Tier 3 — preclinical

Effects of a Multi-Ingredient Longevity Formulation (DoNotAge®) on Whole Blood NAD+ Levels: A 28-Day Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

Bailey P, DoNotAge.org Research Team
DoNotAge.org, Health Research Organisation — sponsor-published exploratory pilot report 2026 Clinical Trial 2, published on the DoNotAge Routine science hub

Bibliography

Funding
Conducted and published by DoNotAge.org, the manufacturer of the tested product. LifeLab1 (Vilnius, Lithuania) acted solely as an independent laboratory service provider and performed the whole blood NAD+ analyses on coded samples. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrolment, with consent and data-use arrangements permitting DoNotAge.org to publish the resulting coded data.
Competing interests
Verbatim from the report's roles and contributions section: DoNotAge.org "acted as the study sponsor and was responsible for study design and protocol, participant recruitment, eligibility screening, informed consent, randomisation, provision and administration of the supplement and placebo, adherence and safety monitoring, data management, statistical analysis, and preparation of this report." The report describes itself as an exploratory internal pilot. Sample analysis was the one step performed by an independent third party.

Study snapshot

Design28-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group exploratory pilot study, designed with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki in mind.
ModelHealthy adults aged 40–60 years. Recruitment, eligibility screening and enrolment carried out by DoNotAge.org.
Samplen=24 enrolled; n=19 completers (10 treatment, 9 placebo).
InterventionOne DoNotAge® sachet daily or matched placebo for 28 days, with adherence monitored by the sponsor.
Duration28 days, with whole blood sampling at baseline (day 0) and day 28.
EndpointsPrimary: between-group difference in change in whole blood NAD+ from baseline to day 28, complete dataset; Prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding one statistical outlier; Effect size reported as Cohen's d

What the study showed, in plain terms

Where the 60-day trial asked how people felt, this 28-day pilot asked whether something measurable had changed in their blood — and it is the more interesting of the two studies for anyone who distrusts self-reported outcomes.

Twenty-four healthy adults aged 40 to 60 were randomised to the DoNotAge sachet or a matched placebo for 28 days; nineteen completed. Participants collected their own blood at home by finger-prick at baseline and at day 28, and the samples were shipped to LifeLab1 in Vilnius, an independent laboratory that received them identified only by coded test IDs. The lab did not know which samples were which.

Whole blood NAD+ in the treatment group rose from 16.4 to 27.9 µmol/L, an increase of 11.5, against a rise of 3.2 µmol/L on placebo — a between-group difference of 8.3 µmol/L with a Cohen's d of 0.83, which is a moderate-to-large effect.

The statistic that matters most is the one the sponsor reports rather than hides. On the complete dataset the between-group comparison gave p = 0.09 — approaching conventional significance but not reaching it. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding a single statistical outlier did reach significance. Both numbers belong in any honest summary of this study, and the report presents both.

With nineteen completers, a p-value of 0.09 on the full dataset is roughly what an underpowered pilot looks like when a real effect is present — and also what it looks like when one is not. That is precisely why the report calls the result hypothesis-generating and a reasonable basis for designing a larger, appropriately powered and independently reviewed confirmatory study. The right reading is that DoNotAge measured an objective biomarker with a blinded third-party lab, published the unflattering number alongside the flattering one, and said what it would take to settle the question.

Key findings

  • Whole blood NAD+ rose from 16.4 to 27.9 µmol/L in the treatment group over 28 days, an increase of +11.5 µmol/L.
  • The placebo group changed by +3.2 µmol/L over the same period.
  • Between-group difference on the complete dataset was +8.3 µmol/L with Cohen's d = 0.83 and p = 0.09 — approaching but not reaching conventional statistical significance.
  • A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding one statistical outlier reached statistical significance. Both analyses are reported in the source and both should be quoted together.
  • Sample analysis was performed by LifeLab1 (Vilnius, Lithuania) as an independent laboratory service provider, receiving samples identified only by coded test IDs — so the measurement step was blinded and externally performed.
  • 19 of 24 enrolled participants completed (10 treatment, 9 placebo).

What this study can and cannot tell us

The primary analysis on the complete dataset did not reach conventional statistical significance (p = 0.09). The significant result depends on excluding one outlier. A summary that quotes only the outlier-excluded p-value misrepresents the study, and so does one that quotes only p = 0.09 while omitting that the exclusion was prespecified rather than chosen after the fact.

Nineteen completers is a very small sample, and the study is explicitly described by its authors as an exploratory internal pilot whose results are hypothesis-generating.

Whole blood NAD+ was measured from self-collected capillary finger-prick samples shipped to the laboratory. The report identifies this as a source of pre-analytical variability.

Twenty-eight days is a short window, and NAD+ is a biomarker rather than a health outcome. A rise in whole blood NAD+ does not by itself establish more energy, better function, slower ageing or longer life.

The manufacturer designed, ran, analysed and published the study. Independent laboratory analysis on coded samples is a meaningful mitigation for the measurement step, but not for design, conduct or analysis. The report states the case for a larger, appropriately powered and independently reviewed confirmatory study, which is the correct next step.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified

Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, MBBChCritical Care Medicine, Longevity Science & Editorial Direction Dr. Amr Yasser, PhDCardiometabolic, Musculoskeletal, Gut & Bioavailability Dr. Abdulla Mostafa, PhDCellular Senescence, Neurological, Mitochondrial & Brain-Ageing Biology