Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Compound monograph · §3

Epithalon — clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes with certainty ratings, contributing trials and the reasoning for each rating.

Document identifier
CEI-MN-039/3
Series
Compound monograph
Version
1.2
Published
26 May 2024
Last reviewed
26 Jan 2025
Next review
26 Jan 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.mono.39
Certainty
Very low
Cycle
2024 Q2

§3Clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes for EpithalonPoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.00.10.20.30.40.50.6Standardised direction and relative magnitude of the recorded effectIndicationEffect as recordedAgeing1 trial · Very lowRussian observational and small…Cognition0 trials · Very lowNo assessable evidence identifiedImmune modulation0 trials · Very lowNo assessable evidence identified
Moderate or high certaintyLow or very low certainty
Figure 3. Illustrative. Assessed outcomes plotted on a common standardised axis so that direction and relative magnitude can be compared at a glance. The estimates are not on a common natural scale and the intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the reported precision, not the published confidence intervals. Published intervals appear in the per-indication extracts and in the text below.

§3.1Biological ageing and healthspan endpoints

Anchor outcome. Epigenetic age acceleration.

Effect as recorded. Russian observational and small controlled reports describe mortality and functional differences over multi-year follow-up; not extractable to the Institute's standard; allocation and follow-up methodology are not described adequately.[1,2]

Certainty. Very low certainty The Institute assesses these reports as not permitting a certainty rating above very low. It records that mortality claims of this magnitude from studies of this design would require independent replication before any weight could be placed on them.

Contributing trials. EPI-RU-ELDERLY. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for biological ageing and healthspan endpoints · Indication assessment

§3.2Cognitive performance and neuroprotection

Anchor outcome. Domain-specific cognitive test scores.

Effect as recorded. No assessable evidence identified; —.[2,3]

Certainty. Very low certainty

Contributing trials. None identified. The rating reflects an absence of controlled evidence rather than conflicting evidence.

Full evidence extract for cognitive performance and neuroprotection · Indication assessment

§3.3Immune modulation and adjunctive immunotherapy

Anchor outcome. CD4 and CD8 counts.

Effect as recorded. No assessable evidence identified; —.[3,4]

Certainty. Very low certainty

Contributing trials. None identified. The rating reflects an absence of controlled evidence rather than conflicting evidence.

Full evidence extract for immune modulation and adjunctive immunotherapy · Indication assessment

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. Khavinson VK, Kuznik BI, Tarnovskaya SI, Linkova NS. Peptides and CCL11 and HMGB1 as differently expressed age-dependent proinflammatory biomarkers of ageing. Advances in Gerontology 2020;10(1):1–8. doi:10.1134/S2079057020010063
  2. D’Hondt M, Bracke N, Taevernier L, Gevaert B, Verbeke F, Wynendaele E, De Spiegeleer B. Related impurities in peptide medicines. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2014;101:2–30. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2014.06.012 · PMID 25044089
  3. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · PMID 33782057
  4. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · PMID 31462531

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.