Digestery
Longevity supplements › Rapamycin and Aging › Studies

Randomized trial · measured the question itself

16-week trials in 1,676 older adults: RTB101 helped in one trial, not the other

Mannick and colleagues · The lancet. Healthy longevity · 2021

Original title: Targeting the biology of ageing with mTOR inhibitors to improve immune function in older adults: phase 2b and phase 3 randomised trials.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Mixed

Phase 2b: RTB101 10 mg lowered lab-confirmed respiratory infections (19% vs 28%; OR 0·601; p=0·02). Phase 3: no drop in symptomatic respiratory illness (26% vs 25%; OR 1·07; p=0·65). The everolimus combination was not significant in the first analysis.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
1,676 people · Adults aged 65 and over, in a phase 2b trial (652 people, higher-risk) and a phase 3 trial (1024 people)
What was tested
RTB101 (an mTOR blocker, not a rapalog) once or twice daily, alone or with everolimus 0.1 mg a day, vs placebo, for 16 weeks over cold and flu season
What it measured
The question itself: aging and age-related decline
Daily amount
20 mg a day
How long
16 weeks
Trial registration
NCT03373903, ACTRN12617000468325, ACTRN12619000628145
Who has a stake
Company stake
Several authors were employees of and held equity in resTORbio, which made RTB101; resTORbio also funded the trials.
Journal
The lancet. Healthy longevity, 2021
Source
PubMed record 33977284. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • ✓Compared with a placebo, a dummy treatment.
  • ✓Large: 1,676 people.
  • •Lasted 16 weeks.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: aging and age-related decline.
  • –Company stake: Several authors were employees of and held equity in resTORbio, which made RTB101; resTORbio also funded the trials.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: aging and age-related decline

    3

    1 benefit, 1 mixed, 1 no difference

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    2

    2 no difference

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    2

    2 benefit

  4. Population studies

    1

    1 no direction

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  6. Animals

    2

    2 benefit

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does rapamycin slow aging in people?”

Not shown in people.

Confidence: very low. Based on 16 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 2 papers on the same step: 1 benefit, 1 no difference. This one found mixed.

  • Quoted in “What we found”: A 6-week mix of two mTOR blockers cut reported infections in 264 older adults; a phase 3 trial of 1024 using one alone found no drop (26% vs 25%).
  • Part of the finding “Infection results in older adults disagree”.
  • Marked as a key paper in the research timeline: Largest trial: phase 3 finds no infection drop.
  • Open item for a person: Mannick 2018 and Mannick 2021 test the same drug program (BEZ235 renamed RTB101); confirm they are separate trials with no shared participants.
  • Open item for a person: Mannick 2021: main drug RTB101 is not rapamycin; only one phase 2b arm added everolimus. Confirm it belongs in this topic.

Other papers on the same step

See all 16 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 1 field after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.