A masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating safety and the effect on cardiac function of low-dose rapamycin in 17 healthy client-owned dogs

Barnett BG, Kaeberlein M, Creevy KE · 2023 · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · Atlas ID BAR2023

What this study shows

In 17 healthy pet dogs, 6 months of low-dose rapamycin (0.025 mg/kg, three times a week) caused no clinically significant adverse events. Echocardiography, however, showed NO statistically significant difference from placebo at 6 or 12 months, so the heart benefit hinted at in the earlier 10-week trial (URF2017) was not reproduced. Owners did report perceived positive changes in behavior or health more often in the rapamycin group (26.8% vs 8.1% of bi-weekly surveys), but that is a subjective, owner-reported outcome. A small safety-focused trial, not designed to test lifespan.

Abstract

ShowHide

Geroscience studies of low-dose rapamycin in laboratory species have identified numerous benefits, including reversing age-related cardiac dysfunction. Cardiovascular benefits have been observed in dogs with 10 weeks of treatment, raising questions about possible benefits and adverse effects of long-term use of low-dose rapamycin. The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of 6 months of low-dose rapamycin on echocardiographic indices of cardiac function in healthy dogs and to document the occurrence of adverse events.

Read the full abstract on PubMed →

At a glance

Evidence type	A Animal model Marked A because it is an animal intervention or observation study measuring an organismal outcome (model: Companion dogs (client-owned, RCT, n=17, ages 6-10 y)); the code names the system studied -- animal work can be rigorous and still not be human data.
Study type	4 - Animal Study
Model system	Companion dogs (client-owned, RCT, n=17, ages 6-10 y)
Journal	Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Year	2023
Peer reviewed	Yes
Record last updated	2026-10-01
Source	DOI 10.3389/fvets.2023.1168711 · PMID 37275618 · Free full text (PMC10233048)

Extracted findings

These fields were extracted from the paper with AI assistance and have not been checked against the source. Read them as a pointer into the paper, not as curated claims; where they disagree with the curated summary above, the curated summary stands.

Intervention	Rapamycin 0.025 mg/kg three times per week for 6 months vs placebo
Target	mTOR
Model	Companion dogs (client-owned RCT, n=17)
Effect	Well tolerated for 6 months, but no measurable change in heart function versus placebo (small trial)

In the Atlas

Cite this paper

ShowHide

Barnett, B. G., Kaeberlein, M., & Creevy, K. E. (2023). A masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating safety and the effect on cardiac function of low-dose rapamycin in 17 healthy client-owned dogs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1168711

@article{BAR2023,
  author       = {Barnett, B. G. and Kaeberlein, M. and Creevy, K. E.},
  title        = {{A masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating safety and the effect on cardiac function of low-dose rapamycin in 17 healthy client-owned dogs}},
  journal      = {Frontiers in Veterinary Science},
  year         = {2023},
  doi          = {10.3389/fvets.2023.1168711},
  note         = {PMID: 37275618},
}

Cite this Atlas record

The record is the Atlas's own work — the evidence label, the extracted findings and the links. It is cited as part of the dataset, not as the paper.

Barton, O. (2026). Oliver's mTOR Atlas (record BAR2023) [Data set]. https://mtor-atlas.org/study/BAR2023/ · Dataset DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22059963

@misc{atlas_BAR2023,
  author       = {Barton, Oliver},
  title        = {{Oliver's mTOR Atlas}, record BAR2023},
  howpublished = {Data set},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://mtor-atlas.org/study/BAR2023/},
  doi          = {10.5281/zenodo.22059963}
}

Was this page useful?