NOVOS Core vascular trial: what the six-month results show and what they miss

On November 4, 2026, European Heart Journal Open published a University of Surrey and Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust trial of NOVOS Core, a 12-ingredient powder sold for healthy aging. Sixty-one apparently healthy adults were randomized (33 to the powder and 28 to placebo). The six-month comparisons are in the 43 who completed both visits: 24 on the supplement and 19 on placebo. In that group, the powder was associated with better blood-vessel markers than placebo.

The paper is more cautious than a claim that a longevity stack works. The 12 ingredients cannot be separated, the maker supplied the product, and the outcomes were blood-vessel markers, not heart attacks, strokes or biological age.

The short answer: among the 43 adults who completed both visits (24 on NOVOS Core and 19 on placebo), out of 61 randomized (33 and 28), six months of the powder was associated with flow-mediated dilation 2.9 percentage points higher than placebo, pulse wave velocity 1.18 m/s lower than placebo, and systolic blood pressure 6.1 mmHg lower than placebo.

What the trial did

This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial with one-to-one allocation. Apparently healthy adults over 40 with a BMI above 20 were recruited by public advertisement between July 2023 and January 2025. The paper's eligibility section is a partial list. It excluded cardiac arrhythmias, active cancer, unstable cardiovascular disease, and people already using overlapping supplements. It also excluded pregnancy, a recent change in hormone therapy, regular anti-inflammatory drugs, and more than two alcoholic drinks a day. The registry, which is not the same text, also required systolic pressure of at least 120 mmHg and a smartphone step counter. Sixty-one people were randomized: 33 to the supplement and 28 to a matched placebo powder.

Each person took one 15 g serving a day, stirred into up to 500 mL of water or juice, for six months. The powder contains vitamin C, magnesium malate, calcium alpha-ketoglutarate, glycine, glucosamine sulfate, Rhodiola rosea root extract, L-theanine, hyaluronic acid, fisetin, ginger root extract, pterostilbene and lithium aspartate (providing 1 mg of lithium). The control was an inert matrix matched for look and taste. Final measurements were taken about 24 hours after the last daily serving.

The primary outcome was the change in brachial artery flow-mediated dilation after six months. ClinicalTrials.gov shows that outcome on a record submitted on 7 March 2023 and first posted on 22 November 2023, after recruitment had started. It was public before the primary completion date of 5 August 2025. The registry summary set the acute test at 2 hours. The paper reports it at 1 hour. The record names the supplier as AgeLess Sciences LLC, a public-benefit corporation. The paper says NOVOS Labs supplied the product. The company's press release says NOVOS operates as a public-benefit corporation.

What it found, versus placebo

• Flow-mediated dilation, the primary outcome, in the 43 completers: the supplement group rose by 2.6 percentage points and the placebo group changed by -0.1. The baseline-adjusted difference versus placebo was 2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval 2.1 to 3.8). One hour after the first supervised serving the adjusted difference versus placebo was 3.9 points (2.7 to 5.1).
• Pulse wave velocity, a cuff measure of arterial stiffness: the adjusted difference versus placebo at six months was -1.18 m/s (-2.00 to -0.36). The within-group change was not -1.18 m/s. The difference one hour after the first serving was not statistically significant.
• Peripheral systolic blood pressure: the adjusted difference versus placebo was -6.1 mmHg (-10.9 to -1.3). That comes from a fall of 8.5 mmHg in the supplement group and 1.5 mmHg on placebo. Diastolic pressure did not differ between groups (-0.8 mmHg, -4.5 to 2.7).
• Not significant versus placebo: central (aortic) systolic pressure (-4.6 mmHg, -10.8 to 1.5) and the augmentation index (-6.4 percentage points, -13.3 to 0.6).
• Blood lipids did not differ between groups: total cholesterol, LDL, HDL and triglycerides.
• Estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk on SCORE2/SCORE2-OP was 0.45 percentage points lower than placebo (-0.86 to -0.03). The authors say age, sex, smoking and regional calibration were unchanged and non-HDL cholesterol did not differ, so that gap was driven by systolic pressure. It is not a count of heart attacks.

What the design does and does not settle

The placebo was matched for appearance and taste, outcome assessors were masked, and flow-mediated dilation was measured by ultrasound. A per-protocol analysis that excluded two people with diary adherence under 80% and two people outside the planned 3 to 6 month exposure window did not change the results materially. The authors call the findings preliminary and the mechanistic explanations hypothesis-generating.

• Twelve ingredients. The authors state the study cannot identify which ingredient, or which combination, contributed, or what dose does what.
• The six-month figures are the 43 completers, not all 61 people randomized. Nine supplement and five placebo participants did not return for unknown reasons. One placebo participant was excluded after an atrial fibrillation diagnosis. The three discontinuations for intolerance or an adverse event were all in the placebo group (mild reflux in two, leg edema after tropical travel in one).
• Among everyone randomized, the placebo group was older (60 ± 12 against 53 ± 8 years, P = 0.017). The gap was no longer statistically significant in the 43 analyzed (59 against 54 years). The authors say residual imbalance may have influenced the baseline vascular-risk profiles. The paper says age is strongly associated with endothelial function, arterial stiffness and SCORE2/SCORE2-OP. That is an association, not proof that age caused the trial result.
• Blood-vessel function was already higher within an hour of the first serving, and the six-month visit came about 24 hours after the last serving, with no washout. The authors say the design cannot separate a short-term effect of a recent dose from a lasting change in the vessels.
• The trial did not measure biological age. The paper reports no molecular aging biomarkers. It treats flow-mediated dilation, pulse wave velocity and systolic blood pressure as vascular aging markers. The registry summary also listed blood biomarkers of aging as a tertiary endpoint, and daily walking distance as a secondary outcome. The paper does not report either.
• Adherence was a self-reported diary. There was no blood marker of intake.

How much is 6 mmHg?

The 6.1 mmHg systolic difference versus placebo has a wide confidence interval, from 1.3 to 10.9 mmHg. The authors compare that difference with antihypertensive drug trials and large lifestyle studies, and they say those comparisons are indirect and should be read cautiously. Separately, they note that an individual-participant meta-analysis of 344,716 people found a 5 mmHg lower systolic pressure was associated with about a 10% lower rate of major cardiovascular events, and that this trial's difference could matter only if it lasted. This trial did not count heart attacks, and it did not find a 10% lower event rate. The authors also say these participants would not be classed as having arterial hypertension, while noting that the 2024 European Society of Cardiology guideline calls 120 to 139 mmHg elevated. A six-month difference in 24 and 19 people is not a prediction for one reader over years.

Who paid, and how the result is being framed

The paper says the study was investigator-initiated. NOVOS Labs provided the investigational product and matching control and made an unrestricted research contribution to the University of Surrey. One author, Diogo Barardo, is a NOVOS Labs employee and reproduced the statistical analyses. The corresponding author, Christian Heiss, who conceived and supervised the study, reports research funding from NOVOS Labs and other funders that the paper says is not related to this study, and honoraria for presentations from Bayer. The paper says the funder had no role in the design, collection, primary analysis or interpretation of the data, or the decision to submit the paper. The academic authors kept the data and the decision to publish. The data are not publicly available. The authors say they may be shared by the corresponding author on reasonable request, with approvals.

The company's press release says the 2.9-point flow-mediated dilation difference is a magnitude 'considered clinically meaningful in published vascular research', and says flow-mediated dilation rose by 47% from baseline. That 47% is the within-group change (2.6 points on a baseline of 5.5), not the placebo-adjusted 2.9 points. The paper's conclusion is that daily intake was associated with improvements, and it calls the findings preliminary. The University of Surrey release quotes Professor Juliet Wright, founding dean of the School of Medicine, who calls the findings an interesting proof of concept and says the next step is to understand the underlying biology and establish whether changes in cardiovascular biomarkers translate into meaningful longer-term health benefits.

What would change the reading

A larger replication by a group with no commercial tie is what would be needed before a reader could act on this. The authors call for studies with mechanistic endpoints, component-deconstruction designs and longer-term clinical outcomes. Those are their requests. They are not a request, in the paper, for a replication by a group with no commercial tie.

Until then, the fair reading is that one multi-ingredient powder was associated with three blood-vessel markers in the 43 completers of a small, short trial. It is a reason to run the next study. It is not evidence that the product slows aging. It says nothing about other multi-ingredient longevity products.

Safety

The paper reports no discontinuation for intolerance or an adverse event in the supplement group. It does not present an adverse-event table. Events were collected by self-report, and the trial was small. People with heart rhythm problems, active cancer and unstable cardiovascular disease were excluded. If you take blood-pressure medicines or other regular medicines, or have a heart condition, speak to a pharmacist or doctor before adding a multi-ingredient powder.

US rules

FDA is not authorized to approve dietary supplements for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed. A product sold as a supplement but represented as treating or preventing a disease is regulated as a drug. A trial result on blood-vessel markers is not an FDA finding about the product.

Tell a doctor or pharmacist about any supplement you take. If you have chest pain, severe shortness of breath or collapse, call 911.

FAQ

Did NOVOS Core slow aging in the trial?

The trial did not measure biological aging. It measured blood-vessel function, arterial stiffness and blood pressure over six months. Sixty-one apparently healthy adults were randomized (33 to the supplement and 28 to placebo). Forty-three completed both visits (24 and 19). In that comparison, the supplement group differed from placebo on those three markers. The paper reports no molecular aging biomarkers.

Which ingredient produced the effect?

That is not known. The formula has 12 ingredients and the authors state the study cannot identify which ones, or which combinations, contributed.

Was the trial paid for by the company that sells the product?

The paper says NOVOS Labs supplied the product and placebo and made an unrestricted research contribution. The registry names the supplier as AgeLess Sciences LLC. Diogo Barardo, a NOVOS Labs employee, reproduced the analyses. The paper says the funder had no role in the primary analysis. Christian Heiss reports NOVOS Labs funding that the paper says is not related to this study, and Bayer presentation honoraria.

Does a 6 mmHg difference in blood pressure mean the supplement works like a blood-pressure drug?

No. The 6.1 mmHg figure is the difference versus placebo in 24 and 19 completers. The authors describe comparisons with drug trials as indirect. The trial did not count heart attacks. Anyone with raised blood pressure should discuss treatment with a doctor.

Has FDA approved NOVOS Core?

FDA does not approve dietary supplements for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed. The trial result is published research, not an FDA decision.