Abstract
Rapamycin has been shown to have longevity-enhancing effects in murine models, but clinical data on its gerotherapeutic effects in humans remains limited. We performed a 48-week double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled decentralized study (Participatory Evaluation of Aging with Rapamycin for Longevity [PEARL]; NCT04488601; registration date 2020-07-28) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rapamycin in mitigating clinical signs of aging in a normative aging cohort. Participants received 5 or 10 mg / week of compounded rapamycin, or placebo for 48 weeks. Safety, adverse events (AEs) and blood biomarkers were collected. Efficacy was assessed using DEXA scan-based measures and standardized surveys assessing quality of life (QoL) and frailty. We did not detect significant differences in safety blood biomarkers, or moderate to severe AEs between the rapamycin treatment groups and placebo after 48 weeks. We detected dose-dependent (10 mg group) and sex-specific improvements in lean tissue mass, pain, social functioning, overall QoL, and overall osteoarthritis score in females, and in bone mineral content in men. Additionally, some individuals receiving rapamycin experienced significant improvements in body composition metrics that were associated with beneficial changes in gut health and lipid metabolism. We conclude that low-dose, intermittent rapamycin administration over the course of 48 weeks is safe and induces sex-specific improvements in multiple aspects of healthspan, with the most robust improvements in lean tissue mass in women taking 10 mg rapamycin/week. Future work will aim to identify biometric signatures of clinical effectiveness to inform personalized treatment strategies that more broadly maximize efficacy and minimize side effects.
Introduction
Aging is the biggest risk factor for all major chronic diseases, accounting for nearly 70% of human mortality [1–3]. While advancements in medical technologies and public health practices over the past 150 years have led to longer lifespans less shaped by natural selection, the period of disease and disability-free life often referred to as “healthspan” has not kept pace [4]. In conjunction with an epidemic of poor lifestyle habits, this has collectively led to a growing chasm between lifespan and healthspan known as the healthspan gap, which in the United States lasts several decades and is characterized by a high burden of functional disability and age-related diseases (such as type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, and Alzheimer’s) that often coexist as multi-morbidities [5]. While significant research has historically focused on treating these diseases individually, a growing body of work within translational geroscience explores developing gerotherapeutics that slow the aging process and delay the onset or prevent age-related disease altogether [6].
The field of translational geroscience has made rapid advancements in recent years, due in large part to strategic utilization of interventions already approved for other conditions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [7]. By repurposing such drugs for their potential to target the biology of aging and extend healthy longevity, clinical validation is fast-tracked to permit more immediate collection of application-specific efficacy data. Notable among these is rapamycin, which is widely used for its purported longevity and healthspan benefits within the pro-longevity community [8]. While evidence supports a role for rapamycin in improving life- and healthspans in preclinical studies [9], little data exists on its clinical efficacy in normative aging humans.
As an FDA-approved small molecule drug, rapamycin is an evolutionarily conserved inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin serine/threonine kinase complex 1 (mTORc1), a known regulator of aging processes [10, 11]. Hyperactivity of mTORC1 has been linked to multiple chronic disease processes in nearly every organ system, while mTORC1 inhibition induced by caloric restriction and rapamycin or its derivatives (rapalogs) has been shown to reliably extend lifespan and healthspan across organisms from yeast to non-human primates [12–21]. Rapamycin-mediated mTORC1 inhibition has demonstrated particular efficacy as a geroprotective intervention in mice, extending lifespan in heterogeneous genetic backgrounds across multiple studies from independent labs at multiple dosages, dosing periods, and regimens, even in elderly animals [14, 16, 18, 21, 22].
While rapamycin has demonstrated a more pronounced lifespan-enhancing effect in female than male mice, mitigation or reversal of age-associated changes in multiple organ tissues and the immune system have been observed for both sexes [23–25]. These findings have been reproduced in companion dogs and marmosets, however, clinical data on rapamycin’s gerotherapeutic effects in humans remains limited [9, 12, 17, 26]. Given the substantial promise in preclinical data, it is essential to obtain a deeper understanding and clearly define the clinical benefits of rapamycin use for improving healthy aging in the generally healthy, adult population. In particular, it will be important to understand how rapamycin may impact the phenotypes of the biological aging process that substantially increases the risk of age-related disease and mortality, such as an accumulation of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and a loss of lean muscle tissue and bone mass [27–32]. These are some of the most salient and functionally consequential measures of biological aging, which frequently lead to reduced quality of life (QoL), increased pain, and limited mobility, particularly for post-menopausal women [33, 34]. Collectively, this contributes to the marked decline in health that often occurs during this time period [33]. It has been suggested that use of low-dose rapamycin may mitigate these features of the aging process, enhancing healthspan [25, 35, 36].
Widespread adoption of rapamycin as a gerotherapeutic has historically been limited by concerns regarding its known impact on immunosuppression, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia [37]. However, the vast majority of these effects stem from high, chronically administered doses utilized in severely ill organ transplant or cancer patients, where the clinical aim is inhibition of the immune system or anti-tumorigenic effects. In contrast, as a gerotherapeutic for normative aging populations, low-dose, intermittent rapamycin is revealing promise for minimizing side effects while still mitigating aspects of age-related decline [38–40]. For example, Mannick et al. demonstrated that healthy elderly individuals taking 0.5 mg of a rapalog daily or 5 mg/ week for 6 weeks mitigated age-related immune decline by enhancing the adaptive immune system’s response to vaccination [41]. This supports our recent findings from a study of 333 low-dose rapamycin users indicating a high perceived QoL and improved health outcomes compared to non-users [8]. Preliminary data suggest that these effects stem from a partial inhibition of mTORc1 in low-dose rapamycin (rather than the complete inhibition observed at higher doses), which has been demonstrated to mitigate age-related decline by stimulating autophagy, reducing senescent burden, and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines that drive chronic inflammation [9, 15, 24, 42, 43]. While promising findings such as these have encouraged some physicians to prescribe off-label rapamycin as a therapy to maintain healthspan, there are many open questions that require further study, particularly in a clinical setting.
An important gap in the clinical understanding of rapamycin for longevity is that to date, no long-term randomized controlled trials (RCT) have been conducted to explore low-dose, intermittent rapamycin regimens for improving multiple healthspan metrics in normative aging cohorts. The current study, the Participatory Evaluation of Aging with Rapamycin for Longevity (PEARL) trial, aimed to address this gap. PEARL represents the largest and longest clinical study of rapamycin use for healthy aging performed to date. This 48-week double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled decentralized study evaluated the safety and efficacy of rapamycin in mitigating clinical signs of aging in a generally healthy cohort. Here, we present the first evidence to date, to our knowledge, that low-dose rapamycin administration is safe over the course of 48 weeks and induces sex-specific improvements in lean muscle mass, bone mineral content, aspects of age-related frailty, and overall QoL. Further, we highlight additional benefits observed specifically in rapamycin responders that may offer mechanistic insights into key biological drivers of clinical effectiveness that will be investigated in greater depth in future studies.
Methods
Study design
The PEARL study was a decentralized, single-center, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing rapamycin in healthy individuals aged 50-85 years, to determine the safety and efficacy in mitigating aging-related decline (Supplementary Figure S1).
Schematic of trial enrollment, participant screening, randomization, and followup (a), and a summary of all participants health scores (b) highlighting significant baseline health of participants in this study.
The study was conducted in accordance with the standards of Good Clinical Practice, as defined by the International Conference on Harmonisation and all applicable federal and local regulations. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the Institute of Regenerative and Cellular Medicine in May 2020 (IRCM; approval number IRCM-2020-252).
Study endpoints
The primary endpoints of this study included safety, which included the collection of adverse events (AEs), safety blood biomarkers, and visceral adiposity. Secondary endpoints included efficacy blood biomarkers, DEXA scan-determined lean tissue mass and bone mineral content, and standardized surveys assessing quality of life and frailty.
Study population
Participants were recruited via the AgelessRx online medical platform. Patients were screened for eligibility, and if deemed eligible, informed consent was obtained for participation in the study.
Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged between 50 and 85 years at the start of the study, were interested in taking rapamycin off-label, were willing to undergo minimally invasive tests, and were in good health or had well-managed clinically-stable chronic diseases. Participants were excluded from the study if they had anemia, neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia, were premenopausal, were scheduled to undergo major surgery in next 12 months, were undergoing or were scheduled to undergo chemotherapy, were scheduled for immunosuppressant therapy for an organ transplant, had impaired wound healing or history of chronic open wound, untreated dyslipidemia, impaired hepatic function, chronic infections requiring ongoing treatment or monitoring (e.g. human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, chronic Lyme disease), allergy to rapamycin, clinically-relevant primary or secondary immune dysfunction or deficiency, chronic oral corticosteroid or immunosuppressant medication use, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis, breast implant illness, congestive heart failure, impaired renal function, poorly controlled diabetes, type I or insulin-dependent type II diabetes, untreated or treated within the last five years for substance abuse disorder, and untreated or poorly controlled mental health disorder. Further, those who had taken metformin, rapamycin, or rapalogs were excluded unless the participant agreed to a 6 month washout period prior to the start of the trial.
Treatments
Study participants were randomized into three groups: receiving 5 mg of rapamycin, 10 mg of rapamycin, or placebo, once per week. Placebo capsules were compounded to look similar and were taken orally (Belmar Pharma Solutions (Golden, CO, USA)). Study participants were prescribed the drug for 48 weeks upon enrollment in the study and were dispensed supplies for 12 weeks at a time.
Assessments
All assessments were performed at baseline, after 24 weeks, and after 48 weeks of rapamycin treatment. Blood testing was performed two additional times, at 2 weeks and 4 weeks of treatment, to evaluate safety. All blood testing was performed by local Quest Diagnostics of LabCorp laboratories, and included complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel, liver function tests, renal function tests, and lipid panels. DEXA body composition scans were performed primarily by DexaFit or Fitnescity locations, based on local availability, though some participants utilized third party locations based on site availability. Regardless of site, the outcome measures obtained by DEXA scans were body mass index (BMI), visceral fat, bone mineral content, bone mineral density, and lean tissue mass. Gut health was evaluated using the Thorne Gut Health test.
Summary health scores were calculated as a sum of responses on baseline survey responses of health for questions of frequency of use of smoking, consuming caffeinated beverages, consuming alcoholic beverages, eating sugary, salty, or “junk” foods, exercise (vigorous and moderate intensity), and weight. Benefit Score was calculated by ranking the percent change on each DEXA measure evenly into high, medium, and low benefit, and summing scores into a meta score. VAT measures were reverse-scored, as decrease in VAT raw values corresponds with improvement on this measure. The summary meta score was then again divided evenly into a high, medium, and low ranking. High scores were considered “improved”, and low scores were considered “decline”, while in-between scores were considered “stasis”.
Health-related QoL was assessed by the short-form 36 (SF-36) survey, which consists of 36 questions covering eight health domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality (energy levels), social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and emotional health [44]. The responses are scored and summarized to provide a profile of an individual’s perceived health status. Pain, fitness, and functional limitations were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, which is a questionnaire that is commonly used to assess the health status of individuals with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee [45]. It consists of 24 items divided into three subscales: pain, stiffness, and physical function. The responses are scored to provide quantitative assessments of the severity of symptoms and functional limitations associated with osteoarthritis.
Adverse Events
Adverse events (AEs) were obtained through weekly monitoring forms sent out to participants. Clinical trial staff reviewed and documented AEs. Both expected (already known) and unexpected AEs were reported and documented. A full list is presented in Table 2.
Statistical analyses
All initial analyses were performed by researchers blinded to the study treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. All data were tested for normality using visual inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots, and Shapiro-Wilks tests were performed. Data were summarized using mean and standard deviation (SD) and where appropriate, counts and percentages were reported. Baseline data were compared between the three treatment arms using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), independent t-test or χ2 test. To compare the difference in mean change from baseline to most recent follow-up (48 weeks) between treatment arms, we employed ANOVA and BMI-adjusted marginal mixed-effect models. Following this, full age-, sex-, and BMI-adjusted linear mixed-effects models with a repeated measures structure were conducted. Interaction terms (time by treatment arm, as well as time by treatment arm by sex) were included to investigate group and gender effects and their trajectory over time. Where appropriate, stratified post-hoc analyses were conducted within sex and between treatment arms (10 mg vs. placebo and 5 mg vs. placebo). All analyses were conducted using SPSS 28 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Python 3.10 (Python Software Foundation). A p-value of p<0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Participant demographics
A total of 115 participants were included in this study, of whom 40 received 5 mg/week of rapamycin, 36 received 10 mg/week of rapamycin, and 39 received placebo (Supplementary Fig S1a). At baseline, all participant groups were comparable across measures of age, sex, height, weight, BMI, and blood safety markers, with the exception of the mean HbA1C, which was lower in the 5 mg group than placebo (5mg mean = 5.2%, SD = 0.2; placebo mean = 5.3%, SD = 0.3; t(72)=2.556, p=0.013; Table 1). Overall, participants were in exceptionally good health at baseline, as evaluated by self-reports of health (Supplementary Fig S1b).
Safety: Adverse events
AEs were collected throughout the study as reported by participants on periodic surveys or through direct contact with investigators (Supplementary Fig 2a; see Table 2 for all AEs). The most commonly reported AEs were cold/flu/sinus symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, mouth sores, and malaise, with a greater number of AEs reported in the placebo group relative to treatment conditions (Supplementary Fig 2b, Table 2). The most commonly reported rapamycin specific AEs were gastrointestinal issues. Surprisingly, mouth sores, which are often associated with rapamycin treatment [46], were most frequently reported in the placebo group (placebo: n=27, 5 mg: n=4, 10 mg: n=14; Table 2), though the same number of individuals reported mouth sores in the 10 mg and placebo group (n = 6).
A summary of adverse event types by trial arm showed no rapamycin-specific adverse event patterns (a). Further investigation of adverse event types revealed similar effects for all trial arms, with the exception of a higher proportion of gastrointestinal events reported for rapamycin users than controls (b).
Notably, throughout the length of the trial, participants in the rapamycin treatment groups reported increased instances of improvements in chronic ailments (chronic issue flare) that were present when they first entered the trial compared to placebo (placebo: n = 14, 5 mg: n = 24, 10 mg: n = 28). Conversely, participants in the placebo group reported increased instances of worsening of their chronic ailments (chronic issue severity) compared to treatment groups (placebo: n = 12, 5 mg: n = 4, 10 mg: n = 6; Table 2). No significant safety-related issues were detected in the blood work results of any participants during periodic check-ins, or after the 48 week study period for the 105 participants who completed the entirety of the study (Supplementary Table S1).
Of the 123 total participants enrolled in the study, Serious AEs (SAEs) were reported for four rapamycin users (three in 5mg group and one in 10mg group) and two placebo users. Specifically, in the 5 mg group, one participant was hospitalized during the study period due to respiratory symptoms that seemed related to anemia, which resolved with a blood transfusion. A second participant in the 5 mg group had a severe infection requiring treatment from their healthcare provider, which resolved after medication use (prednisone, doxycycline, and albuterol). The third participant in the 5mg group had a hamstring tear prior to the study, that healed slowly during the trial. In the 10mg group, a participant reported a sore throat, but tested positive for group A strep and was prescribed amoxicillin, which resolved the symptoms. One participant in the placebo group died of myocardial infarction during the study period. A second participant in the placebo group reported a stomach virus that required attention from a medical provider, and was diagnosed with small urinary infection. Symptoms resolved after treatment.
While not an intended endpoint for this study, the study period was during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a confirmed COVID-19 infection was reported for 25 participants: 10 in the placebo group (29%), 8 in the 5 mg treatment group (21%), and 7 in the 10 mg treatment group (21%). Among these, no differences in infection rates, symptom severity, duration of illness, or length of recovery were noted between groups. Importantly, those with SAEs (described above) were not noted to have COVID-19 upon physician testing.
Efficacy of rapamycin on healthspan metrics
DEXA Scan results
Participants underwent DEXA scans to assess visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass, bone mineral content (BMC), and lean tissue mass (LTM) at three timepoints (baseline, 24, and 48 weeks of treatment) to explore the effects of rapamycin on measures crucial for healthy aging and the prevention of frailty and disease. At baseline, VAT mass, BMC, and LTM were similar between the three treatment groups (Supplementary Table S2). Over the study period, VAT mass increased most in the placebo group (mean = +35.34 g, SD = 290.76 g) and decreased in the group taking 5 mg rapamycin (mean = -39.85 g, SD = 185.18 g), while BMC and LTM increased only in the 10 mg rapamycin treatment group (BMC: mean = +19.41 g, SD = 104.34; LTM = 517.87 g, SD = 2440.18). While notable trends of change in body composition measures from baseline to 48 weeks were observed between treatment groups, none were statistically significant (linear mixed-effects models interaction: VAT: F(2, 101.408) = 0.978, p=0.379; BMC: F(2,104.415) = 1.403, p=0.250; LTM: F(2,126.996) = 1.115, p=0.331; BMD: F(2,166.294) = 1.596, p=0.552) (Figure 1a, Supplementary Table S2). While some changes to some body composition metrics (e.g. visceral adipose) in rapamycin treatment groups were observed at 24 weeks, these effects stabilized to measures reported for 48 weeks by the end of the trial (Supplementary Fig S3a, Supplementary Table S2).
Change in body composition measures at the study midpoint (24 weeks) showed evidence of some measure of change (a) that largely stabilized to the patterns reported after 48 weeks. Change at 48 weeks of VAT, and of BMC in females and LTM in males did not show statistically significant improvements for rapamycin users relative to controls (b).
Notable trends of change in body composition from baseline to 48 weeks were observed between treatment groups for all subjects (a). Analysis of changes in body composition measures within sex revealed that bone mineral content improved significantly for men taking 10mg rapamycin (b) as did lean tissue mass for females taking 10mg rapamycin (c). *p <0.05, **p ≤ 0.005
As rapamycin has been suggested to have differential effects in males and females, we explored this possibility by evaluating changes in DEXA scan data across sex (Table 3). Analysis with linear mixed-effects models revealed statistically significant differences in BMC change between groups across sex (interaction F(2, 193.245) = 4.489, p = 0.012, Table 3), which subsequent analysis revealed was specifically driven by improvements in the male 10 mg rapamycin treatment group vs placebo (interaction F(1, 129.224) = 4.563, p = 0.035, (Figure 1b). This was consistent with changes of bone mineral density (interaction F(1, 131.924) = 4.956, p = .028).
Similarly, statistically significant differences in LTM were observed between groups when assessed across sex (F(2, 206.447) = 5.439, p = 0.005, Table 3), which subsequent analyses revealed were primarily driven by differences between sex in the 10mg rapamycin treatment group (F(1, 134.554) = 8.880, p = 0.003, Figure 1c). Post-hoc within sex analyses confirmed that gains in LTM over 48 weeks were distinct to female participants taking 10 mg rapamycin compared to placebo (female 10mg = +1,939.7g (SD = 1,998.9) versus female placebo = -298.1g (SD = 1,191.1); F(2, 41.242) = 6.423; β = 55.5, SE = 16.9, p = 0.002). This highlights that the average improvement in LTM in female participants was particularly robust at an estimated rate of 55.5g per week faster than those on placebo. No significant changes in BMC and LTM were observed in all other groups, nor were any significant changes in VAT observed upon subsequent analyses (Supplementary Fig S3b).
Notably, marked variability in measures of VAT, LMT, and BMC was observed for all rapamycin users independent of dose (Table 3, Supplementary Table S2). This resulted in dramatically different impacts for the highest and lowest responding individuals across all measures for both males and females (Supplementary Figure S4). Exploration of raw values of response for individual participants revealed categories of individuals with improvement and decline for each body composition measure (Supplementary Table S2, Figure 2a). Comparing across groups, we observed that a greater percentage of individuals in the improvement group were rapamycin users, with no specific bias in response across all measures by sex (Figure 2b, c). Upon further investigation of individual body composition measures, sex-agnostic rapamycin associated improvement held true for VAT (Figure 2d), however, the percent of participants showing improvement in BMC and LTM differed by gender (Figure 2e, f). This is particularly notable for BMC, where two thirds of 10mg males showed improvement (Figure 2e), and in LTM, where all of the 10mg female participants demonstrated improvements (Figure 2f). Upon further investigation, we noted that improvements in VAT correlated with improvements on BMC and LTM, as well as with improved weight and BMI (Figure 3a).
Within trial arms, notable differences in participant responses were observed across all measures, with sex-specific differences in proportion of participants improving or declining for most measures.
Within all study arms, individual participants showed marked improvement and decline for each measure of body composition (a). A greater percentage of individuals in the improvement group were rapamycin users (b), with no specific bias in response across all measures by sex (c). Similar trends were observed for measures of VAT (d), however, BMC (e), and LTM (f) showed sex-specific improvement and decline.
Improvements in VAT correlated with improvements on BMC and LTM, as well as with improved weight and BMI (a). A “Benefit Score” was computed for users based on summary scores of improvement or decline on each body composition measure evaluated by DEXA, which was significantly associated with rapamycin use (b). Separation of Benefit Scores by rapamycin dose and sex revealed a pronounced female benefit bias, with only improvement for all female rapamycin users (c). Subsequent analysis of gut health and blood biomarkers by benefit score revealed significant changes in measures of gut dysbiosis, immune readiness (d), and LDL levels (e) between high and low Benefit Scores, with greater magnitude of beneficial change for rapamycin users than placebo.
Given these findings, we computed a “Benefit Score” for users based on summary scores of improvement or decline on each body composition measure evaluated by DEXA. Benefit score was significantly associated with rapamycin use (t(44.41) = 2.175, p = 0.035), though some placebo users also saw global improvements and subsequently high Benefit Scores (Figure 3b). As our bioavailability study has previously suggested a 3.5x reduction in potency for compounded rapamycin relative to generic, we reasoned that the 10mg group was more likely to be in a relevant bioavailable therapeutic dose range, and thus further investigated Benefit Score in the 10mg vs Placebo groups to explore what might be driving differences in rapamycin response. Importantly, separation of Benefit Scores by rapamycin dose and sex in this manner revealed a pronounced female benefit bias, with all female rapamycin users showing only improvement on the Benefit Score (Figure 3c). Subsequent analysis of gut health and blood biomarkers by benefit score revealed significant changes in measures of gut dysbiosis (F(2,54) = 3.215, p = 0.04; t(54) = -2.150, p = 0.036), immune readiness (F(2, 54) = 3.157, p = 0.05; t(54) = 2.517, p = 0.015; Figure 3d), and LDL levels (F(2, 102) = 4.262, p = 0.017; t(74) = -2.505, p = 0.014; Figure 3e) between high and low Benefit Scores, with rapamycin users showing greater magnitude of beneficial change than placebo.
Blood Biomarkers
In addition to completing routine blood work for safety monitoring, blood biomarkers of health, such as LDL, hemoglobinA1c, triglycerides, and insulin levels were collected throughout the study. While there were no significant differences between groups in biomarkers that were outside the healthy reference range after 48 weeks, significant differences between treatment and control groups were observed for mean change in corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH: 5mg: -0.1 (0.9), 10mg: -0.4 (1.1), Placebo: 0.2 (1.2); F(2, 101) = 3.232, p = 0.040) and mean platelet volume (MPV: 5mg: -0.1 (0.4), 10mg: -0.1 (0.4), Placebo: 0.1 (0.4); F(2, 101 = 4.802, p = 0.10). Post-hoc testing between treatment group pairs revealed additional changes for participants in the 10 mg rapamycin treatment group in chloride levels (10mg: +0.6 (1.5), Placebo: -0.3 (2.0); t(65) = 2.125, p = 0.037), carbon dioxide levels (10mg: -1.2 (1.8), Placebo: -0.4 (2.2); t(65) = 1.786, p = 0.079), and mean corpuscular volume (MCV: 10mg: -1.0 (2.2), Placebo: 0.4 (2.8); t(65)=2.258, p = 0.027), and patients in the 5 mg rapamycin treatment group in platelets (Supplementary Figure S5a-b, Supplementary Table S1). Stratifying by sex did not reveal any additional patterns of significant change between dosing groups and controls over time.
While no significant differences in biomarkers were outside the healthy reference range after 48 weeks, significant differences between treatment and control groups were observed for mean change in corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) and mean platelet volume (MPV), and for the 10 mg rapamycin group in chloride levels, carbon dioxide levels, and mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and patients in the 5 mg rapamycin treatment group in platelets (a). No statistically significant changes were seen for other biomarkers (b).
Quality of life
Evaluation of rapamycin’s effects on self-reported quality of life (QoL) was conducted using the SF-36 scale. Baseline measures revealed generally high QoL scores across the study cohort, with no notable significant differences between groups (overall QoL scores of 83.7 (10.4), 88.1 (7.0), and 84.5 (12.0) for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and placebo groups, respectively, (F(2, 110) = 1.987, p = 0.142; Supplementary Table S3). After 48 weeks of treatment most SF-36 scores improved in all groups, however, with the exception of general health (5mg: +5.6 (10.3), 10mg: +3.2 (10.0, Placebo: +0.8 (12.0); F(2, 87) = 4.488, p = 0.014), no statistically significant changes were detected using marginal linear mixed-effect models between treatment groups across time (Supplementary Figure S6a, Supplementary Table S3).
After 48 weeks of treatment most SF-36 scores of perceived Quality of Life improved in all groups (a), as did WOMAC scores of frailty (b).
As we observed sex-specific differences in DEXA measures, we similarly evaluated whether QoL measures differed across sex between the treatment groups over time (mean QoL scores stratified by sex are presented in Table 4). Linear mixed-effect models were employed to further explore the interaction of sex and treatment groups with change in QoL over time. Significant longitudinal differences in pain between groups and sex were observed (interaction F(2, 201.308) = 6.815, p = 0.001), which was driven by a sex difference specifically in the 10 mg rapamycin treatment group (10mg vs Placebo: F(1, 130.926) = 16.403, p < 0.001, Figure 4a,b). This was confirmed in post-hoc analysis, where specifically females taking 10 mg rapamycin (+14.7 SD = 13.9) saw improvements in pain compared to placebo (β = 0.332, SE = 0.110, F(1, 6.928) = 9.121, p = 0.020), indicating that similar to gains in LTM, among females, improvements in pain are another robust effect of 48 weeks of rapamycin treatment.
Quality of life measures from the SF-36 showed improvements across most measures for female rapamycin users (a), with statistically significant improvements in scores of pain, social functioning, and overall quality of life. Male rapamycin users showed only trends of improvement for many measures, particularly for the 5mg cohort (b). Similar patterns were seen for frailty measures from the WOMAC scale, with female rapamycin users showing improvements across most measures, and significant improvements in pain and overall frailty (c). In contrast, male rapamycin users did not show improvements on WOMAC scores relative to controls (d).
Within the 10 mg rapamycin treatment group, the rate of improvement in social functioning and overall quality of life also showed group and sex differences (Supplementary Table S3), with both social functioning (+12.5 SD = 24.1) and QoL (+5.8 SD = 4.6) improving most in the 10mg female group (group by sex interaction F(2, 188.862) = 2.701, p = 0.070 and F(2, 200.291) = 2.028, p = 0.134, respectively). When limiting analyses to 10mg compared to the placebo group, differences in the rate of improvements in social functioning and quality of life between group and sex reached significance (interaction F(1, 132.742) = 5.551, p = 0.020 and F(1, 123.268) = 6.753, p = 0.010, respectively), which, as with pain, appeared to be specifically driven by females within the 10 mg rapamycin treatment group (Figure 4a,b).
Frailty
Finally, we measured symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) using the WOMAC survey as a marker for frailty, another important factor defining the length of an individual’s healthspan. Baseline scores were not significantly different across groups (Supplementary Table S3), and linear mixed-effects models again revealed no significant patterns of change in scores across all groups over the 48-week study period (Supplementary Figure S6b). However, given previous sex-specific effects in other outcome measures, analyses of WOMAC scores were repeated by exploring differences across sex and groups (Table 4). This revealed statistically significant differences in the WOMAC pain score between groups and sex (interaction F(2, 194.531) = 3.516, p=0.032), with improvements observed particularly for female participants in the 5 mg and 10 mg rapamycin group (-0.9 SD = 1.8; -0.8 SD = 2.9, respectively; Figure 4c,d), and trends of improvement for the overall frailty score in the same groups (Supplementary Table S3; group by sex interaction F(2, 202.257) = 2.172, p = .117). Evaluation of changes across sex limited to the 10 mg rapamycin group versus placebo revealed a significant improvement in both measures (interaction F(1, 120.251) = 5.791, p = 0.018 and F(1, 111.480) = 5,925, p = 0.017, respectively). This highlights that once again, female participants in the 10 mg group appear to improve most (Figure 4c,d). No other significant differences were observed for this measure.
Discussion
Few clinical trials to date have evaluated the effects of rapamycin and its derivatives in generally healthy individuals, and those that have been conducted are often challenged by a small cohort size, short-term follow-up, or both. While the most robust of these studies have suggested improvements in age-related immune decline in healthy elderly individuals administered low-dose everolimus for 6 to 16 weeks [41], no study to date has definitively demonstrated the efficacy of rapamycin for supporting healthy aging in normative aging individuals. The PEARL trial represents one of the most robust and comprehensive efforts evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of low-dose rapamycin for addressing multiple aspects of age-related decline in a normative aging cohort.
In the current study, no significant differences in markers of metabolic health, liver, and kidney function, or moderate to severe AEs in the rapamycin treatment groups were reported compared to placebo after 48 weeks. This is consistent with previous reports summarized in a review by Maier’s group that healthy individuals are not likely to experience serious side effects from low dose rapamycin, and suggests that concerns over negative effects of rapamycin stemming from studies of high-dose, daily usage in chronically ill individuals may have limited applicability in the context of rapamycin use for healthy aging [47]. Indeed, we observed more instances of individuals reporting improvements in chronic ailments in the rapamycin treatment groups than in placebo, and more instances reported of worsening ailments in the placebo group compared to treatment groups after 48 weeks. This effect will be important to investigate further in longitudinal follow-up with PEARL participants.
While among PEARL participants, those taking 10 mg of rapamycin per week did initially report more gastrointestinal and neurological AEs (e.g. diarrhea and headaches) compared to those taking placebo, all (except for one) were acute AEs that resolved on their own, or were not severe enough to prevent continuation of the rapamycin regimen. Interestingly, despite well-known impacts of rapamycin on causing mouth sores and a strong association with its bioavailability and potency [46, 48], participants in the placebo group reported increased incidents of mouth sores than those in either of the treatment groups, despite the same number of individuals reporting mouth sores in the 10 mg rapamycin group and placebo (n = 6). This may be a unique property of compounded rapamycin, though follow-up studies are currently underway to understand this more comprehensively.
Of note, the PEARL trial was ongoing during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapamycin has been associated with favorable outcomes in response to SARS-CoV2 [8, 49, 50]. Consistent with this, we did observe a decreased incidence of COVID-19 reports in the rapamycin treatment groups (19.7%) compared to placebo (25.6%). Clinical trials are underway that are specifically designed to more robustly evaluate the efficacy of rapamycin and its derivatives on COVID outcomes [28–32, 51].
Over the 48 weeks of the study, weekly rapamycin use demonstrated dose-dependent and sex-specific improvements in multiple functional healthspan metrics compared to placebo, including lean tissue mass, bone mineral content, pain (SF-36, WOMAC), social functioning (SF-36), overall quality of life (SF-36), and overall osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score. All statistically significant benefits were observed in participants taking 10 mg rapamycin per week and consistent with preclinical reports of a female-benefit bias in mice, female participants demonstrated significant benefits across all the outcome measures except bone mineral content [14, 18]. Notably, the most robust improvements observed after 48 weeks were increases in lean muscle mass within this group. However, as all groups of rapamycin users (across gender and dose) had individuals that showed large improvements in body composition measures over time, a summary improvement score accounting for improvement or decline across all DEXA body composition measures was computed as a Benefit Score. Importantly, all women taking 10mg of rapamycin had improvements on the Benefit Score, and showed no declines, whereas men were represented in both groups. Across all participants, those with high benefit scores had significant improvements in gut health measures of gut dysbiosis and immune readiness, and in LDL levels relative to those with low benefit scores. Greater responses on these measures were observed for rapamycin users than placebo users. Taken together, these findings suggest that digestive health, diet, and/or microbiome may play a significant role in rapamycin response and subsequent likelihood of benefits, and will be a focus of our future work.
Findings from this study that male participants in the 10 mg rapamycin group gained an average of 1.4% BMC over 48 weeks and female participants in the 10 mg group gained an average LTM of 4.5% hold significant promise for rapamycin in reducing risks of age-related disease and mortality. This is particularly true for the highest rapamycin responding individuals, who exhibit greater improvements in body composition than typical for individuals of this trial age cohort. For example, one female participant in the 10 mg rapamycin group exhibited a 19% improvement in lean muscle mass over the 48 week period, and another saw a 15% increase in BMC over two years of taking rapamycin consistently during and post-trial. Given the expected worsening of body composition metrics each year after the age of 60, which have a compounding influence on the risk of age-related adverse outcomes, rapamycin clearly has an important role as a gerotherapeutic in the future of healthy longevity medicine
While this trial extended notably longer than other human trials of rapamycin use for healthy longevity to date, it is likely that even greater effects would be observed with an increased observation period, a broader (specifically higher) range of doses, as well as a larger study cohort. Further, while it was outside the scope of this study to determine all sources of variability, there are several lifestyle factors (such as diet, alcohol consumption, sleep quality, and activity levels) that may influence VAT, LTM, and BMC changes over time [52, 53], and which may have yet-to-be-identified impacts on rapamycin bioavailability that would add value to future studies on this topic.
Across all measures in this study, a remarkable level of variability in response was observed for all rapamycin users, regardless of dose. Given our recent work on the variability of rapamycin bioavailability in individuals, we expect that it played a meaningful role in the results observed here, though this trial concluded prior to our findings on bioavailability. Further, we have discovered since the conclusion of this trial that compounded rapamycin is approximately 3.5x less bioavailable than commercially available formulations, suggesting that the 5mg and 10mg rapamycin groups received an average equivalent of 1.4mg and 2.9mg respectively [48]. Although both doses are relatively low, making the observation of benefits in the treatment group more striking, the 10mg rapamycin cohort in this study was more firmly in the range of what is thought to be an optimal longevity dose range for rapamycin [8, 41, 47, 54]. While future studies will be necessary to draw clear conclusions on whether even higher doses lead to improved effects, we expect that this is a key factor in the often stronger and more reliable patterns of improvement seen for the 10mg rapamycin cohort relative to the 5mg cohort. We highlight this to emphasize the importance of personalized rapamycin dosing and continual routine monitoring of blood rapamycin levels in users to ensure maximal benefits, until such time as the optimal longevity dosing dynamics for rapamycin are more clearly understood.
Beyond physical measures of rapamycin impacts explored in this study, self-reported measures of perceived health and quality of life also showed improvement for all groups. This is especially important in a normative aging population, still in their healthspan, as evaluating changes in QoL captures multiple dimensions of health and functioning that both precede and go beyond disease progression alone. As maintaining an active, pain-free, high quality of life (QoL) in aging is one of the most important aspects of healthspan, findings from the current study that rapamycin users had improved scores on multiple measures of the well-established SF-36 and WOMAC scales are particularly promising. While a female-benefit bias was noted for both measures, significant improvements were observed only for the female 10mg rapamycin group. This is consistent with previous findings in a cohort of 333 adults using off-label rapamycin for healthy aging in which rapamycin was associated with increased reports of happiness, brain function, feelings of youthfulness, calm, reduced anxiety and pain compared to non-users in that same timeframe (up to 10 years for some participants) [8].
Of particular note, with PEARL, we are the first to show that 10 mg rapamycin/week for 48 weeks has a modest but significant benefit on osteoarthritis symptoms, specifically in women, based on the WOMAC clinical OA assessment. As our study was within a normative aging population, small improvements in early age-related progression of OA could lead to substantial cumulative benefits over time on frailty outcomes [55, 56]. Despite this, follow-up studies are required to determine why males did not demonstrate similar OA associated benefits in this study, and what additional adjustments or considerations would be required for men to derive similar OA related benefits.
Conclusion
The PEARL trial is the largest and longest decentralized RCT evaluating the safety and efficacy of low, intermittent “longevity doses” of rapamycin on healthy aging through the measurement of clinically relevant healthspan metrics. Our findings provide evidence that low dose, intermittent rapamycin regimens are well tolerated and do not lead to any serious adverse events or clinical abnormalities when administered for at least one year within normative aging individuals. Beyond this, we observed benefits for rapamycin users in the PEARL trial, as measured by significant improvements in lean muscle mass, pain, social functioning, frailty outcomes, and overall quality of life in females, and improved bone mineral density in males. Further, there were some individuals in the rapamycin treatment groups that experienced large improvements in body composition metrics after 48 weeks, which were further associated with beneficial changes in gut health and LDL levels. Future work will more comprehensively explore what drives high response rates to rapamycin, and will aim to identify biometric signatures that can be used to predict clinical effectiveness and inform personalized treatment strategies.
As our previous investigation on the bioavailability of rapamycin suggests no significant differences between men and women, further investigation in to mediators of sex specific effects of rapamycin are warranted to elucidate what role factors such as differences in hormone signaling, growth factor signaling, mTOR signaling activity, genetic polymorphisms, or other factors meaningfully contribute to the sex-specific effects we observed in this study, and particularly the female-benefit bias we observed for most measures. While the current report details the primary endpoints for the PEARL trial, many PEARL participants continue to take longevity doses of rapamycin, and have consented to share ongoing information. Reports on these longitudinal studies will be released publicly as available, in keeping with our strong conviction that freely permitting combinatory result analyses will allow for better understanding of optimal dosing, safety, changes in aging biomarkers, and overlapping outcomes for this important gerotherapeutic intervention.
Collectively, the PEARL clinical trial is one of the first to provide evidence that low-dose rapamycin may be safely administered for extended periods of time and may counteract several aspects of age-related decline. Further, it represents the first study indicating dose-dependent, sex specific efficacy for rapamycin in improving healthspan metrics in humans. As such, our collective evidence suggests that well beyond merely clinical measures of health improvements, rapamycin may promote essential, comprehensive well-being associated with “adding life to years, not just years to life”.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Statements and Declarations
Competing interests
GH, VL, AN, MM, SM, AI, and SZ are employees and shareholders of AgelessRx. JH has received financial compensation from AgelessRx for their contributions.
Author contributions
Virginia Lee, Andy Nyquist, Anar Isman, and Sajad Zalzala designed and implemented the study. Girish Harinath, Jesper Hagemeier, and Stefanie Morgan performed data analysis. Girish Harinath, Virginia Lee, Andy Nyquist, Mauricio Moel, Stefanie Morgan, Anar Isman, and Sajad Zalzala wrote and edited the manuscript. All work was supervised by Stefanie Morgan, Anar Isman, and Sajad Zalzala. Corresponding author is Stefanie Morgan.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants who took part in this study. Financial support from our generous donors, particularly Vitalik Buterin, Micah Zoltu, Brad Armstrong, and anonymous gifts, administrative support, and article publishing charges were provided by AgelessRx. Clinical trial oversight was conducted by PHAGE corporation. We extend special thanks to Mikhail Blagosklonny, James Watson, Alan Green and Thorne for their participation and support in conducting this trial.
Footnotes
Additional typos noted in figures 1 and S3 have been corrected.
References
