DoNotAge Clinical Trial 2 asks a narrower biological question than the company’s 60-day well-being study: after 28 days, does the finished 15-ingredient DoNotAge® sachet change whole-blood NAD+ more than a matched placebo?
The treatment group showed a substantially larger mean NAD+ increase, but there is one statistical distinction that must stay front and centre. On the complete dataset, the between-group comparison was p=0.09 and did not meet the conventional p<0.05 threshold. A pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding one statistical outlier produced p<0.01. Both analyses belong in any accurate summary.
DoNotAge Clinical Trial 2 at a glance
| Study feature | Reported detail |
|---|---|
| Design | 28-day randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group pilot |
| Population | Healthy adults aged 40–60 |
| Enrolled | 24 |
| Completed | 19: 10 DoNotAge®, 9 placebo |
| Intervention | One daily sachet of the finished 15-ingredient DoNotAge® formulation |
| Primary measurement | Whole-blood NAD+ at baseline and Day 28 |
| Sampling | Self-collected capillary finger-prick samples |
| Laboratory | LifeLab1, Vilnius, Lithuania, using coded sample IDs |
| Study operations | DoNotAge.org |
| Evidence status | Company-hosted exploratory randomized pilot; no peer-reviewed publication identified as of October 10, 2026 |
What did the NAD+ results show?
| Analysis | Reported result | Statistical interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| DoNotAge® group | 16.4 → 27.9 µmol/L; change +11.5 µmol/L | Substantial within-group increase |
| Placebo group | Change +3.2 µmol/L | Smaller mean increase |
| Complete-dataset between-group comparison | Difference in change +8.3 µmol/L; Cohen’s d=0.83 | p=0.09; not conventionally statistically significant |
| Pre-specified sensitivity analysis | One statistical outlier excluded; Cohen’s d=1.36 | p<0.01; statistically significant |
This is why a one-line claim such as “p<0.01” is incomplete when describing the study. That value belongs to the sensitivity analysis. The primary comparison on the full dataset produced p=0.09.
Why run a sensitivity analysis?
A sensitivity analysis asks whether a study’s conclusion changes under a specified alternative analysis—for example, after excluding a value classified as a statistical outlier. These analyses can be useful, especially in small pilot studies where one extreme value can strongly affect the mean.
Here, the sensitivity result strengthens the signal that the company wants to investigate further. It does not erase the full-dataset result. The scientifically useful reading is that the pilot produced a large numerical between-group difference, but statistical confidence depended materially on how one outlying observation was handled.
Who conducted the study?
The full report is unusually explicit about roles. DoNotAge.org says it acted as the study sponsor and was responsible for study design and protocol, recruitment, eligibility screening, informed consent, randomization, provision and administration of the supplement and placebo, adherence and safety monitoring, data management, statistical analysis and preparation of the report.
LifeLab1 acted as an independent laboratory service provider. It received coded samples and quantified whole-blood NAD+ using its laboratory procedure.
That distinction is important. Independent laboratory measurement reduces one potential source of measurement conflict, but it does not turn the overall trial into an independently designed, independently analysed or independently reported study.
What exactly was tested?
The intervention was the complete DoNotAge® 15-ingredient formulation, which the report describes as containing NMN, trans-resveratrol, SulforaBoost®, SIRT6Activator®, Nitralis®, glycine, TMG, calcium alpha-ketoglutarate, quercetin, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, magnesium, high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, CoQ10 and spermidine.
This is a strength if the question is “does the finished formulation affect whole-blood NAD+?” It is a limitation if the question is “which ingredient caused the change?” Trial 2 cannot isolate NMN, TMG, resveratrol or any other component.
What does a rise in whole-blood NAD+ mean?
The study demonstrates a biomarker signal, not a clinical outcome. Whole-blood NAD+ is biologically relevant to cellular metabolism and NAD-dependent enzymes, but increasing the measured biomarker over 28 days is not the same thing as demonstrating slower ageing, reduced disease risk, improved lifespan or a specific functional benefit.
Those larger claims would require appropriately designed outcome studies rather than inference from the NAD+ measurement alone.
What are the main strengths?
- randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blind design;
- the finished commercial formulation rather than ingredient-only extrapolation;
- an objective blood biomarker rather than a purely subjective outcome;
- coded laboratory samples analysed by an external service provider; and
- transparent reporting of both the complete-dataset and sensitivity analyses in the full study page.
What are the limitations?
Small exploratory sample
Only 19 of 24 enrolled participants completed the study. With 10 treatment and nine placebo completers, a single unusual observation can meaningfully change statistical estimates—as the sensitivity analysis itself demonstrates.
Short duration
Twenty-eight days can detect a short-term biomarker response but cannot establish whether the difference persists over months or years.
Self-collected capillary samples
Participants collected finger-prick samples at home. The company report itself notes that capillary self-collection may introduce pre-analytical variability.
Internal study operation and analysis
DoNotAge designed, ran, analysed and reported the trial. LifeLab1 independently measured the coded samples, but the overall study was not independently operated.
No peer-reviewed journal publication identified
No peer-reviewed journal publication of Trial 2 has been identified as of October 10, 2026. The company report itself describes the study as exploratory and calls for a larger, appropriately powered confirmatory trial.
A note on how DoNotAge presents the result
DoNotAge’s broader Routine science page prominently highlights the p<0.01 result. The full Trial 2 report provides the necessary context: p<0.01 comes from the pre-specified sensitivity analysis after excluding one statistical outlier, while the complete dataset produced p=0.09.
Both results are necessary for an accurate interpretation. The sensitivity analysis is legitimate information; presenting it without the complete-dataset result would give an incomplete picture.
What can we reasonably conclude?
This pilot provides encouraging finished-product evidence that 28 days of DoNotAge® supplementation may increase whole-blood NAD+ relative to placebo. The numerical effect was large, but the primary complete-dataset comparison did not reach conventional statistical significance, and the statistically significant result depended on the pre-specified exclusion of one outlier.
The correct next step is exactly what the company report itself recommends: a larger, adequately powered confirmatory study with independent review and enough participants that the result is not highly sensitive to a single data point.
Primary sources
- DoNotAge Clinical Trial 2 — full company-posted report
- DoNotAge Routine science overview
- DoNotAge research, clinical trials and grants tracker
DoNotAge Clinical Trial 2 FAQ
Was Trial 2 randomized and placebo controlled?
Yes. The company report describes a 28-day randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group pilot.
How many people completed it?
Nineteen of 24 enrolled participants completed the study: 10 in the DoNotAge group and nine in placebo.
How much did NAD+ increase?
The treatment-group mean rose from 16.4 to 27.9 µmol/L, a +11.5 µmol/L change. The placebo group increased by +3.2 µmol/L.
Was the primary result statistically significant?
No under the conventional p<0.05 threshold. The full-dataset between-group comparison was p=0.09. A pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding one statistical outlier was statistically significant at p<0.01.
Was the laboratory independent?
LifeLab1 is described as an independent laboratory service provider that analysed coded samples. DoNotAge conducted the study operations, data management, statistical analysis and report preparation.
Does this prove NMN alone raised NAD+?
No. The intervention contained 15 ingredients. The trial evaluates the finished formulation and cannot isolate the contribution of NMN or any other individual component.
Does higher NAD+ prove slower ageing?
No. Whole-blood NAD+ is a biomarker. This 28-day pilot did not establish lifespan extension, disease prevention or a clinical anti-ageing outcome.
Linked entities and research
DoNotAge Finished-Formulation Trial 2 — Whole Blood NAD+ Pilot
DoNotAge.org recruited/enrolled participants, provided the finished formulation and placebo, and monitored adherence; whole-blood NAD+ analysis is described as performed by LifeLab1 as an independent laboratory service provider.