Longevity Drugs for Dogs: Are They Really the Answer?

Why “Longevity” Hits So Deep

“Until one has loved an animal, a part of one’s soul remains unawakened.” — Anatole France

The moment I hear the word longevity, something inside me pauses, because, as someone who truly loves dogs, I understand the silent wish that lives beneath the surface of everyday life. It is the wish for more time. One more summer. One more walk. One more ordinary morning that, in hindsight, was never ordinary. Most of all, just one more hug.

So when news began to circulate about LOY-001, LOY-002, LOY-003 and other drugs designed to extend the lifespan of dogs, it naturally captured my attention in a very deep and emotional way. Longevity speaks directly to love, grief, hope, and the human desire to hold on just a little longer. That is exactly why this conversation needs to be handled gently, honestly, and with care — not with hype or fear, but with clarity and respect for the complexity of life itself.

This brings us to one of the most important—and still unanswered—questions in the entire conversation about longevity drugs for dogs — sometimes framed publicly as an anti-aging drug for dogs or drugs that aim to extend dog lifespan. Even in the most hopeful scientific framing, the expected benefit is usually described as a modest extension of healthy time, not a dramatic stretching of life itself, and at this stage no one can say with certainty how many months or years might truly be gained in real-world dogs.

That uncertainty returns us to a principle I have spoken about for many years with all medication, especially preventive treatments like flea and tick products: the real decision is never abstract or population-based—it is always personal. Does the potential reward truly outweigh the biological risk for this individual dog, when we honestly consider their health, genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet, and quality of life? Until time reveals clearer answers, this quiet balance between hope and caution may be the most truthful place to stand—and perhaps the most loving one too.

What LOY-002 & LOY-003 Are Trying to Do

The new class of longevity drugs being developed in veterinary biotechnology by a company called Loyal, is not intended to make dogs immortal. The stated aim is far more modest. Researchers are attempting to slow certain aspects of biological aging so that dogs might live slightly longer in good health, rather than simply extending frail years at the end of life.

Loyal's first program, LOY-001, is being developed as a veterinarian-administered long-acting injectable intended for large and giant-breed dogs (generally 7 years of age and older and approximately 18 kg / 40 lb and above).

LOY-003 is being explored for use in large and giant-breed dogs (generally 5 years of age and older and approximately 27 kg / 60 lb and above), delivered as a daily oral prescription pill.

A later program, LOY-002, primarily targets senior dogs (10 years of age and older) and is described as supporting senior dogs of nearly every breed size (6.4 kg / 14 lb and above), delivered as a daily oral prescription pill.

Despite these differences in timing and strategy, shared themes across the programs include influencing biological pathways associated with size-related aging, improving aspects of metabolic health, and aiming to delay the onset of age-related disease rather than treating each disease individually once it appears.

How LOY-001, LOY-002, and LOY-003 Differ

Drug Program	Intended Life Stage	Dog Size Focus	Form of Treatment	Primary Scientific Goal
LOY-001	Older adulthood (7+ years)	Large and giant-breed dogs (18 kg / 40 lb and above)	Veterinarian-administered long-acting injectable (investigational)	Influence biological pathways associated with size-related aging and shortened lifespan
LOY-002	Older adult and senior years (10+ years)	Senior dogs of nearly every breed size (6.4 kg / 14 lb and above)	Daily oral prescription pill (investigational)	Slow aspects of biological aging and extend healthy lifespan
LOY-003	Earlier adulthood (5+ years)	Larger dogs (27 kg / 60 lb and above)	Daily oral prescription pill (investigational)	Target aging pathways earlier to delay age-related disease onset

If ultimately approved, these therapies would likely be administered long-term, potentially for the remainder of a dog’s life because the goal is ongoing modification of aging biology. At present, however, all three programs remain investigational, meaning the therapies are still being studied in clinical trials and are not yet fully approved for general use; dosing, long-term safety, and real-world outcomes are still being evaluated.

In theory, this approach belongs to geroscience, which asks whether slowing aging itself could reduce multiple diseases at once. It is an ambitious idea, and ambition in medicine is not inherently wrong. But biology, as we are repeatedly reminded, is rarely simple.

Nature’s Trade-Off Rule

There is a resounding truth that appears again and again across living systems: energy and resources are finite — and every biological priority competes with another. Growth and lifespan. Speed and durability. Immunity and inflammation. Reproduction and repair.

When I first began reading about these new longevity drugs, a saying came immediately to mind — one that has guided me for many years, especially when formulating products for dogs and choosing to keep ingredients in their purest, most natural form. An old phrase sometimes attributed to a Native American chief captures this idea simply:

Evolution does not design perfection; it designs balance. Because of this, whenever we intervene in the core biological pathways that regulate aging, the honest scientific question is not whether something will change, but what else will change alongside it. Nothing in a living body moves in isolation. Every gain carries a cost somewhere else, even if we do not yet know where that cost will appear.

Hope, Caution, and What Lifestyle Already Does

To be fair, there are genuine hopes behind this research. If longevity drugs work as intended and without side-effects, they could extend lifespan modestly, delay certain diseases, and increase comfort in senior dogs. Even small gains in healthy time feel enormous to someone who loves their dog, and compassion is a sincere motivator in medical progress.

“Why aren’t we working on preventing somebody from getting this disease, right? Why is the only amount of work on the end stage — or the majority on the end stage of the disease and not the precursors of the disease that often develop decades before, which is the case for a lot of these age-related diseases?”
— Celine Halioua, CEO of Loyal

It is a powerful question, and in many ways a noble mission. The idea of shifting medicine away from simply managing decline and toward preventing suffering before it begins speaks to the deepest hopes within both science and compassion. At the same time, history reminds us that the direction of medical progress has often been shaped not only by biology, but also by economics, incentives, and what systems are designed to reward. Preventative approaches have not always received the same attention or investment as treatments delivered later in disease. Yet as we will explore later in this article, some of the most profound influences on both lifespan and quality of life may already exist in places far less technological — within nutrition, movement, metabolic health, and the quiet, daily foundations that shape how life unfolds over years rather than moments.

“You can think of metabolism kind of like the engine of a car, right? It takes the fuel and turns it into energy and work and makes things happen. And as the car gets old — or as you or your dog get old — the engine gets gummed up. The oil gets dirty and sticky, the spark plugs get crusty, and it doesn’t work as efficiently. That leads to a decrease in energy and to many of the diseases we’re used to seeing as people and dogs age. So the purpose of the drug is to keep the metabolism running in a healthier, more efficient way, to keep the engine clean, and to delay negative health consequences that come with aging.”
— Dr. Brennan McKenzie, Director of Veterinary Medicine at Loyal

When I first heard Dr. McKenzie describe aging in this way during an interview a few months ago, one thought came to mind immediately: Good nutrition and lifestyle support the body’s natural ability to process waste, maintain organ health, regulate metabolism, and reduce the long-term risk of disease. This has always been the quiet goal of thoughtful feeding, movement, and daily care. In that sense, many people who are deeply invested in nutrition, conditioning, and whole-of-life health are already working to reduce the risk of premature decline in their dogs — often without the need for multi-million-dollar pharmaceutical intervention.

Potential Side Effects and Unanswered Questions

Slowing Aging vs Supporting Repair

This is where the discussion becomes more nuanced than the headline suggests. If part of the intended mechanism is to lower IGF-1 signalling, the goal may be to shift the body toward slower growth and slower aging, yet biology rarely offers a free win.

The same pathways that influence longevity are also deeply involved in repair, resilience, metabolism, immune function, and organ maintenance, meaning the real scientific question is not only what we may gain, but what else may change alongside it over time.

Longevity biology never operates in isolation, even in the absence of clear short-term safety signals it remains both reasonable and scientifically necessary to consider the possible long-term consequences of altering these interconnected systems.

The longevity drugs currently in development for dogs, including LOY-001, LOY-002 and LOY-003, target different aspects of aging biology, and not all candidates share the same primary mechanism.

Some investigational longevity programs, including LOY-001 and LOY-003, are described by their developer as targeting aspects of IGF-1 over-expression, a biological pathway linked in comparative aging research to growth rate, body size, and lifespan variation across species. Importantly, IGF-1 is also deeply involved in tissue repair, metabolic regulation, immune function, and organ maintenance, meaning any sustained modification of this pathway raises broader scientific questions that extend beyond early safety observations.

At present, publicly available study summaries have not highlighted clinically significant adverse effects in the evaluated trial settings. However, because longevity interventions operate across long biological timescales, the full balance of benefits, risks, and trade-offs can only be understood through continued long-term observation, transparent evidence, and real-world follow-up.

Long-Term Growth-Signal Changes and Organs

From a liver perspective, IGF-1 contributes to anabolic metabolism, glucose regulation, lipid handling, and regenerative capacity after injury. Long-term changes in IGF-1–related signalling could theoretically influence protein synthesis, fat metabolism, or how the liver recovers from physiological stress. In the public summaries shared to date, clinically significant adverse effects have not been reported in the evaluated settings. However, meaningful organ-level outcomes in aging organisms often emerge over years rather than months, which is why long-term observation and transparent follow-up matter.

The kidneys represent another organ system closely tied to growth-factor biology. IGF-1 signalling contributes to nephron maintenance, filtration dynamics, and repair following microscopic injury. In theory, chronic pathway reduction could influence how renal tissue responds to cumulative aging stress, potentially affecting resilience rather than producing immediate toxicity. As with the liver, definitive long-term renal outcomes remain unknown because the timescale of kidney aging extends well beyond current trial durations.

Strength, Frailty, and Physical Resilience

Beyond individual organs, some of the most significant theoretical trade-offs relate to whole-body strength and physical robustness. Growth-factor signalling plays a key role in maintaining muscle mass, structural integrity, and recovery after exertion or illness. Reduced signalling, while associated with increased lifespan in some species, may also contribute to sarcopenia (progressive, age-related loss of muscle mass, strength, and quality), frailty, or diminished physiological reserve (the body’s hidden capacity to cope with stress, illness, injury, or aging beyond what is needed for normal day-to-day function) in later life. This reflects one of the central tensions in longevity science: the possibility that mechanisms promoting longer survival may simultaneously reduce aspects of physical resilience.

Immune Function, Healing, and Hidden Metabolic Trade-Offs

The immune system is another domain influenced by growth and metabolic signalling. IGF-1 interacts with immune-cell development, inflammatory balance, and recovery from infection. Theoretically, sustained pathway suppression could influence immune responsiveness or healing capacity, particularly in already aging individuals. Such effects, if present, would likely be subtle and long-term, making them difficult to detect in early safety trials.

Closely related is the question of wound healing and tissue repair. Biological pathways that support longevity often prioritise maintenance and stress resistance over rapid regeneration. In practical terms, this could theoretically manifest as slower healing after injury, surgery, or illness, not as an acute toxic effect but as a gradual shift in regenerative reserve. Whether such changes occur in treated dogs remains unknown and will require careful long-term study.

Why Longevity Science Requires Time, Transparency, and Humility

Finally, longevity interventions may influence broader endocrine and metabolic balance, including glucose regulation, body composition, and energy utilisation. Many lifespan-extending mechanisms across species function by shifting physiology away from growth and toward conservation. While this shift may support longevity, it also raises important questions about quality of life, strength, and functional aging—outcomes that matter as much as lifespan itself.

None of these considerations imply that longevity therapies are unsafe or misguided. Rather, they reflect a fundamental biological principle: intervening in core regulatory pathways can produce both benefits and trade-offs, and the full balance between them can only be understood through transparent, long-term observation in real populations. Early safety findings are encouraging, but lifespan medicine, by definition, unfolds across the longest timelines being studied.

For guardians and veterinarians alike, the most responsible position is therefore neither unquestioning optimism nor reflexive skepticism, but measured scientific humility. The possibility of healthier aging in dogs is real and worthy of careful exploration. At the same time, the deepest consequences of longevity medicine—beneficial or otherwise—will only become visible with time, transparency, and continued study.

The Convenience Question

It is also important to acknowledge something grounded and practical. Many pathways targeted pharmacologically already respond to caloric restriction, nutrition, body conditioning, and exercise. Some effects pursued by drugs may already be supported through daily lifestyle foundations, and if similar amounts of money that fund pharmaceutical drugs went into educating people about the above mentioned, as well as producing healthier food products and conditioning programs, the need for longevity drugs may be reduced.

Preventative joint care, muscle development, and correct movement profoundly shape how dogs age — explored throughout the Four-Part Series on Movement, Impact, and Long-Term Joint Health. Longevity is rarely created late. It accumulates quietly across years.

And this leads to a gentle but uncomfortable thought. The existence of longevity drugs may reflect not only science, but human convenience. Life is busy. Preventative work slips. An injection or tablet feels simple. That does not make the science meaningless — and I could be wrong — but it is fair to ask whether such a drug appeals partly because it asks less of us, not because it offers something profoundly greater.

Another question naturally follows from this. If foundational practices like nutrition, caloric balance, movement, and muscle strength can already influence aging, will the presence of a longevity drug unintentionally lead some people to rely on the drug instead of doing the daily work that truly protects long-term health?

Or, looking at the more hopeful possibility, what if some people chose to do both — combining careful lifestyle foundations with a medical intervention? In theory, that combination could offer greater benefit. Yet even in that optimistic scenario, one truth remains consistent across all of medicine: every drug carries the possibility of side effects, trade-offs, or unintended consequences. So the question is not only whether combining both paths could help, but whether the added biological risk would still be worth it.

In a 2025 interview, Loyal CEO Celine Halioua described a deliberate effort to capture real-world diversity across dogs — including differences in geography, socioeconomic context, breed type, lifestyle, and daily activity — rather than restricting participation to highly controlled or unusually privileged environments. In that sense, the trials aim to reflect the true variability of the average dog, which is scientifically meaningful when studying something as complex as aging.

At the same time, real-world diversity does not necessarily mean that participating dogs are optimised for nutrition, mental stimulation, mobility training, or whole-of-life conditioning. Many are still likely living within the broader modern norm of processed diets, inconsistent exercise, variable lifestyle support, and routine exposure to pharmaceuticals, including parasiticide products.

For this reason, an important unanswered scientific question remains: how would longevity outcomes compare in dogs already receiving comprehensively optimised foundational care, including fresh nutrition, structured movement, cognitive engagement, and metabolic conditioning?

If foundational natural care were shown to produce comparable outcomes, the conversation around pharmacological longevity could become far more complex — raising legitimate scientific questions about necessity, value, and whether some appeal may ultimately rest in convenience rather than true biological advantage.

The Biggest Unknown: Which Dogs Are Actually Suitable?

The question that may matter most: which dogs should receive it — and how certain can we be?

Beneath all the excitement sits a scientific challenge that is rarely discussed in public conversations: determining which individual dogs are truly suitable candidates for a longevity drug.

Current clinical trials and proposed use guidelines rely on broad eligibility criteria such as age, breed size and body weight. These criteria make sense for running large, controlled studies. But scientifically, they are population-level filters, not individual biological certainty.

Aging is not uniform. Two dogs of the same age, breed size and body weight can have vastly different metabolic health, genetics, disease risk, and resilience. Even within trials, the goal is to compare average lifespan and quality-of-life outcomes between treated and placebo groups to determine whether a statistical benefit exists.

And this reveals the deeper uncertainty:

A drug can be beneficial on average while still being unnecessary, ineffective, or even harmful for specific individuals.

Preventive medicines are especially sensitive to this problem. Safety expectations are extremely high precisely because these treatments are given to animals that are not yet severely ill.

So the real-world questions quietly emerge:

• How precisely can we identify which dogs will benefit meaningfully?
• How many might receive it without measurable gain?
• Could some experience subtle long-term harm that only appears years later?

These are not accusations. They are simply normal scientific uncertainties that accompany any preventive therapy aimed at aging itself — one of the most complex biological processes known.

Based on publicly discussed regulatory progress, the canine longevity-drug programs LOY-001, LOY-002, and LOY-003 are being developed within the U.S. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine’s expanded conditional approval pathway—a framework that may allow conditional veterinary use once full safety data, manufacturing quality evidence, and a reasonable expectation of effectiveness are demonstrated, while longer-term studies continue in parallel. This conditional period can extend for up to five years, after which true clinical benefit must be confirmed for full approval, or the therapy must be withdrawn.

Within this pathway, LOY-002—the program most closely associated with potential near-term availability—has progressed through early safety and effectiveness milestones and is now in late-stage clinical evaluation, with manufacturing approval still required before any possible market release. Alongside it, LOY-003 and LOY-001 continue advancing under the same regulatory vision, reflecting a coordinated effort to understand aging biology across multiple life stages, rather than focusing only on the final years of life.

If development continues smoothly, publicly discussed timelines suggest the first of these therapies—most notably LOY-002—could appear within the next few years rather than the distant future. Yet even at this advanced moment, all remain investigational medicines, and their true effects on lifespan, long-term safety, and real-world quality of life can only be revealed through time, continued study, and transparent evidence.

Even in the most hopeful scientific framing, the expected benefit of LOY-002 is described as a modest extension of healthy time, not a dramatic stretching of life itself, and current development has involved approximately 1,300 dogs in clinical study programs rather than limitless real-world experience. At this stage, no one can say with certainty how many months or years any individual dog might truly gain—returning us to a principle that applies to any long-term preventive medication: the decision is never abstract or population-based; it is always deeply personal.

Does the potential reward truly outweigh the biological risk for this individual dog when we consider their health, genetics, environment, pharmaceutical use, lifestyle, diet, and quality of life? Until time reveals clearer answers, this balance between hope and caution may be the most truthful—and most loving—place to stand.

A similar uncertainty surrounds LOY-003 and the earlier-stage developmental program LOY-001, both of which extend the same scientific question into different moments of a dog’s life. Like LOY-002, their promise is framed not as immortality but as a potential, measured shift in healthy lifespan emerging from limited trial populations rather than decades of lived outcomes. And so the same quiet question remains: when we weigh possible benefit against lifelong biological trade-offs, and look at the individual dog rather than the statistical average, will the reward truly outweigh the risk?

Whenever medicine moves from population averages to individual lives, the possibility of getting it wrong can never be reduced to zero.

Ingredients: A Cornerstone of Transparency and Informed Decision-Making

One detail still missing from public discussion is the precise composition of these investigational longevity drugs. Loyal has not publicly disclosed the exact chemical identities, specific drug names, or full active pharmaceutical ingredients involved in its programs — a common practice in pharmaceutical development while products move through the U.S. FDA approval pathway to protect intellectual property and trade secrets. Loyal has indicated that the active ingredients should become publicly known as development progresses.

Even so, this raises a deeper principle: transparency matters. For many people, myself included, understanding every ingredient a dog receives — active and inactive alike — is fundamental to informed, confident decision-making. I would never give my own dogs anything without being able to read the full ingredient list, especially for something that may come as an injectable lasting months inside their bodies, or a tablet given every single day. I hope that in time, Loyal will change their position and disclose the full list of ingredients.

My stance is not about suspicion, but responsibility. When an animal’s wellbeing depends entirely on our choices, clarity becomes an act of love. And if openness around ingredients grows alongside these therapies, trust will almost certainly grow with it.

The Funding Moment and the Missing Questions

Recently, I saw a post from the Ms Halioua announcing major funding success ($100M). From a business perspective, that achievement is admirable. Building biotech is extraordinarily hard. Good on her — she has achieved what critics said was impossible.

What caught my attention, though, was the overwhelming encouragement from the pharma and biotech community — and the relative absence of difficult questions about long-term consequences or ethical trade-offs.

That absence proves nothing. But it invited a balanced reflection.

Cloning Dogs, Grief, and the Circle of Life

During my second trip to China in 2019, I interviewed the CEO of Sinogene, China's first biotech company to provide pet cloning services, primarily for grieving families. In 2022, Sinogene went on to clone the world's first arctic wolf with strategic cooperation with Beijing Wildlife.

As you can imagine, seeing cloned puppies with my own eyes immediately stirred a flood of ethical questions. I found myself thinking of Augustine and Faith, and quietly asking: would I do it?

Even if a clone looked identical, it would not be them. Because we come from the earth, and we return to the earth. That is the circle of life.

I thought about the pain of losing them while I was asking him questions. Now that they have passed, I feel that pain. But cloning would not honour life. It would arguably reduce grief.

So my answer was no. And that memory returns now.

None of this means research should stop. But there is a difference between helping life and out-negotiating nature. The quiet question is not just can we, but should we.

Time Is the Only True Safety Study

Medical history reminds us: time is the only true safety study.

There is also a very practical concern that many guardians feel, and it is not only about the longevity drugs but about how they might eventually be used. Medical history — both human and veterinary — shows a familiar pattern in which a promising therapy appears, early safety looks reassuring, adoption becomes widespread, and long-term consequences reveal themselves slowly over time. While voluntary recalls do occur, they represent only a small minority of situations, and it is not often that any company has the humility to step back entirely from something it has built once it becomes clear that harm may occur. Discontinuing a drug all together or even making costly changes can become difficult decisions when vast financial investment has already occurred.

And even then, the boundary between what constitutes harm and what is considered acceptable risk is rarely simple, because every pharmaceutical intervention carries side effects of some kind. This does not mean harm is inevitable, but it reminds us that time is the only true safety study in biology. Thoughtful caution is not anti-science. In many ways, it is part of good science.

The Measure That Matters Most

I am not here to tell you what to think. Only to share information, ask deeper questions, and hold space for love and truth together.

Some will see progress. Others will feel unease. Both come from love.

Perhaps the most important question is not how long a dog lives, but how fully they are allowed to live while they are here.

Because the goal was never to defeat time. It was to fill time with meaning.

And that is something no drug can manufacture, but every loving guardian already gives. “Hug your dogs, people.”

Quick Summary

• Canine longevity drugs like LOY-002 aim to slow aspects of biological aging—not create immortality.
• Related investigational programs LOY-001 and LOY-003 are also being explored, reflecting a broader attempt to study aging biology across multiple life stages.
• Potential upside is typically framed as a modest extension of healthy time and a possible delay in age-related disease, not a dramatic stretching of life itself.
• Because these are preventive-style medicines, the central question is always benefit vs biological trade-offs for the individual dog.
• Some targeted pathways can also be influenced by caloric balance, nutrition, and movement/conditioning—foundations that remain powerful and often overlooked.
• Preventative joint care, muscle development, and good biomechanics still matter deeply for how dogs age, regardless of future drug options.
• Even with encouraging early progress, these therapies remain investigational, and their true long-term safety and real-world impact can only be proven with time and transparent evidence.
• Some programs—especially LOY-002—are discussed as being in late-stage development, but they are not yet widely available.
• In the end, quality of life, daily care, and love remain the most meaningful measures of the time we get.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do anti-aging drugs for dogs really exist?

Researchers are currently developing investigational therapies sometimes described as an anti-aging drug for dogs or a drug to extend dog lifespan. These medicines aim to slow aspects of biological aging rather than create immortality, and they remain under scientific and regulatory evaluation.

What is LOY-002?

LOY-002 is an investigational veterinary drug designed to slow biological aging in dogs and potentially extend healthy lifespan.

What are LOY-001 and LOY-003?

LOY-001 and LOY-003 are related investigational longevity-drug programs being developed to explore aging biology at different life stages, reflecting a broader scientific effort to understand whether healthier aging can be influenced across the lifespan rather than only in late life.

What does “investigational” mean?

In veterinary medicine, an investigational therapy is one that is still being studied in clinical trials and has not yet received full regulatory approval for general use. This means researchers are still evaluating its safety, effectiveness, appropriate dosing, and long-term outcomes in real-world populations. Until that process is complete, availability remains limited and conclusions about true lifespan impact or risk–benefit balance must be considered provisional rather than final.

Is LOY-002 available now?

No. It is still in late-stage regulatory evaluation and has not yet reached general market release.

Does LOY-002 make dogs live forever?

No. The goal is modest extension of healthy years, not immortality.

Is LOY-002 proven to work?

Not yet. Clinical trials are still determining real-world lifespan and health outcomes.

Are there risks or side effects?

As with any long-term medication, potential trade-offs and side effects remain possible and require time to fully understand.

Which dogs might receive a longevity drug?

Current research focuses on older dogs, but predicting individual benefit remains scientifically uncertain.

Can lifestyle changes influence longevity too?

Yes. Nutrition, body condition, movement, and muscle strength already play major roles in how dogs age.

Should guardians rely only on future longevity drugs?

No. Foundational daily care remains the most reliable way to support long-term health and comfort.

Scientific References

• The Companion Dog as a Model for the Longevity Dividend (PubMed PMID: 26729759)
• A randomized controlled trial to establish effects of short-term rapamycin treatment in 24 middle-aged companion dogs (PubMed PMID: 28374166)
• Extending healthy life span--from yeast to humans (PubMed PMID: 20395504)
• Caloric restriction (PubMed PMID: 21840335)
• One step closer to a dog longevity drug: What LOY-002's TAS milestone means (Loyal public regulatory update on LOY-002)
• Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs (PubMed PMID: 11991408)
• Rottweilers under primary veterinary care in the UK: demography, mortality and disorders (PubMed PMID: 29201384)
• An open science study of ageing in companion dogs (PubMed PMID: 35110758)
• A biological age based on common clinical markers predicts health trajectory and mortality risk in dogs (PubMed PMID: 39349737)
• Connecting serum IGF-1, body size, and age in the domestic dog (PubMed PMID: 20865338)

Important note

Public information and evolving details: This article is based on publicly available statements, public updates, and other accessible materials regarding investigational canine longevity programs. Because these therapies are still in clinical trials and progressing through regulatory review, program details (including eligibility criteria, dosing form, dosing frequency, safety findings, timelines, and availability) may change as additional data emerges and as official guidance is updated. This is general educational commentary and not veterinary or medical advice. For decisions about any individual dog, consult a licensed veterinarian and refer to the most current official updates from relevant regulators and the program sponsor.