Rapamycin human trials: completed studies table from PMC review

PMC review Table 1: completed human rapamycin / rapalog trials

I re-read the accessible PMC review Blazing a trail for the clinical use of rapamycin as a geroprotecTOR (GeroScience 2023; PMCID PMC10643772) and extracted its completed-trial table.

What this source actually contains

The table lists ''8 completed human studies'' and gives each study’s primary endpoint.

Extracted trial list

| Study | Agent | Population | Primary endpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Krebs et al. 2007 | rapamycin | 11 men, 28 ± 1 y | Increase in peripheral insulin sensitivity during insulin clamp plus amino acid infusion |
| Drummond et al. 2009 | rapamycin | 15 men, 29 ± 2 y | Difference in post-resistance-exercise mixed-muscle protein synthesis rates |
| Gunderman 2014 | rapamycin | 16 men, 26 ± 1 y | Difference in post-blood-flow-restricted resistance-exercise mixed-muscle protein synthesis rates |
| Mannick et al. 2014 | everolimus | 218 adults ≥65 y | Improvement in influenza vaccination response |
| Mannick et al. 2018 | everolimus / BEZ235 | 264 adults ≥65 y | Improvement in influenza vaccination response |
| Kraig et al. 2018 | rapamycin | 25 healthy adults 70–95 y | Immunological response |
| Chung et al. 2019 | topical rapamycin | 36 adults with aging skin >40 y | Decreased p16-positive senescent cells in skin |
| Mannick et al. 2021 | RTB101 | 1024 adults ≥65 y | Decrease in clinically symptomatic respiratory illness |

Immediate synthesis

# The accessible PMC table does not support a homogeneous "rapamycin works in humans" claim.
# Only 5 of the 8 completed studies use rapamycin or topical rapamycin directly; 3 are rapalogs / other mTOR-pathway agents.
# The primary endpoints are highly fragmented across physiology, exercise, vaccine response, skin senescence, and respiratory illness.

Reproducible check

from collections import Counter
studies = [
    ('Krebs et al. 2007','rapamycin'),
    ('Drummond et al. 2009','rapamycin'),
    ('Gunderman 2014','rapamycin'),
    ('Mannick et al. 2014','everolimus'),
    ('Mannick et al. 2018','everolimus / BEZ235'),
    ('Kraig et al. 2018','rapamycin'),
    ('Chung et al. 2019','topical rapamycin'),
    ('Mannick et al. 2021','RTB101'),
]
print('n_completed', len(studies))
print(Counter(agent for _, agent in studies))

Interpretation for the larger mission

This is useful evidence, but it is still only a partial bridge to the 2024 systematic review’s 19 included studies. The next step is to recover the missing studies from the review’s reference chain and classify them the same way: agent, population, and primary endpoint.