NOVOS Core Clinical Trial: What STAMINA Actually Shows

The finding in context

NOVOS Core has a published randomized human study of vascular function. It does not have proof of human lifespan extension. STAMINA reported favorable changes in artery function, arterial stiffness and systolic blood pressure after six months. Those results concern physiological measurements, rather than heart attacks prevented, disability avoided or years of life gained.¹

The distinction matters because “clinically studied” can describe very different levels of evidence. This analysis addresses the research. For the current formula, prices, subscription renewals and refunds, see our NOVOS Core review.

Publication status: a journal article, not just a preprint

European Heart Journal Open published the accepted manuscript on September 28, 2026, under DOI 10.1093/ehjopen/oeag157. An accepted manuscript is the version accepted by the journal before final copyediting and typesetting. The publisher states that it may be replaced by a final version while retaining its DOI.¹

Some company summaries still use “under peer review” language. The publisher's record is the appropriate source for the article's publication status. It would now be inaccurate to say that Core has no randomized human product study. Acceptance also does not turn a small biomarker trial into evidence of lifespan extension.

What was tested

STAMINA was a double-blind, randomized, controlled study at the University of Surrey. The registered intervention was a daily multi-ingredient Core powder, compared with a control powder over six months. It tested a finished formulation rather than one isolated ingredient.¹²

The primary endpoint was change in brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, or FMD: how the artery dilates in response to increased blood flow. Secondary measurements included pulse wave velocity, blood pressure, lipids and estimated cardiovascular risk.¹ These measurements are relevant to vascular physiology, but none directly measures a person's rate of aging.

The six-month results

The published abstract reports the following differences in change between the supplement and control groups. FMD's percentage scale is expressed here in percentage points, to avoid confusing an absolute difference with a relative percentage improvement.¹

Lipids did not change. The investigators also reported a modest reduction in a calculated ten-year cardiovascular risk score, primarily related to lower systolic blood pressure. A calculation using risk factors is not an observed reduction in cardiovascular events.¹

The study does not determine which ingredients caused the findings, whether a simpler combination would do the same thing, or whether the effects persist beyond continued use. It also does not provide a direct comparison with exercise, a particular diet or another commercial supplement. Comparing effect sizes from separate studies cannot establish that Core is superior: populations, baseline measurements and protocols differ.

Incomplete follow-up limits certainty

Sixty-one participants were randomized: 33 to the active group and 28 to control. Forty-three completed both visits: 24 and 19, respectively. Eighteen of 61, or approximately 30%, therefore lacked complete follow-up. The company's study hub describes the primary six-month FMD analysis as a complete-case analysis.¹³

Missing data can matter when the people who finish differ from those who leave. The remaining groups may no longer fully preserve the balance that randomization was intended to create. The completion counts alone cannot establish either that the results are biased or that attrition is harmless; they make it more important to examine the missing-data methods and obtain independent replication.

Who funded and conducted it

NOVOS reports supplying the supplement and placebo plus an unrestricted research grant. Its clinical hub states that academic investigators controlled data collection, primary analysis, interpretation and the decision to publish. The journal lists a NOVOS affiliation for coauthor Diogo Barardo.¹³

Company support does not invalidate a study. It is relevant context when assessing a small product trial, particularly before treating one set of favorable findings as an established clinical benefit. Replication by other investigators, with prespecified analyses and more complete follow-up, would strengthen confidence.

What would count as stronger longevity evidence?

A claim about vascular measurements needs studies that reliably reproduce those measurements. A claim about preventing disease needs trials that measure disease events. A claim about living longer needs evidence about survival. These are different questions, even when their biological pathways overlap.

The currently published study supports further investigation of vascular function. It does not demonstrate that Core prevents heart attacks, reverses aging or extends human life. Six months in a small adult sample also cannot establish safety over decades or suitability for groups not represented in the study.

Keep other NOVOS research separate

NOVOS also describes an uncontrolled epigenetic pilot combining Core with Boost, and a four-person skin-firmness pilot. Neither is the randomized STAMINA vascular trial. Their size, intervention and lack of a control group limit the conclusions they can support.³

Likewise, a 2024 peer-reviewed study of NOVOS-related formulations in three-dimensional human keratinocyte models reported protection against experimentally induced DNA damage and oxidative stress. These were laboratory cell experiments, not participants drinking Core.⁴ Calling the cells “human” does not make the experiment a human clinical trial.

Ingredient studies answer another set of questions. A different dose, combination or population cannot automatically validate the commercial blend. Our GlyNAC guide and alpha-ketoglutarate analysis explain examples of this problem; our biological-age testing guide addresses the limits of epigenetic readouts.

Our reading of STAMINA

The fair interpretation is preliminary randomized evidence of favorable vascular markers, with incomplete follow-up and a need for replication. It is a stronger basis for discussing the finished product than ingredient mechanisms alone. It remains insufficient evidence of longer life or fewer clinical events. Keep that distinction attached to both positive and skeptical descriptions of Core.

For a purchase decision, return to the Core review. For the wider framework, see longevity medicine: evidence and hype and our longevity supplement guide.