I’ve just asked him: x.com

1 Like

First tweet says it is highly informative sometimes.

I am sure there is a difference between his dementia and CETPi paper and the PCSK9i and neurodegenerative diseases, just it’s hard to know without being an expert. :man_shrugging:

Or it would take a lot of reading to figure out.

2 Likes

I wanted to update my attempt to try Canagiflozin once again in 2024. Every attempt has resulted in me getting a sever urinary tract infection.

This was my 3rd attempt and once again I had symptoms that were so severe that I had to be prescribed Tamsulosin to be able to urinate at all. One day on the drug and all symptoms were relieved. It is very strange that I have this response to this drug. I have never had these symptoms or adverse effects in my life except from this drug. Needless to say I will not try again. I did want to share my experience with this anti aging drug.

7 Likes

That seems highly unusual. How long were you using the drug (each time) before you developed the UTI? Perhaps acarbose is better for you.

I’ve been using empagliflozin for years and no issues at all, side effect free for me. We’re all different.

3 Likes

2 days each time. It’s almost immediately. Also, I should say that I have never had any issues like this in my life except after taking the drug. I agree it is highly unusual but the fact is I have taken it 3 times and within 2 to 3 days I have developed and urinary tract infection/condition that will not let me urinate and have had to receive medication to reverse it.

I am taking acarbose daily.

2 Likes

Sorry to hear that @Kytexas.

Which dose did you use? Are you diabetic? Is your diet high in carbs? (I’m just curious)

BTW empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have a better safety profile than canagliflozin in general (for instance empagliflozin is less likely to cause genital infections) but for UTIs they all seem identical: Does rapamycin + canagliflozin (or other SGLT2's) synergize well beyond just rapamycin + metformin? - #15 by adssx

3 Likes

New papers on SGLT2i:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and cancer mortality. A real-world registry 2024

Diabetes was present in 97% of the patients.
Combined treatment and its duration reduced the risk of cancer mortality compared with monotherapy with SGLT2i or GLP1ra in the overall population (HR, 0.2216; 95%CI, 0.1106-0.4659; P < .001; and HR, 0.1928; 95%CI, 0.071-0.5219; P = .001, respectively) and in the subgroup of patients with CVD (HR, 0.2879; 95%CI, 0.0878-0.994; P < .049; and HR, 0.1329; 95%CI, 0.024-0.6768; P = .014, respectively).
Initiation of combined therapy (SGLT2i and GLP1ra) vs monotherapy with SGLT2i or GLP1ra was associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality, mostly in diabetic patients with or without CVD.

Incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: A population-based cohort study 2024

In patients with pre-existing DR, the incidence of any DR progression event was significantly higher in the GLP1RA group than the SGLT2i group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.23), primarily because of the increased risk of tractional RD. In patients without DR at baseline, the risks of all ocular outcomes were similar between the GLP1RA and SGLT2i groups.
In patients with diabetes mellitus and established DR, GLP1RA treatment was associated with increased risks of DR progression compared with SGLT2i use.

Dapagliflozin Effects on Cardiac Deformation in Heart Failure and Secondary Clinical Outcome 2024

This study provided randomized data on the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin in nondiabetic patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF in terms of myocardial performance measured by the most sensitive echocardiographic technique, ie, STE. This suggests its usefulness for left ventricular reverse remodeling and better quality of life in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF.

6 Likes

A little food for thought:
Do Sugar Spikes cause Heart Disease? There’s more to this Story.

5 Likes

No I have never been pre or diabetic. I walk around 10 to 12% bf at 63 years old. I was taking it for anti aging effect. I had run out of abarcose and had lots of canagofloxin laying around. I used 100mg one time for 2 days. I will be throwing the rest of mine away. I have stubbornly learned my lesson.

1 Like

Thanks. 100 mg is the lowest dose, so indeed canagliflozin is definitely not for you :frowning:

2 Likes

SGLT2 Inhibitors, but Not GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, Reduce Incidence of Gout in People Living With Type 2 Diabetes Across the Therapeutic Spectrum 2024

SGLT2i with metformin demonstrated a statistically significant decreased incidence of gout at 5 years compared to the metformin control cohort (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.69-0.82], P < 0.0001). Similarly, SGLT2i with insulin demonstrated a statistically significant decreased incidence of gout at 5 years compared to the insulin control cohort (HR 0.83 [95% CI 0.74–0.92], P < 0.0001). Conversely, no significant disparity in gout incidence was observed between the use of GLP-1Ra and matched controls. Subgroup analysis showed an associated reduced incidence of gout with SGLT2i use compared to GLP-1Ra, in groups using metformin (HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.70-0.86], P < 0.0001) or insulin (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.73-0.91)], P < 0.0001).

Impact of SGLT2 inhibition on markers of reverse cardiac remodelling in heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 (poke @59vw @LukeMV)

Pooled data demonstrated SGLT2 inhibition, compared with placebo control, resulted in significant improvements in mean difference of LVEDV [-11.62 ml (95% confidence interval, CI -17.90 to -5.25; z = 3.67, P = 0.0004)], LVEDVi [-6.08 ml (95% CI -9.96 to -2.20; z = 3.07; P = 0.002)], LVESV [-12.47 ml (95% CI -19.12 to -5.82; z = 3.68; P = 0.0002)], LVESVi [-6.02 ml (95% CI -10.34 to -1.70; z = 2.73; P = 0.006)], LVM [-9.77 g (95% CI -17.65 to -1.89; z = 2.43; P = 0.02)], LVMi (-3.52 g [95% CI -7.04 to 0.01; z = 1.96; P = 0.05)] and LVEF [+2.54 mL (95% CI 1.10 to 3.98; z = 3.62; P = 0.0005)]. No significant difference in GLS (n = 327) [+0.42% (95%CI -0.19 to 1.02; P = 0.18)] or LAVi [-3.25 ml (95% CI -8.20 to 1.69; z = 1.29; P = 0.20)] was noted.
This meta-analysis provides additional data and insight into the effects of SGLT2 inhibition on reverse cardiac remodelling in patients with HF. Compared with placebo control, we found that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor produced significant improvements in several markers of reverse cardiac remodelling.

SGLT2 inhibition, blood lipids, and cardiovascular disease: A Mendelian randomization study 2024

SGLT2 inhibition was associated with reduced risk of heart failure (HF) (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.32-0.61]; P = 6.0 × 10-7), atrial fibrillation (AF) (0.47 [0.37-0.61]; P = 1.81 × 10-8), coronary artery disease (CAD) (0.47 [0.30-0.73]; P = 7.46 × 10-4), myocardial infarction (MI) (0.30 [0.15-0.61]; P = 7.44 × 10-4), any stroke (AS) (0.28 [0.18-0.42]; P = 1.14 × 10-9), and ischaemic stroke (IS) (0.27 [0.17-0.44]; P = 1.97 × 10-7).
Our study showed the association of SGLT2 inhibition with the reduced risk of CVDs and blood lipids might mediate this association.

Cardioprotective effects of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor versus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of comparative safety and efficacy 2024

Upon pooling the included articles with sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors versus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, the primary outcome of all-cause death demonstrated an hazard ratio of 0.64 (0.57, 0.70), I 2: 65.54%, p < 0.001, and major adverse cardiovascular events yielded an hazard ratio of 0.76 (0.65, 0.86), I 2: 87.83%, p < 0.001. The secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction with an hazard ratio of 0.84 (0.78, 0.90), I 2: 47.64%, p < 0.001, stroke with an hazard ratio of 0.81 (0.75, 0.87), I 2: 36.78%, p < 0.001, and hospitalization with an hazard ratio of 0.62 (0.53, 0.70), I 2: 83.32%, p < 0.001.

8 Likes

These drugs are truly the gift that keeps on giving!

7 Likes

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of incident type 2 diabetes in people with heart failure without diabetes: An analysis of real-world, cohort data 2024

Treatment with SGLT2is significantly reduced incident T2D {hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63, 0.75]} in patients with HF. The analysis of patients with prediabetes found that SGLT2is further reduced incident T2D [HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.45, 0.80)]. The magnitude of reduction in incident T2D was higher in patients prescribed dapagliflozin [HR 0.47 (95% CI 0.39, 0.56)] versus empagliflozin [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.70, 0.93)].

This is interesting because it’s done in people without diabetes. I don’t know how transferrable these results are to people with heart failure, but if they are, then it’s quite amazing. The potential superiority of dapagliflozin in terms of diabetes prevention is also noteworthy. The case for SGLT2 for people with prediabetes or at high risk of diabetes is getting stronger every day… (Then what about people with perfectly normal sugar levels? :person_shrugging: )

5 Likes

I am non-diabetic and recently started on Jardiance. I must be pissing away a lot of glucose because I’ve lost about seven pounds - that frankly I didn’t want to lose because I wasn’t obese. Now I’m wondering what to eat to sustain weight and retain muscle mass.

2 Likes

You’re just pissing away the sugar. If you eat more fats (think avocados) and protein your weight will rebound.

6 Likes

Nice problem to have though!

2 Likes

Fabulous community, and a wealth of extremely valuable information - very happy to have found this site!

It seems there’s a very heterogenous group of folks here interested in life/health extension, quite diverse in age, background and health status. However, some themes appear to weave through pretty consistenty - in particular the search for interventions, pharma interventions that may assist in health/life extension.

In this spirit, I wonder if it makes sense to pin a post centered around one agent or class of agents to which one may make continuous contributions so that all info is gathered in one place.

As an example, SGLTi agents - most of the info is naturally found regarding individuals who have some kind of morbidity - such as DMT2, HF, obesity, metabolic syndrome etc. - that’s where most of the studies are focused on, given that it’s a medication that was developed to treat a condition and not for longevity purposes.

However, most - or at least many participants here - do not have such morbidities. So, the pinned post that’s gathering info, might focus on results in humans (or mammals) who are not obese/significantly overweight, diabetic, with heart failure. Results which pertain to those who have such conditions may not apply to those who are relatively healthy.

We know that canagliflozin extends lifespan in male mice in the ITP. Great. But we cannot assume that a result that works for someone with HF will have a beneficial effect for someone with a healthy CV system. There are many examples of results that don’t apply. In one of the studies (sorry, don’t remember which, there are so many in this thread!), for example, SGLT2i slightly lowered BP in nearly normotensive individuals - a good effect, seemingly, but strikingly, that reduction in BP didn’t translate into traditional benefits associated with appropriate size decline in stroke numbers. In other words, that positive biomarker change didn’t deliver the expected benefits the way it did when the lowering of BP was achieved with traditional drugs for that purpose. So we must be very careful in making sure that we don’t simply assume benefits from biomarkers, but focus on outcomes IN HEALTHY individuals.

Thus we could try to gather in one post/place all the research which shows a positive result in HEALTHY individuals - there won’t be that many studies, so it shouldn’t be too unwieldy. As to healthy, we can give it a bit of leeway - for example, we can include results for folks who are slightly overweight (say BMI above 25) or prediabetic (I am pre-diabetic, A1c anywhere from 5.6 to 5.9 over the years, and FBG as high as 115 in the morning). Having such info all in one place might make it easier for most of us to make a decision - or make a more informed decision - as to whether it makes sense to start taking such an agent. We could make such a post centered around any given agent - SGLTi, acarbose, rapa etc.

The advantage would be that it’s all in one place and all more relevant to most of us, rather than having threads with 1000+ posts, most of which deal with results in folks with profound morbidities with doubtful/uncertain relevance. Nothing wrong with having such posts, but just throwing in a suggestion of maybe having a central place for each agent, which is more compact and more relevant. Just a thought.

However, I want to emphasize yet again, what an amazing community this is and how much relevant info there is!

FWIW, to introduce my case: I am a white male, 66 years old, healthy, but for some key numbers going in the wrong direction for the past 5 years or so. My lifelong suboptimal lipids - high LDL and ApoB, very high Lp(a), but also high HDL, trigs low/normal. I’m on atorvastatin 10mg/day. My calcium score at age 65 was 0. My blood sugar not good: A1c as high as 5.9, fasting blood glucose 115 in the morning, though no very large excursions beyond 140 post prandial. My blood sugar seems to spike dramatically after exercise. Excellent diet (if I say so myself), Mediterranian, pescatarian, avoid red meat. Regular exercise aerobic & weights.

I’m interested in life/health extension. Right now I’m only on atorvastatin 10mg. Interested in going on bempedoic acid + zetia, acarbose + emagliflozin, rapamycin. My doctor is a nice guy but ultraconservative, so I can’t get anything prescribed beyond the most conservative SOC.

It is with that in mind that I am trying to absorb as much info as I can so I can make a decision as to which agents I should focus on (and then go the India online pharmacy route). I want to get on the train sometime this year and next, as at 66 my time is running out. Thank you for reading, and my apologies for the length!

10 Likes

Hi, and welcome to the forums. Thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree that we have a problem that most of the research on all these medications that appear to be longevity drugs is on “sick” people, not in healthy people so the degree of translation is at best uncertain.

I generally don’t “pin” posts at the top of the forum because the top of the forum would quickly get filled with posts that are not of relevance to many people. But what I do is add the best and most interesting posts to the FAQ on our site so they are relatively easy to find: Rapamycin Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Regarding the specifics of finding research on healthy subjects related to the use of these specific medications (e.g. SGLT2 inhibitors, rapamycin, acarbose, etc.), the issue is actually much worse than you’ve suggested (I think). It isn’t just that “most” of the research is in sick people, its that virtually all the research is in sick people. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single research study on SGLT2 inhibitors in otherwise health individuals (perhaps @adssx can remember if there are any in healthy people). The ITP study showing greatly increased longevity (in male mice) for canagliflozin was a relatively short time ago (a few years) but prior to that I don’t think there was much reason to even consider doing an SGLT2i study in healthy populations of people. And pharma isn’t typically in the business of doing clinical trials of medications in healthy populations (I’m not sure the FDA would even allow these right now).

And, for many of these drugs the issue is even greater; they are off patent (like rapamycin, acarbose, etc.) so there is no financial incentive for anyone to do any significant clinical trials at all, let alone in healthy people. There are some small clinical trials being done by academic centers, or other groups (eg. the PEARL study of rapamycin) that are in healthy populations, but the size of these studies is tiny compared to the typical Phase 3 clinical study, so they are unlikely to “move the needle” in a clinical sense for most physicians who are used to looking at large phase 3 clinical study results.

So, while I’m all for gathering up the healthy human clinical trial results in a single thread for each of the leading compounds, I think most of us have been looking at the 99% of the research that is in sick populations with the hope that we can glean some valuable information from them despite the fact that they are not in the healthy populations as we would prefer.

In the future, if we do find or see a new study based on a healthy population, please flag them as such and as we get them I’ll definitely create a thread for the clinical studies in healthy population thread, and include the link in our FAQ.

8 Likes

Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single research study on SGLT2 inhibitors in otherwise health individuals (perhaps @adssx can remember if there are any in healthy people).

There was an AgelessRx trial on canagliflozin in healthy people earlier this year. It was a small n trial, so I don’t know if they were powered for any reasonable efficacy signal, but I suppose we’ll learn what they found eventually.

3 Likes

It stills reduces BPV, which is as important if not more than mean BP: Effects of dapagliflozin on blood pressure variability in patients with prediabetes and prehypertension without pharmacological treatment: a randomized trial 2020

“we don’t simply assume benefits from biomarkers”: then how do you measure benefits?

All drugs need to go through phase 1 with healthy volunteers. So we have data on healthy volunteers. But these are biomarkers.

SGLT2i are actually an exception, as they’re approved for three conditions: diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. So you can see that they improve glycemia for people with CKD but without diabetes and vice versa.

3 Likes