Targeting Biological Aging to Prevent Disease and Extend Healthspan

Jump To Section

• Aging as Primary Risk Factor
• Intervening in the Aging Process
• Current Research Funding Disparities
• Prevention vs. Treatment Approach
• Future Health Impacts of Aging Research
• Full Transcript

Aging as Primary Risk Factor for Major Diseases

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD, PhD, emphasizes that biological aging underlies most societally relevant disorders in developed countries. He explains that all major killers in the United States, Europe, China, and Korea have age as their greatest risk factor. This includes heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and dementia. Dr. Kaeberlein's research focuses on understanding these fundamental aging processes.

During his discussion with Dr. Anton Titov, MD, Dr. Kaeberlein highlighted how aging biology connects multiple disease pathways. This interconnectedness means that targeting aging could simultaneously impact numerous age-related conditions.

Intervening in the Biological Aging Process

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD, PhD, states that scientists now understand enough about biological aging mechanisms to intervene in the process. Laboratory animal studies have shown significant impacts on health outcomes through aging interventions. While acknowledging differences between animals and humans, Dr. Kaeberlein believes the biological principles translate across species.

Dr. Anton Titov, MD, discussed with Dr. Kaeberlein the potential for these interventions to work in humans. The research suggests that targeting fundamental aging processes could delay multiple age-related diseases simultaneously rather than treating them individually.

Current Research Funding Disparities

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD, PhD, reveals striking disparities in biomedical research funding. The National Institutes of Health allocates only about 0.5% of its budget to understanding biological aging's role in human disease. This amounts to approximately $300 million annually compared to $6 billion spent on cancer research.

Dr. Kaeberlein argues that the 50-year "war on cancer" has not yielded anticipated returns because it focuses on treating disease after onset. He believes this funding imbalance represents a missed opportunity for more effective preventive medicine through aging research.

Prevention Versus Treatment Approach

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD, PhD, advocates for a fundamental shift from sick care to health preservation. He argues that preventing disease by targeting underlying aging biology is more effective than treating conditions after they develop. This approach could simultaneously address cancer, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, kidney disease, and immune senescence.

During his conversation with Dr. Anton Titov, MD, Dr. Kaeberlein emphasized that the biomedical community continues prioritizing treatment over prevention. He believes society should learn from past experiences and redirect resources toward keeping people healthy rather than treating them after they become sick.

Future Health Impacts of Aging Research

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD, PhD, expresses cautious optimism about the potential health benefits of aging research. He suggests that interventions targeting biological aging could increase human healthspan by a decade. This represents a transformative potential for public health and quality of life in older adults.

Dr. Kaeberlein's research, including clinical trials in humans and companion dogs, aims to validate these approaches. He believes this research direction offers the most promising path toward simultaneously addressing multiple age-related diseases and extending healthy years of life.

Full Transcript

Dr. Anton Titov, MD: Professor Kaeberlein, is there any question that I should have asked but didn't ask? Is there anything in your interest that you'd like to share with our viewers?

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD: I think we touched on really the most important points. I would just come back to and emphasize because it's not yet commonly appreciated that it really is biological aging that underlies the vast majority of the societally relevant disorders in developed countries.

If you think about any of the major killers in the United States, Europe, China, Korea, or other parts of the developed world, they all have age as their greatest risk factor. We now know enough about the biological processes that underlie aging that we can intervene in that process.

There's certainly a lot to be learned. I certainly would not suggest that we understand biological aging completely or even close to complete, but we know enough about the mechanisms that we can intervene in that biological aging process and have significant impacts on health outcomes. That's been shown in every laboratory animal where it's been studied.

Now, you can argue that laboratory animals are different from people. That's true. You can argue that these interventions may not work the same way in people, and that's also true, although I think that's a harder case to make if you understand the biology.

But what I don't think you can argue with is that we really should be devoting more resources towards understanding to what extent these interventions that target the biology of aging can have an impact on human health outcomes during aging. As we've already talked about, I think it's cautiously optimistic to say that some of these interventions could increase healthspan in people by a decade. I don't at all think that's outside the realm of reasonable expectation.

The fact is right now that the National Institutes of Health budget puts about one half of 1% of biomedical research spending through the NIH towards this problem. It's about $300 million a year. If you look at what the NIH spends on cancer, even before the recently announced renewal of the Cancer Moonshot by the Biden administration, the NIH spends $6 billion a year on cancer.

I think you can make an argument we've had a war on cancer for 50 years. At that investment level, the payoff has not been as great as we might have anticipated. I firmly believe that's because people have largely focused on trying to cure the disease after people are already sick instead of trying to prevent the disease by targeting the underlying biology of aging.

I think it's a much more promising and impactful approach to keep people healthy and to delay or prevent the onset and progression of not just cancers, but heart disease, diabetes, dementia, kidney disease, immune senescence, and other diseases of aging simultaneously by targeting the biology of aging.

That's just a discussion that those of us in the field need to keep coming back to and keep trying to impress upon people how much more effective and efficient that kind of an approach can be compared to where we still, as a biomedical community, are putting most of our resources. That's in sick care, trying to treat people after they're already sick, which is much harder to do and much less effective than trying to keep people healthy.

We have a good shot at keeping people healthy. I'll stop with that, but I think it's important to continue to make that point.

Dr. Anton Titov, MD: These are very important points. Professor Kaeberlein, thank you very much for this very informative conversation. We touched on a significant number of points on the macro level, the high view, as well as on the molecular and practical level.

We hope to come back to you in the future, especially with the clinical trials you are leading both in humans and in companion dogs. Thank you very much for this conversation, and we're looking forward to continuing this discussion in the future.

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, MD: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.