
Boston scientists join $81m quest to extend human healthspan
Americans are living longer than in generations past, yet those gains have not translated to longer, healthy lives, as
But an unusual competition is aiming to change that with a goal of dramatically extending the number of our healthy years — known as our healthspan.
An $81 million grand prize is up for grabs to the researchers who add two decades to our healthspan by restoring lost muscle mass, cognitive ability and immune function in people ages 50 to 80.
Two Massachusetts teams have made it to the competition's semi-finals, a list that includes 40 teams worldwide, with 19 based in the United States. Now comes the hard part: semifinalists must, in the next year, demonstrate they're ready to test their intervention on people.
Advertisement
'There's the divide from going from the lab to testing in real life, on living, breathing people. It's not just a small bridge that has to be overcome, it's like the Grand Canyon,' said Jamie Justice, a top executive at the
The hurdles in this challenge are considerable.
Americans, on average, spend
Advertisement
The growing gap between life and health spans around the world has fueled a
That interest is reflected in the sheer number of teams that entered the competition — more than 600 across 58 countries — and the diverse array of proposed interventions to reverse the ravages of aging, from methods to bolster the immune system, tamp down inflammation, fire up the body's system of breaking down and reusing old cells, and more. Winners must come up with a drug, a device, a therapy, or a combination of approaches.
A team from Brigham and Women's Hospital, one of the two semifinalists from Massachusetts, aims to use a GLP-1 medication similar to wildly popular weight loss drugs such as Ozempic. A growing number of studies suggest this class of drug can improve multiple age-related conditions linked to obesity such as diabetes and heart disease, and perhaps certain cancers.
'It's been linked now to a reduced risk of Parkinson's disease and dementia, all kinds of outcomes,' said
Adds Dr. Shalender Bhasin, director of the Brigham's Boston Claude Pepper Aging Research Center and the co-lead researcher: GLP-1 drugs are 'an attractive candidate because they have been used in tens of thousands of people now. So we have a good safety record.'
The medications, however, have never been tested for their effect on delaying the onset of a person's first age-related disorder. Federal regulators require medications to target a specific disease to be approved, yet
Advertisement
Part of the XPRIZE challenge requires teams to show by using a biomarker test, such as a blood sample, that their approach actually improves muscle mass, cognitive function, and immune function, in addition to other potential improvements that may be more readily apparent.
The Brigham team plans to tap 300 to 400 participants who are overweight for their trial, which will deliver a low dose of the medication.
The other Massachusetts semifinalist is
Stealth is proposing to use an experimental drug called Elamipretide, a molecule that targets the mitochondria. David A. Brown, the company's senior vice president and team leader for the XPRIZE challenge, said a small trial the company conducted to test the molecule's effectiveness showed it preserved a layer of the retina that's rich with mitochondria in older adults with macular degeneration, an age-related disease that affects vision.
'The fact that the decline in vision is often accompanied by mitochondrial dysfunction, the fact that we saw such encouraging signs in older individuals, just provided further fuel to our fire that this really could be something here to improve the healthspan in older individuals,' Brown said.
David A. Brown, Senior Vice President of Discovery at Stealth BioTherapeutics of Needham. He leads a team of scientists that made the semi-finals in the XPRIZE
Stealth BioTherapeutics
Another small study that involved one injection of Elamipretide in older adults appeared to strengthen
the muscles in their hands, an area that often becomes weaker with age.
Advertisement
'Lots of independent investigators have studied this molecule with probably over 150 peer-reviewed publications,' Brown said.
The company
Each semi-finalist team receives $250,000 to help defray costs for this next round, but XPRIZE administrators acknowledge many will need to secure additional funding, which could be a problem, particularly in the US, where numerous researchers have experienced significant
Semi-finalists need to demonstrate their ability to secure necessary regulatory approvals to conduct a trial, which is often time-consuming. They must also prove their ability to recruit participants.
By 2026, only 10 finalists will remain, each receiving $1 million to move into full-scale human trials. In that round, the trials must include at least 100 participants for one year.
XPRIZE judges will be paying close attention to whether the proposed drug or other type of intervention would be easily accessible to most people.
'The solution might be great, but maybe it's only achievable for one person, either that or it's too risky or too expensive, or any other barriers,' said Justice, the XPRIZE executive vice president. 'The judges want to make sure that any of the therapeutics to get advanced actually have a chance of making public good.'
The competition is slated to conclude in 2030.
But what happens if no team meets that ultimate goal?
That's happened a few times in the XPRIZE'S 30-year history of challenges, including last year for a competition that aimed to ease world hunger and the food industry's strain on climate by requiring researchers to recreate fish and meat alternatives. Judges determined the closest entries hit most of the requirements, including a reasonable taste, but missed recreating an acceptable texture. No prize was awarded.
Advertisement
'Because of the relationships we're building with our sponsors, we don't foresee that,' Justice said. 'But at the same time, it's not going to be a gimme. Even to get to where the judges might say this has merit, the teams really do have to have something they can demonstrate that's an innovation beyond what we have available now.'
Kay Lazar can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


UPI
26 minutes ago
- UPI
CPAP or Zepbound? Patients, doctors debate sleep apnea treatment
Doctors favor treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, machines, researchers are slated to report this week at a meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Adobe stock June 9 (UPI) A clash is brewing between doctors and patients when it comes to treatment for sleep apnea in those with obesity, a new study reports. Doctors favor treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, machines, researchers are slated to report this week at a meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. The machines keep airways open using mild air pressure provided through a mask patients wear while sleeping. But patients would rather treat their sleep apnea with tirzepatide (Zepbound), a GLP-1 weight-loss drug, researchers found. "The results highlight a need for real-world comparative effectiveness data of CPAP versus tirzepatide, and a potential mismatch between patient and provider preferences when managing comorbid obesity and obstructive sleep apnea," lead researcher Ahmed Khalaf said in a news release. He's a sleep technician in the pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine division at University of California-San Diego. Nearly 30 million adults in the United States have sleep apnea, a disease in which the upper airway collapses during sleep, causing people to wake repeatedly. CPAP has been considered the gold standard for treating sleep apnea, but some patients find the machines too bulky and noisy. About 50% of people prescribed CPAP either can't use it often enough to matter or find it too bothersome, according to Harvard Medical School. Common problems include mask discomfort, dry mouth, breathing that feels out of sync and noise from the machine. Late last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Zepbound as the first drug to treat people with obesity and sleep apnea. At the time, the sleep medicine society hailed the approval as "a positive development for patients and clinicians, who now have another treatment option for this sleep disorder," according to a statement from the academy. But Zepbound is only for people with obesity and sleep apnea, the society noted. Also, Zepbound can reduce the severity of sleep apnea through weight loss, but might not cure the problem. For the new study, researchers analyzed nationwide online survey data from 365 patients, and also spoke to 17 sleep medicine professionals at UCSD. Doctors favored CPAP over Zepbound 53% to 26%, while patients favored Zepbound over CPAP 48% to 35%. Both doctors and patients supported treatment that combined CPAP and Zepbound, but doctors were more enthusiastic about combination therapy, 88% versus 61%. The patients' preferences are likely driven by their own experiences -- 78% said they were either current or former users of CPAP, results show. By comparison, only 23% of patients said they'd ever used Zepbound or Ozempic (semaglutide), the other prominent GLP-1 drug. Principal investigator Dr. Chris Schmickl, an assistant professor of medicine at University of California-San Diego, expressed surprise at the level of disagreement between patients and providers. "Recognizing differing attitudes toward treatment is crucial for developing a realistic and achievable action plan," he said in a news release. "Additional research to understand the underlying reasons behind these preferences will offer valuable insights for providers to guide treatment decisions." Researchers are scheduled to present these findings Wednesday at the society meeting in Seattle. Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal. More information Harvard Medical School has more on managing CPAP problems. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."