Here is the link

Sci-Hub | Management of Drug and Food Interactions with Azole Antifungal Agents in Transplant Recipients. Pharmacotherapy, 30(8), 842–854 | 10.1592/phco.30.8.842

From the abstract: “Concomitant administration of azoles and immunosuppressive agents may cause clinically significant drug interactions resulting in extreme immunosuppression or toxicity.”

Belatedly and thanks to your question, I read the full article and realize that what this means is that azoles used together with rapamycin can drastically – up to tenfold – increase the concentration of the latter. I.e. an effect akin to grapefruit juice, which some of us use to reduce the dose of rapamycin. Table 3 in the article shows that the sirolimus dose should be reduced by 90 % for two of the azole drugs.

From the article:

“Drug interaction–related toxicities occur mainly as a result of increased concentrations of the coadministered drug, such as an immunosuppressant,because of inhibition of its metabolism by the azole”

“Perhaps the most clinically significant drug interactions observed with azoles in the transplant recipient occur with concomitantly administered immunosuppressive agents”.

“Specifically, immunosuppressants that require dosage adjustment and close monitoring for toxicity include the calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine and tacrolimus, and the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, sirolimus. All azole antifungals inhibit the metabolism of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus, which are significantly metabolized by CYP3A4. These immunosuppressants also are substrates and inhibitors of Pglycoprotein. Inhibition of both CYP3A4 and Pglycoprotein leads to increased blood concentrations of the immunosuppressants and contributes to an increased potential for adverse events because of excessive immunosuppression and toxicity (e.g., nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity).

However, as has been shown with CYP3A4 inhibition with certain calcium channel blockers,this interaction could be beneficial by reducing the amount of immunosuppressant required to achieve therapeutic concentrations”.

BUT fenbendazole, like its cousin meant for humans mebendazole, is an anti-helmintic/worm drug not anti-fungal. Related, but with differences. The drug interaction in particular occurs with azoles that are strong inhibitors of CYP3A4 and Pglycoprotein:

RAPAMUNE®Drug Interactions (sirolimus) | Pfizer Medical Information - US

Mebendazole, and presumably Fenbendazole, is classified as a weak inhibitor of CYP3A4. This should mean that the interaction of Fenben with rapamycin should not be so strong.

Still, my lymphocytes dropped like a stone when taking rapa+fenben. Not sure what to make of this.

4 Likes
4 Likes

There’s also Albendazole, vermox for the farm animals. Fenbendazole is safeguard for the farm animals. Not recommended to take Albendazole for humans, though it works in small amounts. Something about making men grow boobs.

The only other things I will say is that Albendazole can cause miscarriage, so don’t use it on pregnant females. Fenbendazole is called safeguard for a reason, considered safe for all. Ivermectin is considered safe, but I never used it on pregnant females either because some people say it was a problem for them. I’m actually talking about goats here.

4 Likes

Does anyone know who “AgingDoc” from Twitter actually is? Is his/her identity a secret? Could it be Peter Attia?

2 Likes

No we don’t know who he is. No - he seems to be a retired doctor (he posts a ton, so it indicates to me he’s likely retired), and seems to be trying rapamycin and testing at some higher doses.

8 Likes

Thanks, this shows there are clear differences between Mebendazole and Fenbendazole, with the O instead of S in the molecular structure. Perhaps F is a stronger inhibitor of CYP3A4 than M? Maybe not since there are generally few side effects reported from human use of F and I can´t find any literature on it.

UpToDate!

The table in this link from 2023 shows the inhibitors of CYP3A4 and others in the CYP family of enzymes. Grapefruit juice as expected is included, in the moderate inhibitor category; two azole antifungals are in the strong inhibitor category.

CYP3A4 is the most prevalent CYP enzyme in the liver and is used by more than 50% of medications on the market (including rapamycin) for their metabolism and elimination from the body. So my take is that grapefruit juice and (at least antifungal) azoles can result in the accumulation of drug concentrations of a majority of all drugs not just of rapamycin.

If I understand this correctly - please correct me if I am wrong! . - one should be cautious in using grapefruit juice to enhance the effects of rapamycin, if other drugs are used as well. A check should be made if they are metabolized by the CYP3A4 enzyme.

1 Like

I have just one comment to make regarding the comparison of the effects of rapamycin on mice to those on humans.
Mice have sometimes been described as “little cancer factories”. They live fast and die young. So, for rapamycin to increase median mouse age by 20-30% I think it highly likely that it would be delaying cancer formation and/or metastasis.
Will this effect also be seen in humans? Probably too early to say. But if I had to guess I’d say “probably”.
Note that this doesn’t suggest NO cancer nor a cure for established cancer. Just possibly a delay in the initiation of cancer.
All just IMO. I could be completely wrong.

7 Likes

Yes, we have to consider the facts and the uncertainty that you mentioned. The fact that it is most often different kinds of neoplasms/cancer that kill mice. While it is most often CVD/metabolic diseases that kill humans.

Yes, the hyperfunction theory is valid, and inhibition of overactive mTOR has a place in a longevity strategy. But it needs to be combined with interventions that target the cardiovascular system, glucose metabolism, DNA repair systems, etc.

One big question that I wrestle with is how to personalize and reduce my interventions to the most relevant ones. To avoid that, otherwise effective interventions cancel out each other’s effects.

5 Likes

Good points. If you look at mice, they grow and develop very rapidly, have high mTOR levels, and are cancer prone. They are able to tolerate a significant degree of tor inhibition from very high rapa doses .This is able to slow down their cancer growth and extend their life.

We have less mTOR and can tolerate less of a relative dose. Our cancer cells grow much more rapidly and we could also greatly delay their growth If we could tolerate the dosing.

Immune surveillance is clearly important in cancer prevention and limiting immunosenescence would be a very big deal. The Mannick study showing an improvement in vaccine response was encouraging, and even more encouraging was that it seemed to actually reduce viral infections . In humans. But this apparently failed in phase 3 human trials.

So if rapamycin doesn’t improve immune surveillance enough to prevent viral infections, why should we believe that it’s sufficient to prevent cancer? Skin cancer maybe, but even nicotinamide has been shown to prevent certain skin cancers. They’re not aggressive.

The argument that MB ‘s diagnosis is only anecdotal is true on a certain level, but as a springboard for further investigation, his cancer was very significant.

Do we have , at this time, anything but mice to suggest that rapamycin prevents any aging related disease such as cancer, CVD, or dementia in humans at any dose?

It’s interesting that it may be particularly effective in certain diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. This is the n=1 situation with Alan Green where he got an almost miraculous recovery from his heart failure symptoms, and this n=1 prompted Many people to start rapamycin. So apparently we cherry pick some in which n=1’s that we value. I’m also at fault here.

It’s clear from reading some other posts that we Want to believe, but that may be more of the problem than the solution.

6 Likes

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade but when I spoke with Dr. Miller about the Mannick trial, he informed me that they went on to do a larger RCT to prove the effects and it was irreproducible. So we shouldn’t put much stock in an irreproducible study and we should probably disregard the Mannick trial.

6 Likes

Yes. Failed in phase 3 human trials. Mice Frequently fail and even initial human trials Often fail. It’s a humbling experience.

Was that with everolimus?

Charles Brenner attacked him on Twitter, not too long ago. People that knew AgingDoc’s identity came to his defense and he backed down. So he is real but anonymous. But he is a good one. At least two anonymous accounts were using Dr. B‘s stroke last year to smear rapamycin. I hope they are not continuing that with the latest news.

3 Likes

I really dislike Brenner.

This is somewhat true - but its more complex than what you are conveying.

In fact Matt Kaeberlein wrote up a backgrounder on exactly what happened in the phase 3 trial with RTB101 / Mannick trial - and I recommend you read it. The FDA changed the endpoints of the trial between the phase 2 and phase 3 trial - which messed things up. I think (and many geroscientists also believe) that it would have passed if the FDA had not done this.
Also, it should be noted that Matt Kaeberlein was an advisor to ResTORbio, so he had an inside view of the clinical trial. This paper was written after the company had been shut down. I think Matt felt that the full circumstances around the failure needed to be explained to people, and I agree.

See attached paper:

RTB101FailureAnalysis_j.tma.2020.01.002.pdf (367.9 KB)

8 Likes

You make a valid point. RTB101 is a dual mTOR inhibitor that showed a decrease in respiratory infections reaching statistical significance in phase 2 human trial. It did the same when combined with everolimus. Why the company decided to proceed with it alone, and not in combination with everolimus, isn’t clear. It’s certainly possible that it would have met the endpoints if they had. But once again, the human data is lacking, and it remains speculative.

My fervent hope is that positive human data will start to emerge regarding the prevention of some disease state with low dose intermittent rapa. We’re still not there.

The trial with the quickest possible results would be Dr. Brad Stanfield’s trial where he wants to measure fitness markers in older patients.

1 Like

Could you share a link to that on Twitter? I apparently missed it.

Yes, this is exactly what happened. In the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, anyone that exhibited 2 or more symptoms of an RTI had to go to the lab to be tested to see whether they really had an RTI. In the phase 3 trial, the FDA changed the endpoint to test whether the subjects thought they had an RTI. I think their the reasoning was that what we really care about is how people feel. It was an older population, and they often feel less than well. Of course, they pulled the plug right before Covid. If the endpoint had been something along the lines of reduced risk of hospitalization and death, I’m confident it would have passed readily.

1 Like

FWIW

Carnac the Magnificent*

*Carnac was a “mystic from the East” who could psychically “divine” unknown answers to unseen questions.

I see…

The trial will produce very little results, if any of scientific value. With a reported cost of $400,000, the one positive result, the trial will be quite profitable to some individuals.

Carnac_the_Magnificent

3 Likes