David Ewing Duncan's blog

Longevity Pill Tested in Humans

Sirtris Pharmaceuticals announces that its souped-up version of resveratrol has passed early tests in humans.

David Ewing Duncan 07/19/2007

  • 14 Comments

What if I told you there was a pill that slows aging and allows you to live a healthy life to age 100?

Such a pill may exist right now. It's being tested in people in very early-stage human clinical trials. Today, the company making the pill, Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, announced its findings from preclinical testing in cells and animals, and also from tests conducted on 85 male volunteers this summer.

The verdict: so far, the pill works, although it will be years before we know how well it works, or if it can actually extend the life span of people in the same way that it has bumped up the life span of mice.

Speaking today at the Annual Metabolic Diseases Drug Discovery and Development World Summit in San Diego, Sirtris's senior director of biology, Jill Milne, announced that the drug, SRT501, reduces glucose and improves insulin sensitivity in animal and in vitro studies of the drug's effect on type 2 diabetes. In people, the drug was tested for dose, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics--that is, how well the drug was absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and removed from the body.

Phase 1b trials are already under way to test safety and pharmacokinetics on patients with type 2 diabetes. Later-phase trials will test to see if the drug actually works in diabetics.

SRT501 is a proprietary chemical developed by Sirtris that's based on the naturally occurring resveratrol that company cofounder David Sinclair of Harvard University has been studying for its effects in extending life span in a number of organisms, including yeast, flies, and mice. Last year, Sinclair created a sensation when he published a paper in Nature detailing how mice on a high-fat diet that were fed large doses of resveratrol were as healthy as mice on a regular diet. Resveratrol also sharply extended life span, produced positive changes in insulin sensitivity and other diabetes-preventing mechanisms, and increased energy production in cells. The mice were given very high doses of resveratrol--22 milligrams per kilogram of weight. In comparison, a liter of red wine delivers 1.5 to 3 milligrams. To match the results in the mice, a 150-pound human would need to drink 750 to 1,500 bottles of wine a day.

Sinclair says that SRT501 is a thousand times more potent than naturally occurring resveratrol, which gives it the same punch as the resveratrol in all those bottles of wine.

Sinclair believes that resveratrol activates a gene called SIRT-1, which is associated with the regulation of life span in several animals. This contention is disputed by some critics: they argue that the mechanism by which resveratrol works is still poorly understood.

Because humans are so long-lived, SRT501 can't be easily tested for longevity in humans--nor does the Food and Drug Administration recognize "increased life span" as an allowable indication for an approved drug. This is why Sirtris is testing SRT501 for diseases related to aging, such as type 2 diabetes. However, should the drug be approved for diabetes, it will undoubtedly be used to extend life span by many people without diabetes.

The drug still has years of testing to go and faces many hurdles. It may not work. But if it does, the consequences will be profound. For instance, it will mean that more people will be alive on the earth. Age 90 will be the new 70, and 70 the new 50, with profound impacts on everything from social security to retirement age. It may also mean fewer people with diabetes, Alzheimer's, and some cancers.

Can one pill do and cause all that? Critics have long said no--that such a compound will not work in humans. But they also said it wouldn't work in mice--until it did work. (At least in fat mice.)

So let's sip some pinot noir and wait for more results from Sirtris. After all, we're not getting any younger.

Look for my profile of longevity researcher David Sinclair in the September/October issue of Technology Review.

Sirtris press release

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 1666 Days Ago
  • 07/19/2007

Pascal's wager

Well, if this compound does not have deleterious effects, then we can have a 'Pascal's wager' type of attitude towards it. Take the pill, and if it doesn't work you have nothing to lose. If it works, you have a lot to gain.

Reply

who_knows

3 Comments

  • 1665 Days Ago
  • 07/20/2007

Re: Pascal's wager

Just like the original Pascal this argument is a fallacy. Millions of people waste their time - that's what they lose! Not too different from paying for useless pills, really...

The price for each individual is small, the potential gain huge. But once you consider the odds, the expected outcome is negative in either case. 

Reply

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 1665 Days Ago
  • 07/20/2007

Re: Pascal's wager

How much time do you lose by popping a pill??

Besides, this resveratrol story is not a complete shot in the dark. It is based on good science, although the results are partial.

I'd say take the wager. My 2 cents.

Reply

rajnz

25 Comments

  • 1664 Days Ago
  • 07/21/2007

Re: Pascal's wager

No not a shot in the dark at all. It is hypothesised that some substances, including resvertrol, "mimic" caloric retsriction which extends lifespans across a wide variety of animals. One possible mechanism is by the control of insulin which is closely related to ageing.

However this chemical SRT501, which is supposed to be some sort of "super resveratrol", is not a natural substance and has yet to be proven to be free from side effects. So one has to wait and see.

There are other ways which are already proven to control insulin, such as exercise and a balanced diet. For the moment it might be wiser to stick with that.

Reply

dmm

270 Comments

  • 1662 Days Ago
  • 07/23/2007

Live to 100?

In "Gulliver's Travels", there is a race of people that never die.  Unfortunately, they still age.  The result is not pretty.  Was Swift prescient?  Personally, I'm only in my 40s and already my joints are aching, my senses are degrading, my memory is off, my reflexes are slowing, etc.  So, my first question is, what do they mean by a HEALTHY 100?  There are LOTS of things that gradually go wrong with us as we age, and I find it hard to believe that they are all diabetes-related.

My second point is related.  Suppose people live to be 100 but have all kinds of problems that prevent them from being productive members of society.  Can we afford that?  I think we can't; we're already struggling to afford people living to be 80.  Alternatively, suppose future octagenarians are like present-day 60-year-olds.  Will people be willing to raise the retirement age to 85?  That means people will typically have 60-year careers, in an age when technology is changing rapidly and employers have no loyalty.  Either most people will find themselves totally outdated and unemployable for the last 20 years of their working life, or else we'll need a national program to retrain 55-year-olds for the second half of their careers.

Another concern is our Constitution.  Terms for elected officials, as well as lifelong appointments for judges, were based upon an assumption of an average lifespan of 60 (or thereabouts).  I think we would really have to change many of these things. 

Similarly, universities might need to scrap the tenure system.  In the old days, a mistaken appointment meant having a bad professor for 30 years.  Now, that is up to 40 years.  What happens if that gets to 60 years?

Reply

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 1660 Days Ago
  • 07/25/2007

Re: Live to 100?

1) What Jonathan Swift described in Gulliver is not possible from a biological point of view. The aesthetic part of aging is more or less tied or even the direct result of the functional aging. Aging is the degradation of the body’s abilities to function, and to withstand changes from the environment. If you look at it from this point, you can see that one cannot age forever while staying healthy forever. An aging body will reach a breaking point, and it’s all downhill from there.

2) We already have this problem, and some people say that it is one of the main causes why the US healthcare system is so expensive and so inefficient. This may be caused by religious fanaticism that champions the “sanctity of life” to absurd levels. We go to the most advanced technological (= financial) extremes for keeping hopelessly sick people alive for mere days or weeks (sometime for years). Sometime we even keep them alive against their own wishes. Meanwhile young people are missing on critical basic healthcare, because the system is prohibitively expensive. This system looks totally lopsided and illogical to me.

3) It is interesting how you come to opposite conclusions on elected official’s terms vs. academic tenure terms, when in fact these are the same problem.

I oppose lengthening political terms. Politicians are already immensely stupid and arrogant with the terms we have now. Imagine what would happen if we lengthen their terms – imagine Bush&Cheney serving 10 year terms. Chilling! 

As for the academics, we should have no tenure system to begin with. In fact, there are universities with no tenure system already.

Reply

dmm

270 Comments

  • 1660 Days Ago
  • 07/25/2007

Re: Live to 100?

1. Yes, I realize Gulliver's Travels is fiction.  :-)  My point is that body parts actually wear out.  Aging is not a single process that can be eliminated with a single cure.  Currently, we have become pretty good at keeping people's hearts and other major organ systems working and the result is that we're seeing more age-related dementia.  Personally, I'd rather go a little sooner with a nice quick heart attack than to gradually fade away with Alzheimer's disease.  Even if my mind were sound, I'm not sure I'd like to live to 150 if (for example) my joints were so damaged that I could barely move.  I suppose we could get artificial implants, but how many would we need?  Joints, eyes, ears, hair, teeth, heart, ... it could start getting creepy, not to mention the costs.

But supposing we could overcome all that, and give people truly healthy bodies and brains for 100 or 200 years.  It SOUNDS good, but would it really BE good?  Would a human MIND hold up well for that long?  Let's be honest: what percentage of people are so sweet and wonderful by the age of 75 that you wish they could be around for another 75?  And how many geniuses continue to contribute at the genius level past 40?

I'm not arguing that long lifespans would definitely be bad.  I'm just saying they might be bad, even at the personal level.  The next two points deal with just a couple of the (potentially negative) societal implications.

2.  Surprise!  Here's one pro-lifer who agrees with you.  I am against euthanasia, but I don't see how "taking someone off life support" = "giving someone poison."  Yeah, the end result is the same, but if one tries to argue that only the ends are important, not the means, then one is saying, "the ends justify the means."

3. Regardless of how one argues, the point is that if people live to be two (or 3, or 4, or 10) times as old as they did when the Constitution was made, then we should probably re-think some things, such as length of terms, term limits, lifetime appointments, minimum ages, etc.

The reason for my "inconsistency" between Presidential terms and lifetime appointments (like for judges or professors) is that Presidents are already limited to 2 terms of 4 years each.  Thus, the maximum time that a President can serve is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of a typical human lifespan.  On the other hand, lifetime appointments are becoming a larger and larger percentage of a typical human lifespan.

I can understand your frustration with Bush being President for 8 years.  Can you understand my frustration with Ted Kennedy being a senator for 44 years, and Robert Byrd being one for 48 years?  (And Strom Thurmond, who I liked but you probably didn't, served for 48 years.)  I don't think our Founding Fathers anticipated this.  Imagine if people could live to be 120 or 200!

Reply

Advertisement

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 1659 Days Ago
  • 07/26/2007

Re: Live to 100?

1 - You're right. We'll soon be able to fix most of the simple problems in an aging body: bones, muscles, blood vessels and heart. But we are going to hit a wall of complexity with the brain. The result may be a bunch of zombies: a lot of 90-year olds with healthy bodies and decaying minds.

2 - I was not talking about euthanasia. I was just advocating for letting people die when their time is up. Keeping an 85-old with metastasized cancer alive for 1-2 more months is a futile, wasteful and arguably a cruel practice.

3 - I disagree. Just because we live longer, we should not make political terms longer. Additionally, we should also limit the term numbers for other political offices as well. No one should hold the same office for half a century. Talk about entrenched interests! Kennedy, Thurmond and others like them are aberrations, and a clear example of how screwed up the system is.

Reply

Guest (gs)

  • 1659 Days Ago
  • 07/26/2007

Re: Live to 100?

It's an understandable concern that a drug might extend our lifespans without fixing "everything".  Resveratrol as well as other compounds appear to be acting at very fundamental levels, however.  Altered levels of expression have been seen in thousands of genes as a result of taking one CR mimetic, for example.  I think the "90 is the new 70" scenario is a much more likely outcome than living to 150 with crippling diseases.  Given the pace of discovery in biomedicine, anything that gets you a few more years may bring access to heretofore unimagined curative and regenerative technologies.  We have already seen the worlds of many people changed by the introduction of a single new drug, such as anti-TNF mabs.  I expect many more such developments in the future, and if resveratrol can help me get there, so much the better.

Reply

Guest (mdwriter)

  • 947 Days Ago
  • 07/07/2009

Re: Live to 100?

Like many, I want to live to be 100 and more. Even without resveratrol, 1 million people are expected to make it to 100 by 2050. So society needs to begin to address the kinds of questions people are bringing up here: how do we manage limited healthcare dollars, limited future global water and maybe food supplies, what happens if world population really explodes, and on and on. My latest international thriller Rabbit in the Moon set in China, 1989 deals with some of these questions: http://www.shlian.com

Reply

Guest (Worldpeace)

  • 1655 Days Ago
  • 07/30/2007

Funny

Funny how you're even publishing this story considering the Luddite position of your editor concerning life-extension, the work of Aubrey de Grey, his SENS initiative, etc.

I'm happy to see it here.

Worldpeace,
Benjamin

Reply

jpontin

70 Comments

  • 1654 Days Ago
  • 07/31/2007

Re: Funny

I--and by extension, all of Technology Review--remain highly skeptical of Aubrey de Grey and his SENS proposals. I am extremely interested in therapies that will treat the diseases of old age and extend healthy life. I have both commissioned many stories on the subject, and written on the field myself. I think the conflation of Aubrey de Grey with the larger field of anti-aging science is a gross disservice to the science. Incidentally, I am not a luddite. I do think transhumanism is science fiction, but that's not the same thing.

Jason Pontin
Editor in Chief
Technology Review

Reply

ChrisMohrSr

1 Comment

  • 1408 Days Ago
  • 04/02/2008

Longevity Testing

I would like to be involved in longevity testing.

Reply

spaceinvader01

1 Comment

  • 822 Days Ago
  • 11/09/2009

Longgevity and the Rules of Nature

The rules of Nature are simple.
1). you are born
2). you Grow up
3). you reproduce
4). you die

If this Pill Can work and Keep Humans Reproducing say to the age of 70 who wants kids at that age?
that is if women actually continued to ovulate at that age. men on the other hand can even at present can possibly father a child at 70 easily. although the child maybe defective?

Anyway though my point is this if we are productive meaning reproductive then nature has a reason for us to exist. When that stops so should our lives according to nature. Now if we are going to live these long lives it would be nice if we would just fade and wither like a flower over night. Even in the movie Logans run when you hit age 30 and your watch has turned black you go to carnival and are evaporated, While you are still viable and before you suffer the procsess of aging and dementia. Maybe we could have a system that if you haven't been able to preform as a human then in say 60 days or so given for illness. your watch turns black. and your doctor directs you to step into the distinigration room and evaporate.? Still fairly healthy.

Reply

Bio

Getting real about the life sciences, medicine and biological discovery.

Subscribe to the David Ewing Duncan's blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement