The Interventions Testing Program and Mouse Lifespan Studies

What this program is

The Interventions Testing Program (ITP) is a peer-reviewed program of the National Institute on Aging (NIA) designed to identify agents that extend lifespan and healthspan in mice. Testing is done in a genetically varied mouse stock called UM-HET3 at three sites: the Jackson Laboratory, the University of Michigan and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. [1] Early program reports used genetically varied mice at three independent sites, chosen to avoid results tied to one genotype. [2]

Labels used on this page: preclinical (cells/animals only) for every mouse result, and insufficient evidence where a mouse result has no human trial behind it. Nothing here shows that any agent helps people live longer. See Aging in Mice, Worms and Humans for what transfers.

What the program has found

NIA's program page says that, since the program began, it has identified 15 agents and 2 combinations that significantly increase median lifespan in mice. The list includes acarbose, aspirin, astaxanthin, canagliflozin, captopril, epicatechin, glycine, halofuginone, meclizine, rapamycin, 17-alpha estradiol and the combinations rapamycin with acarbose and rapamycin with metformin. [3] A 2025 review said the program had tested 54 agents in more than 30,000 mice. [4]

Some of these are prescription medicines (rapamycin, acarbose, canagliflozin, metformin). Their approved uses and risks are on their drug information pages, and the table gives no use guidance.

Results that are mixed or change with the analysis

• Metformin. A reanalysis of 2004 to 2022 ITP data with a different statistical test (the Gehan test, more sensitive to deaths earlier in life) found metformin significantly increased survival in males, though the standard test had missed it. [8] So metformin is a mixed result in mice, not a clear yes or no.
• Rapamycin plus acarbose. In males, the combination lived longer than in earlier cohorts given rapamycin alone, suggesting more benefit than either drug alone; in females it did not clearly differ from rapamycin alone. [9]
• Agents that did not repeat. A 2026 report found astaxanthin, meclizine and mitoglitazone, which had been linked to lifespan gains earlier, showed no benefit at different doses or later starting ages, and said single-cohort findings need cautious reading. [10] Another 2026 report found three new agents (epicatechin, halofuginone, mitoglitazone) extended male lifespan only. [11]
• Possible harm to one sex. In one report, canagliflozin started late and an estrogen-related compound each increased male lifespan but reduced female lifespan. [12]

Why sex matters so much

A 2025 review of two decades of ITP results found that most compounds that extended lifespan worked primarily or only in male mice, and that dose and starting age also differed by sex. [4] It argued this suggests aging mechanisms differ by sex. For readers, the lesson is that one average result can hide opposite effects in subgroups.

What these studies cannot tell you

• Mice are not people. Doses are given in the mouse diet, and the program tests lifespan in a laboratory setting. Do not convert them to human amounts.
• Lifespan in mice is not healthspan in people. Human trials of the same agents use disease outcomes or markers, as in Aging Clinical Trials: TAME and Other Human Studies.
• The program is still testing agents, including taurine and urolithin A, so those entries are not results yet. [5]

For a plain-language rule of thumb, read Claim Check: "It Extended Lifespan in Mice, So It Works" and Longevity Research Limitations and Safety.