Tier 2 — strong

Effects of intermittent senolytic therapy on bone metabolism in postmenopausal women: a phase 2 randomized controlled trial

Joshua N Farr, Elizabeth J Atkinson, Sara J Achenbach, Tammie L Volkman, Amanda J Tweed, Stephanie J Vos, Ming Ruan, Jad Sfeir, Matthew T Drake, Dominik Saul, Madison L Doolittle, Irina Bancos, Kai Yu, Tamara Tchkonia, Nathan K LeBrasseur, James L Kirkland, David G Monroe, Sundeep Khosla
Nature medicine 2024 30(9):2605-2612

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 38956196
PubMed Central
PMC11705617
Funding
Indexed grant support: R01 DK128552 — NIDDK NIH HHS — United States; R37 AG013925 — NIA NIH HHS — United States; R01 AG076515 — NIA NIH HHS — United States; R33 AG61456 — U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Aging (U.S. National Institute on Aging); P01 AG062413 — NIA NIH HHS — United States; R01 AG055529 — NIA NIH HHS — United States; R01 AG 062413 — U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Aging (U.S. National Institute on Aging); R21 AG065868 — NIA NIH HHS — United States; R37 AG13925 — U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Aging (U.S. National Institute on Aging); R33 AG061456 — NIA NIH HHS — United States; R01 AG063707 — NIA NIH HHS — United States. The indexed list may not contain the complete funding declaration.
Competing interests
Reported disclosure: Competing interests. N.K.L., T.T. and J.L.K. have a financial interest related to this research, including patents and pending patents covering senolytic drugs and their uses that are held by Mayo Clinic. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and was conducted in compliance with the Mayo Clinic’s conflict of interest policies. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Study snapshot

DesignRandomized controlled phase 2 senolytic trial
ModelHuman intervention research
Sample60 postmenopausal women
InterventionIntermittent dasatinib plus quercetin versus control; dosing details in original methods
Duration20 weeks
EndpointsSenescence-related measurements; Bone or cartilage measures

What the study showed, in plain terms

Published in 2024, this source examined senescence and longevity. Design: Randomized controlled phase 2 senolytic trial. Sample/model: 60 postmenopausal women. The exposure or intervention was Intermittent dasatinib plus quercetin versus control; dosing details in original methods. Follow-up or treatment period: 20 weeks.

The primary bone-resorption endpoint did not improve. Bone-formation changes were transient, and later signals were confined to exploratory high-senescence subgroups.

Prescription-drug combination. Subgroup findings do not overturn the null primary endpoint or establish fracture prevention.

Continue with Quercetin Data Center

For topic-level interpretation, read Is Quercetin a Senolytic? Human Evidence vs Longevity Claims. This is a related guide; the citation panel separately identifies articles that directly cite this paper.

Key findings

  • The primary bone-resorption endpoint did not improve.
  • Bone-formation changes were transient, and later signals were confined to exploratory high-senescence subgroups.
  • The recorded outcome domains were Senescence-related measurements; Bone or cartilage measures.
  • The result applies to the tested exposure: Intermittent dasatinib plus quercetin versus control; dosing details in original methods; 20 weeks.

What this study can and cannot tell us

  • Prescription-drug combination. Subgroup findings do not overturn the null primary endpoint or establish fracture prevention.
  • An individual controlled trial must be interpreted alongside its comparator, sample size, endpoint selection and independent replication. It does not validate a different commercial formulation or a general longevity claim.
  • Source basis: Source check: accessible full text and indexed metadata. Missing method details, funding information or participant denominators are not inferred.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

2 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified