Longevity clinics offering personalised anti-ageing interventions operate outside conventional medical systems and lack connections to academic geroscience, allowing them to market expensive treatments without sufficient clinical validation, according to an editorial published in Aging-US.
Marco Demaria, editor-in-chief of Aging-US and researcher at the European Research Institute for the Biology of Ageing at University Medical Center Groningen, reviewed the rapid rise of longevity clinics worldwide. Annual memberships frequently range from €10,000 to €50,000, with some executive health packages exceeding €100,000, making them accessible only to wealthy elites, while individuals most at risk of premature ageing typically come from lower socio-economic levels.
Longevity clinics have emerged across the globe, from the United States to Switzerland, Singapore and Dubai, in response to increasing demand for personalised, preventive healthcare. These centres offer advanced diagnostic services including genomic sequencing, multi-omics profiling, advanced imaging, full body scans, immune system assessments, microbiome analyses and epigenetic testing. Their goal is to extend healthspan through individualised regimens including exercise prescriptions, nutritional guidance, nutraceuticals, hormone replacement and, in some cases, experimental therapies such as stem-cell infusions, peptide injections and plasma exchange.
Demaria wrote that longevity clinics embody an important vision in which healthcare is personalised, preventive and engaged, responding to a demand that traditional healthcare systems have failed to meet. However, the major issue is that longevity clinics are not yet embedded within mainstream medical practice.
Despite concerns, Demaria noted that longevity clinics may contribute meaningfully to innovation. By collecting extensive, long-term health data from clients over years or even decades, these clinics have the potential to identify early biomarkers of decline and predictors of age-related disease. Unlike traditional clinical trials, which are highly controlled, time-limited and often focused on specific diseases, longevity clinics capture a broad range of biological and behavioural parameters. When paired with artificial intelligence and machine learning, this information could accelerate discovery and build actionable models.
Unproven or risky therapies
However, several risks remain. Clinics often adopt unproven or risky therapies, with exotic supplements and intravenous cocktails sold with minimal validation. Stem-cell infusions or experimental biologics are sometimes offered without robust safety data. Interpretation of diagnostics is frequently problematic, with biological age tests based on epigenetics or telomeres presented to clients as definitive scores despite their precision and clinical utility remaining under debate.
Many clinics position themselves as wellness providers rather than medical facilities, allowing them to escape rigorous oversight. This enables practices that would not withstand the scrutiny of a clinical trial or hospital ethics board, creating a grey zone where ambitious interventions can be marketed without adequate safety, accountability or transparency.
Most clinics are disconnected from academic geroscience and clinical geriatrics, undermining their ability to validate outcomes, publish findings or contribute meaningfully to the field. This creates a cycle where clinics are dismissed by scientists as pseudoscientific while scientists are dismissed by clinics as too conservative.
To ensure these clinics contribute positively to health innovation, Demaria outlined key steps including integration with science through partnerships with academics, clinicians, universities and research institutes; harmonisation of protocols with agreement on metrics, biomarker panels and reporting frameworks; addressing accessibility through scalable models and engagement with insurance companies and public health systems; and regulatory clarity with clear frameworks for medical versus wellness interventions.
Demaria concluded that longevity clinics represent both a warning and an opportunity. They warn of the risks of commercialisation overcoming science, potential inequalities in healthcare access and undermining the credibility of geroscience. Yet they also offer an example of a healthcare paradigm society urgently needs based on a proactive, personalised and preventive approach.
