Where the category stands in May 2026 — what's available, who to trust, what costs what. 22-min read, medically reviewed.
Read the guideAn independent overview of the compounded-GLP-1 telehealth market and the providers we cover — market size, what the FDA changed, and an honest read on each.
View the provider overviewAll 14 reviewsPrimers for newcomers and deep dives for the curious. The foundation articles are published; more are in the pipeline.
View all Learn articlesWhat compounded and branded semaglutide and tirzepatide actually cost, from each provider's own published pricing.
AgelessRx advertises “11+ clinical trials with 9 peer-reviewed publications” and 225,000+ people signed up — an unusual pitch in a category that rarely mentions research, and a checkable one. This review checks it. It also covers what the Ann Arbor platform actually prescribes, mostly off-label rapamycin, metformin and low-dose naltrexone, and the pricing pattern where the sub-$100 headline figures on sermorelin and NAD+ are prepaid-plan intro rates that both settle at $149 a month.
AgelessRx sells itself as a science-forward longevity clinic. Its homepage says its research team is "running 11+ clinical trials with 9 peer-reviewed publications", and separately invites you to "Join 225,000+ people". That's an unusual pitch in a category dominated by weight-loss telehealth brands who rarely mention research at all. It's also a checkable claim. This review exists to check it - and to describe what the platform actually is, what it prescribes, and where a prospective patient should be cautious.
AgelessRx is a direct-to-consumer telehealth platform headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Its focus is longevity and healthspan rather than acute care or weight loss as a primary indication. The catalog leans heavily on off-label prescribing of FDA-approved drugs - rapamycin, metformin, low-dose naltrexone, tadalafil - alongside compounded formulations of peptides and NAD+ delivered through partner 503A pharmacies.
That framing matters. Most DTC telehealth companies orbit a single blockbuster indication: hair, ED, weight loss on GLP-1s. AgelessRx is trying to build a business on a category that doesn't yet have consensus clinical endpoints. Longevity, as a prescribing target, is not something the FDA has approved a drug for. Every medication on the platform is either off-label or compounded, and the company is upfront about this on its own product pages.
The FAQ says the company services "every US state," with the caveat that "certain treatments may not be available in all states" — cold-shipped injectables, it notes, "cannot be reliably shipped to noncontiguous states like Alaska or Hawaii." Consultations are asynchronous: an online questionnaire and secure messaging, not a scheduled video visit. Insurance is out — "AgelessRx products and services are not eligible for direct insurance coverage or reimbursement" — while HSA and FSA cards "may be accepted as payment", which is a softer commitment than most competitors make.
The intake goes like this, based on what the site describes: a free online health assessment, provider review of the questionnaire, prescription (if approved) shipped from a partner pharmacy, then a self-pay monthly charge per product. There's no bundled membership fee. You pay per protocol.
Every headline price we checked is an introductory rate tied to a prepaid plan, and the fine print says so. Sermorelin leads with "$99 / mo", footnoted "Applies to 3-month plan billed in full ($149/mo after)". NAD+ injection leads with "$79 / mo", again applying to 3-month plans, again "$149/mo after". Both sub-$100 headline numbers settle at the same $149.
We're not making a moral point about intro pricing — plenty of subscription businesses do this, and AgelessRx discloses it on the same line as the price rather than burying it. But if you're comparing AgelessRx to a competitor whose listed number is the ongoing rate, you are comparing a prepaid promotional rate against a standing one.
The catalog splits into three regulatory buckets, and the distinction matters more than the marketing suggests.
Off-label FDA-approved drugs. Rapamycin (approved for transplant rejection), metformin (approved for type 2 diabetes), low-dose naltrexone (approved for opioid and alcohol dependence), tadalafil (approved for ED and BPH), and Brenzavvy, the SGLT2 inhibitor bexagliflozin approved for type 2 diabetes. Prescribing FDA-approved drugs off-label is legal and common across medicine. What it means practically: the specific longevity use has not been evaluated by the FDA for safety or efficacy at that indication.
Compounded formulations. NAD+ (injections, patches, nasal spray), sermorelin (injections, nasal spray), glutathione (injections, nasal spray), Lipo-C (MIC+B12), and microdose GLP-1 protocols. These are prepared by 503A pharmacies under patient-specific prescriptions. 503A compounded products are not individually reviewed or approved by the FDA. That's not the same as being illegal, and it's not the same as being unsafe. It does mean the finished product hasn't gone through the trial-and-review pipeline a branded drug goes through.
Supplements and diagnostics. A longevity bundle (NMN, resveratrol, TMG), TMG on its own, biological age testing, standard lab panels, and the Galleri multi-cancer early detection test as a paid add-on. Galleri holds FDA Breakthrough Device designation, which is not the same as full approval.
The catch across the whole catalog: none of these are FDA-approved for longevity as an indication. That's true whether the underlying molecule is old and well-characterised (metformin) or newer and delivered in a compounded form the FDA has never reviewed (NAD+ nasal spray). The honest read is that AgelessRx is prescribing at the edge of what off-label and compounding rules permit, and the frontier is genuinely contested - particularly for compounded peptides and GLP-1 microdosing, both of which have drawn regulatory attention since 2023.
Back to the homepage claim: 11+ clinical trials, 9 peer-reviewed publications, 225,000+ members. We flagged it at the top because it is the single most testable thing the company says about itself. So we tested it, on 6 September 2026, against PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov rather than against the company's own account of itself.
Publications. Searching PubMed for AgelessRx as an author affiliation returns seven indexed papers, not nine. What matters more than the shortfall is what the seven are:
So of the seven, one is a randomized trial, one is a small interventional pilot, two are cohort or real-world studies, one is a review, and two are single-patient case reports. "Nine peer-reviewed publications" is a generous count of a real body of work, not an invented one.
Trials. ClinicalTrials.gov returns ten registrations naming AgelessRx as sponsor or collaborator — fewer than the "11+" the homepage claims, and the plus sign makes the gap wider rather than narrower. Two of the ten — NCT05307627 and NCT04604678 — are marked withdrawn with zero enrolment, meaning they were registered and never ran. Of the remaining eight, five are completed: PEARL itself (NCT04488601, n=129), the post-COVID LDN and NAD+ pilot (NCT04604704, n=36), a canagliflozin tolerability study (NCT06301529, n=30), an acarbose tolerability study (NCT05542849, n=15), and an observational rapamycin bioavailability study (NCT06550271, n=67). Three are ongoing, including a 150-patient study of microdosed GLP-1 (NCT07092605) and a 150-patient study of what maintains weight after GLP-1 is stopped (NCT07092618).
One thing to note about all ten: not one has results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov itself. The registry's own filters show results submitted and sitting in QC review for a few of them, so this is a queue rather than a refusal — but nothing is readable there today. For PEARL that gap is filled by the journal publication, which is the more substantive form of reporting. Two of the four other completed studies do have journal write-ups in the list above — the post-COVID LDN and NAD+ pilot (PMID 38352659) and the rapamycin bioavailability study (PMID 39873920). For the canagliflozin and acarbose tolerability studies, the data is in neither the registry nor PubMed.
Our read. The claim is substantially true, and it is more than any other provider in this catalogue does. A registered, completed randomized trial whose results are published in a peer-reviewed journal is not something you find at a compounded-GLP-1 storefront, and it should not be discounted because the publication count is rounded up by two and the trial count by at least one.
The rounding is still worth knowing before you weigh the pitch. Seven papers carry an AgelessRx affiliation in PubMed, not nine. Ten registrations name AgelessRx at all, not eleven, and two of those never enrolled a patient. Both searches are scoped: a paper without an AgelessRx affiliation tag would not appear in the first, and the registry search counts collaborations as well as company-led trials, so ten is the generous reading rather than the strict one. Two of the seven papers describe a single patient each. A reader who takes "11 trials, 9 publications" to mean eleven completed studies behind nine primary reports is taking away something firmer than the record shows.
One finding inside that body of work deserves more attention than the headline count. The bioavailability paper compared blood levels 24 hours after dosing in 44 people on commercial rapamycin and 23 on compounded, and reports that compounded "had a lower bioavailability per milligram of rapamycin (estimated to be 31.03% of the same dose of commercial)". Roughly a third. Anyone dosing compounded rapamycin against evidence generated with the branded drug is not taking the dose the evidence describes. Worth noting that every AgelessRx-affiliated author on that paper declares being an employee and shareholder — and that they published the result anyway, when it makes their own compounded supply look weaker.
Independent of what AgelessRx has published, what does the broader literature say about the compounds it prescribes?
Rapamycin has the strongest preclinical case for lifespan extension of any drug in humans' reach — mouse data going back over a decade, consistent across labs. Human data is thinner and more recent. A 2025 review in Aging, asking exactly this question, concludes that "the data in humans have yet to establish that rapamycin, or its analogues, is a proven seno-therapeutic that can delay aging in healthy older adults." That is the state of the field, written by people sympathetic to the drug.
Metformin has the longest track record and the most-anticipated study nobody has finished. The TAME trial (Targeting Aging with Metformin) was designed by Nir Barzilai's group to be the first drug trial with aging itself as the endpoint. It has never been fully funded and has not enrolled. What we have instead is decades of observational data in diabetics, plausible mechanistic work on AMPK activation and mitochondrial function, and open questions about whether effects seen in diabetics translate to metabolically healthy adults — including a line of research suggesting metformin blunts the adaptation to resistance and aerobic training, which cuts against the longevity story for anyone who trains.
Low-dose naltrexone has a real signal in autoimmune and inflammatory conditions and a much thinner one in general longevity. AgelessRx has cited its own longitudinal LDN data in a National Institute on Aging proposal, which is a legitimate way to use platform data. It's not the same as randomised evidence.
NAD+ is where the evidence base gets thinnest and the marketing loudest. Injectable and intranasal NAD+ has minimal published human data on longevity endpoints. Precursors like NMN and NR have more human data, but the endpoints studied tend to be biomarkers of NAD+ levels rather than clinical outcomes anyone cares about.
Short version: rapamycin has the best mechanistic case and thin human data. Metformin has the most data and the softest signal in healthy adults. LDN and NAD+ are further out on the evidence frontier. AgelessRx prescribes all of them.
Off-label prescribing of FDA-approved drugs (rapamycin, metformin, LDN, tadalafil, Brenzavvy) is legal. A licensed physician can prescribe an approved drug for an unapproved use if they judge it appropriate. The specific longevity use has not been reviewed by the FDA.
Compounded formulations (NAD+ delivery forms, sermorelin, glutathione, Lipo-C, microdose GLP-1) are legal under 503A when prepared for a specific patient under a specific prescription. The finished compounded product doesn't undergo FDA review. The category has faced increasing regulatory attention since 2023, particularly around compounded semaglutide, and the rules on what can be compounded shift with the FDA drug shortage list.
A search of the FDA warning-letter database for "AgelessRx" returns no matching letters. That's a completed check with a negative result. It doesn't preclude enforcement against a parent entity or affiliate under a different name, and it doesn't certify future compliance. It's simply what the database shows today.
No lawsuits or formal compliance actions specific to AgelessRx surfaced in this research. Absence of identified action is not the same as a clean record - it reflects the scope of what we searched.
AgelessRx does something the rest of this catalogue mostly doesn't: it names its clinicians on the homepage. Dr. Jenell Decker, MD is listed as Medical Director, alongside Dr. Aaron Stecker, MD as Physician Manager, Dr. Mirna Jadan, MD as a telehealth physician, and Dr. Stefanie Morgan, PhD in operations and applied science — the same Stefanie Morgan who is a co-author on the PEARL and bioavailability papers. The consultation model is asynchronous: patients complete a health assessment, a provider reviews the intake, and prescriptions go out from partner 503A pharmacies.
Asynchronous review is legal in most states and is how most DTC telehealth operates. Some states require synchronous video for certain prescribing decisions. AgelessRx has not, in the materials we read, published a detailed state-by-state map of its consultation model. For most of the catalog this is unlikely to matter; for controlled substances or high-risk drugs it would. Rapamycin, metformin, and LDN are not controlled substances.
The company does have an internal research team producing the PEARL trial and other work, which is unusual for a platform of this kind. It says nothing about how much time a prescribing clinician spends on an individual asynchronous intake, which is the thing a patient is actually buying.
Trustpilot shows 4.4 out of 5 across 2,500 reviews, profile claimed October 2020. That's a high aggregate score in a category where sub-4 is common. The same page records that the company has "Replied to 100% of negative reviews" and "Typically replies within 48 hours", and also flags a paid Trustpilot subscription and that the company "May use AI-assist with replies". All three belong in the same sentence: the response rate is real, and so is the fact that it is partly automated and the profile is a paid one. We have not audited the distribution or looked for coordinated posting, so treat the score as directional.
AgelessRx's own "2025 Wrapped" report draws on "31,860 surveyed customers who checked in with their provider between Jan 1st 2025 – Nov 21 2025": more than 8,300 reporting higher energy and weight improvements, over 6,600 improved mental clarity, 5,300 fewer aches and pains, over 3,000 better physical recovery. This is self-reported outcome data on a self-selected sample of survey responders. It's not a controlled study, and the company doesn't present it as one. Useful as texture, not as evidence.
AgelessRx makes sense for a specific kind of patient: someone who has read the rapamycin and metformin literature, understands that longevity indications are off-label, wants ongoing access to a physician who will actually prescribe these drugs, and is comfortable with self-pay pricing that lands at $149 monthly for several of the flagship products after the intro month.
It makes less sense for someone looking for a bundled longevity program with in-person biomarker workups and a dedicated physician relationship - that's the Fountain Life and Lifeforce end of the market. It makes less sense for someone whose primary goal is weight loss, where the DTC GLP-1 category is cheaper and more focused. And it makes less sense for someone who wants FDA-approved products with established longevity indications, because those don't exist.
A few things worth flagging.
The homepage evidence claim is the biggest one, and section 04 checks it rather than leaving it standing. Seven papers carry an AgelessRx affiliation in PubMed against the nine claimed; ten registrations name the company at all against the "11+" claimed, and two of those never enrolled a patient. Read the pitch against those numbers.
The compounded-rapamycin bioavailability finding — roughly 31% of commercial, per milligram — means the effective dose from a compounded prescription does not match the dose the published studies used. That matters for anyone extrapolating from the rapamycin literature to what is actually in the vial. Worth asking the prescribing provider about directly.
The intro-pricing structure is standard business practice and disclosed on the page, not a red flag on its own, but the recurring $149 monthly rate on sermorelin and NAD+ is materially different from the sub-$100 headline. Budget accordingly.
And the broader honest caveat, which applies to every longevity DTC and not just this one: the evidence base for extending human healthspan with any of these compounds is genuinely thin. The mouse data on rapamycin is impressive. The human data is short-duration, small-sample, and mostly focused on safety and biomarkers rather than outcomes. Anyone selling certainty here is selling something the field doesn't have.
AgelessRx is the most research-forward of the longevity DTC platforms we've looked at. It publishes trials, used its platform data in at least one National Institute on Aging proposal, and prescribes across a catalog that reflects where the actual longevity literature is rather than what's easiest to market. That's a genuine differentiator in a category full of supplement resellers dressed up as medicine.
The caveats are also real. The specific evidence claims on the homepage do not come through the paper-by-paper audit above intact: the work is real and the counts are rounded up. Compounded formulations of NAD+ and peptides sit in a regulatory space that's contested and shifting. The recurring prices are higher than the introductory rates suggest. And the underlying science on longevity indications, across the whole catalog, is thinner than the confident marketing implies - which is a comment on the field, not just this company.
For a patient who's read the literature and wants ongoing access to a physician willing to prescribe rapamycin and metformin off-label, AgelessRx is a serious option. For anyone expecting FDA-vetted longevity therapy, that doesn't exist anywhere yet.
Close, rounded up. ClinicalTrials.gov returns ten registrations naming AgelessRx as sponsor or collaborator, not eleven, and two of those were withdrawn with zero enrolment. PubMed returns seven papers carrying an AgelessRx affiliation, not nine, and two of the seven are single-patient case reports. The core of it — a registered, completed randomised trial published in a peer-reviewed journal — is real, and rare in this category.
Not by the numbers. AgelessRx's own bioavailability paper measured blood levels 24 hours after dosing and estimated compounded rapamycin at 31.03% of the same dose of commercial, per milligram. That means a dose taken from the published literature is not the dose reaching the blood.
The headline figures are prepaid-plan intro rates. Sermorelin leads with "$99 / mo" and NAD+ injection with "$79 / mo", both applying to three-month plans billed in full, and both settling at $149 a month afterwards.
Yes, on the homepage: Dr. Jenell Decker, MD as Medical Director, Dr. Aaron Stecker, MD as Physician Manager, Dr. Mirna Jadan, MD as a telehealth physician, and Dr. Stefanie Morgan, PhD in operations and applied science. That is more than most of this catalogue publishes.
The FAQ says AgelessRx services "every US state," with the caveat that "certain treatments may not be available in all states." Cold-shipped injectables are the exception — those "cannot be reliably shipped to noncontiguous states like Alaska or Hawaii."
No. The FAQ is explicit that "AgelessRx products and services are not eligible for direct insurance coverage or reimbursement." HSA and FSA cards "may be accepted as payment", which is a softer commitment than most competitors make.
Editorial note: This page is for informational purposes and doesn't constitute medical advice. Peptide and off-label medication decisions should be made with a licensed healthcare provider familiar with your medical history.
Prices
This review is about whether the company holds up, so it carries no price list — a figure printed here would be stale within a month and would turn an assessment into a storefront. Our sister site keeps the pricing, read from AgelessRx’s own pages and dated. It is run by the same people as this one.
See AgelessRx’s plans and pricingPeptides To Go · plans, entry price and what the bill excludes