Scientists Are Studying How to Help Dogs Have Longer Lives, in a Bid to Further Our Own
Feeding dogs only once a day is showing health benefits in a large study, scientists report.
The sad eyes. The wagging tail. The frustrated whine. The excited bark. Dogs know how to get their owners to fork over the food more often.
The extra calories dogs get from feeding patterns now used by many Americans may not be good for them from a health and longevity viewpoint. In research from a large study called the Dog Aging Project, canines fed once a day had better scores on cognition tests and lower odds of developing diseases of organs throughout the body: intestinal tract, mouth and teeth, bones and joints, kidneys and bladder, and liver and pancreas.
Fewer than 1 in 10 dog owners fed their furry friends once daily, while nearly three fourths provided two daily meals.
“Most veterinarians have been led to believe that feeding dogs twice a day is optimal, but this is a relatively new idea that has developed over the past few decades with little supportive evidence from a health standpoint,” said Matt Kaeberlein, PhD, Co-Director of the Dog Aging Project, a professor of pathology and Director of the Healthy Aging and Longevity Research Institute at the University of Washington. Kaeberlein studies basic mechanisms of aging to find ways of extending the healthspan, the number of years of life lived free of disease. It’s not enough to extend the lifespan unless declines in biological function and risks of age-related diseases are also studied, he believes, hence the healthspan.
The Dog Aging Project is studying tens of thousands of dogs living with their owners in the real world, not a biology laboratory. The feeding study is the first of several reports now coming from the project based on owners’ annual reports of demographics, physical activity, environment, dog behavior, diet, medications and supplements, and health status. It has been posted on bioRxiv as it goes through peer review.
“All available evidence suggests that most biological mechanisms of aging in dogs will be conserved in humans. It just happens much faster in dogs.”
“The Dog Aging Project is one of the most exciting in the longevity space,” said David A. Sinclair, professor in the Department of Genetics and co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School. “Not only is it important to help our companions live longer and healthier, but because they are like people and share the same environment and many of the lifestyles as their owners, they are the perfect model for human longevity interventions.”
The epigenetic clock — and specifically changes in gene expression resulting from methylation of cytosine and guanine in the DNA — provides the critical connection between aging in dogs and people. “All available evidence suggests that most biological mechanisms of aging in dogs will be conserved in humans,” Kaeberlein said. “It just happens much faster in dogs.” These methylation changes, called the “methylomes,” have been associated with rates of aging in dogs, humans, and also mice.
In a 2020 study young dogs matched with young adults and aged dogs matched with older adults showed the greatest similarities in methylomes. In the Cell Systems report, Tina Wang of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote that the methylome “can be used to quantitatively translate the age-related physiology experienced by one organism (i.e., a model species like dog) to the age at which physiology in a second organism is most similar (i.e., a second model or humans).” This allows rates of aging in one species to be mapped onto aging in another species, providing “a compelling tool in the quest to understand aging and identify interventions for maximizing healthy lifespan.”
In the Dog Aging Project study, 8% of 24,238 owners fed their dogs once daily, the same as the percentage of owners serving three daily meals. Twice-daily feedings were most common (73%), and just over 1 in 10 owners (11%) “free fed” their dogs by just filling up the bowl whenever it was empty — most likely Rover’s favorite option.
“The notion of breakfast, lunch, and dinner for people in the United States is not based on large studies that compared three meals a day to two meals a day, or to four, “ said Kate E. Creevy, chief veterinary officer with the Dog Aging Project and associate professor at Texas A&M University. “It’s more about what we are accustomed to. Similarly, there are not large population studies comparing outcomes of dogs fed once, twice, or three times a day.”
“We do not recommend that people change their dogs’ diets based on this report,” Creevy emphasized. “It’s important to understand the difference between research that finds associations versus research that finds cause and effect.”
To establish cause and effect, the Dog Aging Project will follow their cohort over many years. Then, Creevy said, “We will be able to determine whether the associations we have found with feeding frequency are causes, or effects, or neither.”
While not yet actionable, the feeding findings fit with biology across a variety of animals, Kaeberlein said, including indicators that better health translates into longer healthspans. He said that caloric restriction and perhaps time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting — all ways that some human diets are structured — can have a positive impact on the biology of aging by allowing the gastrointestinal tract to have time each day to rest and repair itself, just as sleep benefits the brain through rest.
Timing of meals is also related to the concept of ketogenesis, Kaeberlein explained. Without access to glucose, animals switch over to a ketogenic state in which back-up systems produce energy through metabolic pathways that generate ketones. Mice go into this state very quickly, after a few hours or an overnight fast, while people shift to ketogenesis more slowly, from a few hours to up to 36 hours for people on typical Western diets, Kaeberlein said.
Dogs are different. They take at least two days to shift to ketogenesis, suggesting they have evolved to need fewer meals that are spaced out rather than the multiple daily meals plus snacks that people prefer.
As this relates to longevity, Kaeberlein said that a couple of studies show that mice who are fed a ketogenic diet have longer lifespans (years of life regardless of health). “For us, the next step is to analyze the composition of the dogs’ diets or the relationship of multiple daily feedings with obesity,” he said. “Maybe not being obese is related to better health.”
To learn more, the Dog Aging Project needs dogs — lots of dogs! Kaeberlein wants at least 100,000 dogs, including small dogs, large dogs, dogs of all ages. Puppies are needed for the researchers to follow across their lifespan. The project has an excellent website where owners can volunteer to participate.
Nutritional strategies are often not built around sound scientific principles, Kaeberlein said. In human nutrition, people have tried all kinds of diets over the years, including some that were completely wrong. Kaeberlein and his colleagues in the Dog Aging Project want to change that, at least for people’s canine companions, and hopefully, as a result, give dogs added years of healthy life and provide clues for human nutrition.
After that, maybe they can do something about those sad eyes and the frustrated whine.
Breakthrough therapies are breaking patients' banks. Key changes could improve access, experts say.
Single-treatment therapies are revolutionizing medicine. But insurers and patients wonder whether they can afford treatment and, if they can, whether the high costs are worthwhile.
CSL Behring’s new gene therapy for hemophilia, Hemgenix, costs $3.5 million for one treatment, but helps the body create substances that allow blood to clot. It appears to be a cure, eliminating the need for other treatments for many years at least.
Likewise, Novartis’s Kymriah mobilizes the body’s immune system to fight B-cell lymphoma, but at a cost $475,000. For patients who respond, it seems to offer years of life without the cancer progressing.
These single-treatment therapies are at the forefront of a new, bold era of medicine. Unfortunately, they also come with new, bold prices that leave insurers and patients wondering whether they can afford treatment and, if they can, whether the high costs are worthwhile.
“Most pharmaceutical leaders are there to improve and save people’s lives,” says Jeremy Levin, chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, and immediate past chairman of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. If the therapeutics they develop are too expensive for payers to authorize, patients aren’t helped.
“The right to receive care and the right of pharmaceuticals developers to profit should never be at odds,” Levin stresses. And yet, sometimes they are.
Leigh Turner, executive director of the bioethics program, University of California, Irvine, notes this same tension between drug developers that are “seeking to maximize profits by charging as much as the market will bear for cell and gene therapy products and other medical interventions, and payers trying to control costs while also attempting to provide access to medical products with promising safety and efficacy profiles.”
Why Payers Balk
Health insurers can become skittish around extremely high prices, yet these therapies often accompany significant overall savings. For perspective, the estimated annual treatment cost for hemophilia exceeds $300,000. With Hemgenix, payers would break even after about 12 years.
But, in 12 years, will the patient still have that insurer? Therein lies the rub. U.S. payers, are used to a “pay-as-you-go” model, in which the lifetime costs of therapies typically are shared by multiple payers over many years, as patients change jobs. Single treatment therapeutics eliminate that cost-sharing ability.
"As long as formularies are based on profits to middlemen…Americans’ healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket,” says Patricia Goldsmith, the CEO of CancerCare.
“There is a phenomenally complex, bureaucratic reimbursement system that has grown, layer upon layer, during several decades,” Levin says. As medicine has innovated, payment systems haven’t kept up.
Therefore, biopharma companies begin working with insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which act on an insurer’s behalf to decide which drugs to cover and by how much, early in the drug approval process. Their goal is to make sophisticated new drugs available while still earning a return on their investment.
New Payment Models
Pay-for-performance is one increasingly popular strategy, Turner says. “These models typically link payments to evidence generation and clinically significant outcomes.”
A biotech company called bluebird bio, for example, offers value-based pricing for Zynteglo, a $2.8 million possible cure for the rare blood disorder known as beta thalassaemia. It generally eliminates patients’ need for blood transfusions. The company is so sure it works that it will refund 80 percent of the cost of the therapy if patients need blood transfusions related to that condition within five years of being treated with Zynteglo.
In his February 2023 State of the Union speech, President Biden proposed three pilot programs to reduce drug costs. One of them, the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model calls on the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to establish outcomes-based agreements with manufacturers for certain cell and gene therapies.
A mortgage-style payment system is another, albeit rare, approach. Amortized payments spread the cost of treatments over decades, and let people change employers without losing their healthcare benefits.
Only about 14 percent of all drugs that enter clinical trials are approved by the FDA. Pharma companies, therefore, have an exigent need to earn a profit.
The new payment models that are being discussed aren’t solutions to high prices, says Bill Kramer, senior advisor for health policy at Purchaser Business Group on Health (PBGH), a nonprofit that seeks to lower health care costs. He points out that innovative pricing models, although well-intended, may distract from the real problem of high prices. They are attempts to “soften the blow. The best thing would be to charge a reasonable price to begin with,” he says.
Instead, he proposes making better use of research on cost and clinical effectiveness. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducts such research in the U.S., determining whether the benefits of specific drugs justify their proposed prices. ICER is an independent non-profit research institute. Its reports typically assess the degrees of improvement new therapies offer and suggest prices that would reflect that. “Publicizing that data is very important,” Kramer says. “Their results aren’t used to the extent they could and should be.” Pharmaceutical companies tend to price their therapies higher than ICER’s recommendations.
Drug Development Costs Soar
Drug developers have long pointed to the onerous costs of drug development as a reason for high prices.
A 2020 study found the average cost to bring a drug to market exceeded $1.1 billion, while other studies have estimated overall costs as high as $2.6 billion. The development timeframe is about 10 years. That’s because modern therapeutics target precise mechanisms to create better outcomes, but also have high failure rates. Only about 14 percent of all drugs that enter clinical trials are approved by the FDA. Pharma companies, therefore, have an exigent need to earn a profit.
Skewed Incentives Increase Costs
Pricing isn’t solely at the discretion of pharma companies, though. “What patients end up paying has much more to do with their PBMs than the actual price of the drug,” Patricia Goldsmith, CEO, CancerCare, says. Transparency is vital.
PBMs control patients’ access to therapies at three levels, through price negotiations, pricing tiers and pharmacy management.
When negotiating with drug manufacturers, Goldsmith says, “PBMs exchange a preferred spot on a formulary (the insurer’s or healthcare provider’s list of acceptable drugs) for cash-base rebates.” Unfortunately, 25 percent of the time, those rebates are not passed to insurers, according to the PBGH report.
Then, PBMs use pricing tiers to steer patients and physicians to certain drugs. For example, Kramer says, “Sometimes PBMs put a high-cost brand name drug in a preferred tier and a lower-cost competitor in a less preferred, higher-cost tier.” As the PBGH report elaborates, “(PBMs) are incentivized to include the highest-priced drugs…since both manufacturing rebates, as well as the administrative fees they charge…are calculated as a percentage of the drug’s price.
Finally, by steering patients to certain pharmacies, PBMs coordinate patients’ access to treatments, control patients’ out-of-pocket costs and receive management fees from the pharmacies.
Therefore, Goldsmith says, “As long as formularies are based on profits to middlemen…Americans’ healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket.”
Transparency into drug pricing will help curb costs, as will new payment strategies. What will make the most impact, however, may well be the development of a new reimbursement system designed to handle dramatic, breakthrough drugs. As Kramer says, “We need a better system to identify drugs that offer dramatic improvements in clinical care.”
In today's podcast episode, law professor Gaia Bernstein talks about the challenges of keeping control over our thoughts and actions, even when some powerful forces are pushing in the other direction.
Each afternoon, kids walk through my neighborhood, on their way back home from school, and almost all of them are walking alone, staring down at their phones. It's a troubling site. This daily parade of the zombie children just can’t bode well for the future.
That’s one reason I felt like Gaia Bernstein’s new book was talking directly to me. A law professor at Seton Hall, Gaia makes a strong argument that people are so addicted to tech at this point, we need some big, system level changes to social media platforms and other addictive technologies, instead of just blaming the individual and expecting them to fix these issues.
Gaia’s book is called Unwired: Gaining Control Over Addictive Technologies. It’s fascinating and I had a chance to talk with her about it for today’s podcast. At its heart, our conversation is really about how and whether we can maintain control over our thoughts and actions, even when some powerful forces are pushing in the other direction.
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
We discuss the idea that, in certain situations, maybe it's not reasonable to expect that we’ll be able to enjoy personal freedom and autonomy. We also talk about how to be a good parent when it sometimes seems like our kids prefer to be raised by their iPads; so-called educational video games that actually don’t have anything to do with education; the root causes of tech addictions for people of all ages; and what kinds of changes we should be supporting.
Gaia is Seton’s Hall’s Technology, Privacy and Policy Professor of Law, as well as Co-Director of the Institute for Privacy Protection, and Co-Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law Science and Technology. She’s the founding director of the Institute for Privacy Protection. She created and spearheaded the Institute’s nationally recognized Outreach Program, which educated parents and students about technology overuse and privacy.
Professor Bernstein's scholarship has been published in leading law reviews including the law reviews of Vanderbilt, Boston College, Boston University, and U.C. Davis. Her work has been selected to the Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum and received extensive media coverage. Gaia joined Seton Hall's faculty in 2004. Before that, she was a fellow at the Engelberg Center of Innovation Law & Policy and at the Information Law Institute of the New York University School of Law. She holds a J.S.D. from the New York University School of Law, an LL.M. from Harvard Law School, and a J.D. from Boston University.
Gaia’s work on this topic is groundbreaking I hope you’ll listen to the conversation and then consider pre-ordering her new book. It comes out on March 28.
