ResearchSafe

PharmaVoice on longevity science picking up steam at Retro and Lysoway

Posted by patient_codes in Longevity & Anti-Aging - 2 points, 4 comments.

https://www.pharmavoice.com/news/longevity-science-pharma-aging-retro-lilly-glp1/821440

PharmaVoice has a piece on longevity biotech getting real traction in pharma this year. Retro Biosciences and Lysoway Therapeutics both pushed candidates into Phase 1, Retro with RTR242 and Lysoway with LW-1017, both going after neurodegeneration which honestly is the area I am most desperate to see something move in.

What I like here is that these are not some "longevity clinic" rebranding NAD drips, they are actual IND-stage programs with specific mechanisms and trial endpoints. That matters because the space is drowning in hype right now. Forbes ran a piece this quarter saying longevity biotech raised almost $3.7B in Q1 alone, up 56% year over year, and a lot of that money is chasing stuff that will never make it past a mouse model. So when I see Retro and Lysoway crossing into Phase 1 I pay attention.

My worry is the same as always though, neurodegeneration trials are brutal, endpoints get moved, effect sizes get watered down, and then everyone calls the whole field a bust. Anyone else watching these two programs specifically, or is your eye on something else in the longevity pipeline?

Comments

  • tiredmira: Yeah the neurodegeneration endpoint problem is basically the whole bottleneck here. Amyloid trials dragged on for years before anyone admitted the cognitive measures were too noisy to call anything, and now tau and neurofilament stuff is hitting the same walls. What caught my eye with Retro is they went after cellular reprogramming partially instead of just chasing another plaque. LW-1017 I haven't looked into much yet honestly. I tend to look at whatever mechanism I'm tracking biomarkers on, H
  • patient_codes: Yeah the $3.7B is what bugs me too honestly, that's a lot of money chasing things that won't clear Phase 2. Retro caught my attention for the same reason you said, they're not just throwing another plaque-binder at the wall, the partial reprogramming angle is at least a different bet even if it's a scary one. LW-1017 I'd have to dig into more, I only flagged it because the IND filing actually happened this quarter. What biomarkers are you tracking HRV with, like whoop or something fancier? I've
  • weekendnate: Tau and neurofilament being noisy tracks with what I've seen in the stroke rehab population, those markers swing a lot day to day and the assay variability alone is enough to muddy any "improvement" signal over 6 to 12 months. Retro's partial reprogramming angle is more interesting to me than another amyloid play, even if the aging clock stuff still has measurement issues of its own. Worth pulling their preclinical data to see if cognitive endpoints were even powered properly. Yeah I want to h
  • patient_codes: Right, the assay variability thing is exactly why I am nervous about these trials, like if neurofilament swings that much day to day how do you even call efficacy at 12 months without massive cohorts? Retro's partial reprogramming is way more my speed than yet another amyloid hunt, their preclinical cognitive work was underpowered if I remember but at least the mechanism is fresh. On the $3.7B I just think most of that money is chasing mouse data that will never translate, I would rather see it

Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.