On this page
- The trials that do exist
- Frailty is not ageing
- What “biological age” actually measures
- The measurement problem this creates
- Ageing is not a disease with a mechanism to fix
- What is actually known about living longer
- Cell quality declines with age too
- Risks
- Questions worth asking
- Frequently asked questions
- Requesting a medical evaluation
“Biological age” is the headline product of the longevity clinic sector, and the promise attached to it is that treatment can turn the number down. Stem cell therapy for anti-ageing has real randomised trials behind it — in frailty, measuring walking speed and physical function. Age reversal has never been an endpoint in any of them.
The trials that do exist
A phase II randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial studied allogeneic cells in ageing frailty — Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Ameliorate Aging Frailty: A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.
A phase I/II randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study examined cord tissue-derived cells in the same population — Safety and efficacy of umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of patients with aging frailty: a phase I/II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
A dose-escalation trial followed — Randomized phase 2b dose-escalation trial of stem cell therapy with laromestrocel for aging frailty.
These are properly conducted trials. They are also about frailty, which is a specific clinical syndrome, and that distinction is the whole of this page.
Frailty is not ageing
Frailty is a defined syndrome: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slow walking speed and low activity, usually in people over seventy.
It is measured with grip strength, walking speed and physical performance batteries. It predicts falls, hospital admission and death, and it is a legitimate treatment target.
Many people in their eighties are not frail. Some people in their sixties are. It is a clinical state, not a stage of life, and treating it is not the same as treating ageing.
A healthy fifty-year-old is not in the population these trials recruited and cannot infer anything from their results.
What “biological age” actually measures
Several different things, depending on the test. Epigenetic clocks read chemical marks on DNA. Other panels combine blood markers, grip strength, lung function and blood pressure into a single number.
Different clocks give different answers for the same person, and the correlation between them is imperfect. That alone should give pause before treating any one of them as a target.
They also move with ordinary things: a period of illness, poor sleep, heavy drinking, weight change or acute inflammation shifts the reading.
A number that moves with last month’s sleep and differs between tests is not a measure of how long you will live. It is a research instrument being sold as a diagnosis.
The measurement problem this creates
Someone tested, treated, and retested some weeks later will frequently show a lower biological age, because the reading is noisy and because the trip itself involved rest, better food and less alcohol.
Regression to the mean does the rest: people who test unusually badly tend to test better next time regardless of what happened in between.
This produces a business model with a built-in success metric, where the test sold alongside the treatment reliably reports that the treatment worked.
No published trial has used biological age as a primary endpoint, which means nobody has tested whether treatment moves it in a controlled comparison.
Ageing is not a disease with a mechanism to fix
It involves many processes at once: accumulated DNA damage, shortening telomeres, senescent cells, mitochondrial decline, protein misfolding, immune changes and chronic inflammation.
Each is studied seriously, and several are targets for genuine research. None has produced a treatment that extends healthy human lifespan in a controlled trial.
Infused mesenchymal cells do not address most of them. The proposed effect is anti-inflammatory signalling, which is one part of one process.
Telomeres and longevity covers the strand most often invoked in marketing.
What is actually known about living longer
Not smoking, physical activity, maintaining muscle mass, sleep, blood pressure control, moderate alcohol intake and social connection all have substantial supporting evidence.
Resistance training in particular addresses the sarcopenia that underlies frailty, which is the very syndrome the trials above are targeting.
Treating hearing loss, keeping vaccinations current, and attending cancer screening save more years than anything sold as longevity medicine.
None of it is exciting, all of it is available at home, and collectively it outperforms every infusion on the market.
Cell quality declines with age too
Work in knee osteoarthritis found outcomes correlated with the stemness and senescence of the cells used — Clinical outcomes of autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell combined with high tibial osteotomy for knee osteoarthritis are correlated with stem cell stemness and senescence.
That cuts directly against autologous treatment for ageing. An older person’s own cells are themselves older, and the research suggests that matters for results.
It is one reason allogeneic cells from donated cord tissue are used in the frailty trials — umbilical cord MSC therapy.
Anyone selling a patient’s own cells as a treatment for their ageing should be asked about this directly.
Risks
Infusion reactions and transient fever, in a population that is well and has nothing to gain medically from taking that risk.
Harvest risks where autologous cells are used, meaning liposuction or marrow aspiration for a non-medical indication.
Financial cost, which in this sector is substantial and recurring, since the offer is usually a programme rather than a single treatment.
Documented adverse events covers what has been reported in the unregulated sector.
Questions worth asking
- Which trial measured biological age as an outcome?
- Am I frail by clinical criteria, or am I well?
- Which clock is being used, and what do other clocks say about me?
- What would count as failure, and would I be told?
What the evidence levels mean explains this grading, and about this site covers why a page exists for a treatment this site does not endorse.
Frequently asked questions
Are there real anti-ageing trials?
There are real randomised trials in ageing frailty, a defined clinical syndrome measured by walking speed and grip strength. That is not the same as ageing.
Has any trial measured biological age?
No published trial has used it as a primary endpoint, so nobody has tested whether treatment moves it in a controlled comparison.
My biological age dropped after treatment. What does that show?
These readings are noisy and move with sleep, alcohol, illness and weight. People who test unusually badly tend to test better next time regardless.
Do different tests agree?
Not closely. Different epigenetic clocks give different answers for the same person, which is a problem for treating any one of them as a target.
Should I use my own cells?
Research in knee osteoarthritis found outcomes correlated with cell senescence, which cuts against using older cells from an older person.
What actually extends healthy life?
Not smoking, physical activity, muscle mass, sleep, blood pressure control and social connection. Unglamorous, evidenced, and available at home.
Requesting a medical evaluation
Nothing on this page establishes whether any treatment is appropriate for you. That needs your history, your imaging and your current medications read by a clinician. If you would like that review, send your records and we will tell you honestly whether there is anything worth discussing — including when the answer is no.
This page is general information, not medical advice, and does not create a doctor–patient relationship. Regenerative treatments discussed here are in most cases investigational. Discuss any treatment with a clinician who knows your history.