper: Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between the antiretroviral agents fostemsavir and maraviroc: a single-sequence crossover study in healthy participants.
Institution: ViiV Healthcare and GlaxoSmithKline.
Country: United States.
1 Like
Maraviroc, a chemokine receptor-5 antagonist, fails to demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial
In this study, again in non HIV patients, it was a simpler dosing protocol and mild side effects (but still at doses much higher than being tried in “longevity” applications:
Maraviroc was generally well tolerated, with adverse events primarily mild to moderate in severity. In the proof-of-concept group receiving 300 milligrams twice daily, the most common all-causality treatment-emergent adverse events included constipation at 7.8 percent, nausea at 5.2 percent, fatigue at 3.9 percent, upper respiratory tract infections at 3.9 percent, and worsening rheumatoid arthritis at 3.9 percent. Unlike early trials involving alternative CCR5 inhibitors, maraviroc treatment did not induce significant hepatotoxicity, transaminase elevations, or severe systemic allergic reactions when combined with methotrexate.
Context/Source
- Open Access Paper: Maraviroc, a chemokine receptor-5 antagonist, fails to demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial
- Institution: Pfizer Inc
- Country: United States, Spain, Ukraine, Australia, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, Portugal
- Journal Name: Arthritis Research and Therapy
1 Like
Repurposing an HIV Drug and Statin Duo to Break the Chronic Inflammatory Loop in Long COVID
A pilot case series evaluating eighteen long COVID patients treated with the chemokine receptor antagonist maraviroc and the lipid-lowering drug pravastatin showed marked subjective symptom improvement alongside measurable drops in inflammatory markers within six to twelve weeks. The authors hypothesize that post-acute coronavirus infection involves prolonged vascular endothelial inflammation driven by intermediate and non-classical monocytes retaining viral spike proteins. By concurrently blocking C-C chemokine receptor type 5 and inhibiting fractalkine signaling, this drug combination aims to break the monocytic-endothelial-platelet cascade. Every participant attained the designated endpoint of at least eighty percent self-reported symptom relief, although the absence of a control arm and the non-blinded nature of the cohort require cautious interpretation.
Side Effects and Safety Profile
Maraviroc carries a regulatory boxed warning for hepatotoxicity, which can be preceded by severe systemic allergic reactions or eosinophilia. In healthy individuals and historic clinical trial cohorts, adverse effects at three hundred milligrams twice daily include upper respiratory tract infections, cough, pyrexia, abdominal discomfort, dizziness, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Serious liver injury remains rare in monitored clinical settings; liver transaminases and bilirubin must be verified before and during treatment. In this specific eighteen-patient cohort, transaminases remained stable with no reported drug-induced liver injuries. Pravastatin at a low dose of ten milligrams daily is generally well tolerated, with primary side effects consisting of mild headache, transient gastrointestinal upset, and infrequent myalgia. Pravastatin was chosen specifically because it undergoes glucuronidation rather than hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4 metabolism, minimizing competitive metabolic interactions with maraviroc.
Source:
- Open Access Paper: Case series: Maraviroc and pravastatin as a therapeutic option to treat long COVID/Post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC)
- Journal: Frontiers in Medicine in February 2023.
- Affiliations: IncellDx Inc. in San Carlos, California, Beth Israel Lahey Health in Massachusetts, and the University of Costa Rica.
- Impact: The impact score of this journal is 3.6, evaluated against a typical high-end range of 0–60+ for top general science, therefore this is a Medium impact journal.
1 Like