I just came across this (it was published back in May), and not much new for anyone who is a regular reader here. But there were a few bits of interest for me…
Richard Miller seems to have become more bullish on the SGLT2 inhibitors than rapamycin right now (and purely from a side effect profile I agree, I see no side effects at all from my empagliflozin, but rapamycin is a little more complex as many here know):
Drugs like rapamycin have already taken decades to enter clinical trials, but it’s possible that none of the current leading longevity candidates work. Researchers don’t even agree on which of the current drugs and interventions is the most promising: Miller, for example, told me he thinks that rapamycin is “the wrong drug” and that more funding should go to canagliflozin, which has increased median survival age in male mice by 14 percent and for which human side effects are better known due to its use in treating type 2 diabetes since 2013. Still, he doesn’t think it’s easy, “from our limited amount of knowledge, to be confident as to whether rapamycin, or canagliflozin, or any other promising drug would produce major benefits in people with acceptably low side effects.” Most aging-related biotechnology companies use investor money to test aging interventions already proven in mice. Few are conducting the basic research to find new possible pathways for future therapies.
and the future probably looks a lot like what people are doing here already:
The future of longevity likely looks more like the world where we discover that rapamycin — a drug that can extend the lives of mice and help humans accept a new organ — can also treat elderly patients for periodontal disease. It could mean that people take a blood sugar-regulating drug like canagliflozin and suffer from fewer heart attacks and cancers.
“I don’t really care about life extension because there’s no way to measure it,” An said. “It’s really about your health.”
