Author: Dick Benson

Many people assume that some memory decline is an inevitable consequence of getting older. But a select group of older adults, known as SuperAgers, reach their 80s and 90s while retaining memory performance as good as or better than people in their 50s and 60s.

Nearly two decades of research has identified unique biological, brain, and psychosocial characteristics associated with SuperAgers, but an important question has remained: Could SuperAgers simply be people who inherited very little genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease?

“If that were true, identifying SuperAgers might be as simple as performing genetic testing rather than the comprehensive cognitive evaluations we currently use,” said Emily Rogalski, PhD, director of the Healthy Aging & Alzheimer’s Research Care (HAARC) Center at the University of Chicago, who established the definition of SuperAging in 2008 and has been studying this remarkable population ever since.

A new study aimed to directly test that hypothesis using the largest prospectively enrolled SuperAging cohorts and the most up-to-date Alzheimer’s genetic risk measures available. The findings, published in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, show that exceptional memory aging cannot be explained simply by low inherited Alzheimer’s disease risk, reinforcing the importance of studying protective pathways directly.

A team led by researchers at the HAARC Center and the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), part of City of Hope, studied a diverse cohort from across five regional sites in the U.S. and Canada comprised of 142 SuperAgers and 89 cognitively average peers. Using DNA extracted from blood samples, the researchers examined the APOE gene, the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, and calculated three polygenic risk scores, which tally thousands of genetic variants associated with inherited Alzheimer’s disease risk.

The results provided a clear answer to the central question: SuperAgers could not be distinguished from cognitively average older adults based on either APOE or Alzheimer’s polygenic risk scores. In other words, having exceptional memory in one’s 80s is not simply explained by having exceptionally low inherited Alzheimer’s disease risk.

“The findings reinforce that preserving cognitive health involves more than reducing Alzheimer’s disease risk alone,” said co-first author Ana Capuano, PhD, director of the biostatistics core at the HAARC Center. “Understanding the biological, behavioral, and social factors that promote exceptional cognitive aging may ultimately complement traditional disease-focused approaches and help inform more personalized strategies for supporting brain health across the lifespan.”

Even when examining rare genetic protective variants previously associated with resilience against Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers found no increased prevalence among SuperAgers.

“This study establishes an important boundary for Alzheimer’s disease genetics,” said Matt Huentelman, PhD, professor and director in TGen’s Early Detection and Prevention Division and co-senior author with Rogalski. “Common genetic risk factors captured by APOE and current polygenic risk scores do not explain the SuperAging phenotype. Future work should move beyond disease-risk models and investigate the broader biological, environmental, and experiential pathways that contribute to exceptional cognitive aging.”

This future work will entail a multidisciplinary approach that combines detailed cognitive assessments with brain imaging, blood biomarkers, genetics, neuropathology, immune profiling, sleep and activity monitoring, social and environmental measures, and other indicators of whole-person health.

“For many years, aging research has focused on identifying factors that increase the risk of disease,” added co-first author Ignazio S. Piras, PhD, associate professor in TGen’s Early Detection and Prevention Division. “Those studies are critically important, but the absence of risk factors does not necessarily mean someone possesses the protective factors that support exceptional brain health. This study helps demonstrate that distinction.”

Ultimately, the results reinforce a hopeful message: memory decline is not inevitable, and some people can — and do — maintain remarkably youthful memory well into their 80s and beyond. The search for how and why continues with the help of SuperAger research participants: extraordinary partners in discovery who have generously contributed their time over many years to help scientists understand what successful cognitive aging looks like and pointing toward new pathways to resilience.

To learn more about SuperAging research, visit https://superagingresearch.com/

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging (U19AG073153), the McKnight Brain Research Foundation through the SuperAging Research Initiative, and the Simons Foundation, along with the many participants, families, and collaborating investigators across five research sites.

“SuperAging is not the inverse of common variant Alzheimer’s risk: evidence across genetic ancestries” was published in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy in July 2026. Co-authors are Ignazio Stefano Piras, Ana Werneck Capuano, Amanda Cook Maher, Rhiana Schafer, Anna Bonfitto, Serena Song, Francis Taguinod, Felicia Goldstein, Angela Roberts, Ozioma Okonkwo, Adam Martersteck, The SuperAging Research Initiative, Matt J. Huentelman and Emily Rogalski.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel has voted to ease restrictions on several controversial peptide drugs promoted online for anti-aging, muscle growth and healing despite limited evidence of their safety or effectiveness in humans, marking a key regulatory step toward allowing them to be prescribed through specialized pharmacies.

America’s Peptide Boom Just Cleared a Major Regulatory Hurdle

The panel narrowly recommended allowing compounding pharmacies to produce peptides including BPC-157, TB-500 and KPV. While the FDA is not required to adopt the recommendation, it often follows the advice of its advisory committees.

The vote aligns with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s efforts to loosen restrictions on peptides after the Biden administration tightened oversight of the industry. Kennedy has previously described himself as a “big fan” of the compounds and pledged to ease limits on their use.

Peptides are short chains of amino acids that occur naturally in the body and are used in approved medicines for conditions such as diabetes. In recent years, however, injectable peptides marketed for unproven uses have gained popularity through social media, particularly after the rise of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. Influencers have promoted combinations, or “stacks,” claiming they improve recovery, skin health, muscle growth and slow aging, despite limited clinical evidence.

Health experts have warned against their use, citing a lack of human clinical trials and uncertainty over long-term safety. Dr. Gevork Tatarian, a board-certified Florida cosmetic surgeon and co-owner of Elevé Cosmetic Surgery, says the FDA review could force physicians to adopt stricter standards around prescribing the compounds.

“This review raises the bar on how peptides are sourced, prescribed, and monitored. It pushes practices to prioritize well-studied, compliant therapies instead of relying on grey-market or ‘experimental’ blends,” Tatarian told Impact Newswire.

BPC-157, derived from a stomach protein, is marketed online as a treatment for gut health, tissue repair and inflammation and has been studied in animals for muscle healing. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency says that because the compound has not been extensively studied in humans, “no-one knows if there is a safe dose, or if there is any way to use this compound safely to treat specific medical conditions.” The World Anti-Doping Agency prohibits its use in sport.

KPV is similarly promoted online for gut health, tissue repair, including acne treatment, and immune regulation, although it is not approved for human use.

Both compounds occupy a regulatory gray area. They can be bought online but have not been approved by the FDA for human use and are therefore not subject to the manufacturing standards required for approved pharmaceuticals.

Tatarian said consumers often mistakenly assume peptides are inherently safe because some occur naturally in the body. “Some peptides act more like powerful biologic drugs and can influence hormones, immune function, and metabolism,” he said.

He also warned patients against purchasing peptides from unregulated suppliers. “If a complication occurs, the patient may have little legal protection, and clinicians can be put in a difficult position if they are perceived to have endorsed or tolerated these sources,” he said.

Panel member Elizabeth Rebello, a pharmacist and anesthesiologist, said she voted against recommending BPC-157 “because of the lack of efficacy data” and “safety concerns.” Members who supported the recommendation cited “the greater good” and “medical freedom.”

The panel, which includes several members affiliated with clinics and businesses that sell peptides, is expected to continue deliberations on Friday. BPC-157 and KPV are among seven peptides under review for removal of restrictions that currently prevent compounding pharmacies from producing them after the FDA concluded during the Biden administration that they did not meet safety requirements.