... and help keep the quality of life.  Isn't that something we all want for our four footed friends?

It seems as if there's a drug (rapamycin) and a project the Dog Longevity Project to investigate  doing just that.

Not as far retched as I expected, when I first saw CNN's story about Momo, rapamycin has bee tested in mice, used in humans with tissue rejection and age related problems (you listening Amy?) and, in tests, has added 2 to 5 years to a normal life span in dogs.

An interesting study. I am curious if it would cost participants any money to be involved or if they cover it all. Though they probably require you to travel to them for the treatment.

They speak about participating vets which makes me assume that there are vets across the country with whom we could interact. They specifically say that the dogs and owner are unpaid volunteers - though that doesn't eliminate the possibility of compensation for travel, etc.

I've send off a message asking for clarification.

I will be following this, let us know if you hear more Al

I looked into a bit, and right now at least, it's way too early to be calling it the miracle drug the media seems intent on doing. They've done some testing on lab animals, but for dogs, it sounded like they had a couple anecdotes that were far from scientific. The studies on lab animals showed that it did seem to have regenerative qualities for the heart, but it when used in humans (and lab animals) it's been known to cause cancer, diabetes, infections, and other health complications.
So far it's only been scientifically studied on 16 dogs.

Here's the warnings on a couple human medications that contain Rapamycin:
http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=139&section=MedGuide
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022334s016lbl.pdf

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say it's snake oil, just that it may not be the cure-all life extending miracle drug that some people think it is. For certain conditions for dogs of certain ages, it may help restore their health and vitality, but for others it may just be an expensive placebo or worse.

The guy that's doing research on the effects of the drug and working on publishing a paper on the subject isn't exactly excited to see new articles popping up about it either. He's concerned that the anecdotes are far from scientific, are not being properly monitored, may simply be a placebo effect, and may lead people to seek out medicine for their pets that could cause more harm than good.

I will of course be interested to see the final results of the research, but I'm not holding my breath.

Dave, at the risk of being considered argumentative the concentration that has been used for humans - and which your two articles cite - is much stronger that that which has been used in the University of Washington study.

If you'd like this MIT review helps explain some of the studies that are being done.

Is it possible that Rapamycin will fall into the same pit that Resvertrol did - entirely, but if there are no tests - and at the moment these are initial tests - then we'll never have a change at living longer better.

Interesting either way following.

Al, in no way were you being argumentative. Free exchange of ideas and what not.

I'm just naturally skeptical about medical advancements. I work indirectly with the medical field and have many friends/relatives that work directly in the medical field. I can't fathom the number of miracle cures/medications that pop up on a regular basis, some that even make it into general use before it being discovered what sorts of harm they can actually cause, or how they don't even deliver on their initial claims.

Things that work great for mice have no effect on humans. Things that work great for 1 disease/illness end up causing way worse things years down the road. High doses of a medication may work, but causes side effects, while a safe enough dose to avoid or reduce side effects is virtually worthless and has no effect.

There are a couple of red flags for this one in particular though. The MIT study you linked specifically said that scientists don't even understand why this medication works, how it works, or in why it seems to both help and hurt the immune system at the same time. They also admitted that they don't even understand why dogs age at different rates.

Don't get me wrong, I have high hopes. Had such a miracle cure existed a year or so ago when we had to put down one of our dogs, I would have loved to try it. I love my pets just as everyone else here does. But as I said, I'm skeptical. Worst part of this entire thing is that it will likely be 4 years before we even have the preliminary results from a very limited study. With positive results, you could be looking at another round of testing lasting another 4 years or more. Even if this is the miracle cure for dogs, it could be 10 years before it makes it to the market.

Although, if another of my pets takes an unusual, untreatable turn for the worse, ordering one of these human equivalent drugs from Mexico and rolling the dice will certainly be on the table for consideration.

My primary concern with this medication is carcinogenicity - I suspect increased cell turnover provides at least part of the benefit and increased cell turnover can lead to rampant cell growth...

But, I haven't read any of the stuff and at the moment, not going to. Taking care of 3 grandchildren while their parents enjoy the sunny Carribbean. And....I'm sick. Not a happy camper